Why Did This Happen (After the Roof Fell In)?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by digitalrube@yahoo.com, Nov 17, 2006.

  1. Guest

    There was a tempest on the East Coast last night. I got in after
    taking whatever pictures I could with m new Digital Rebel 400D to find
    an upper story linen closet with its own new ceiling-level faucet.

    After ripping everything apart to locate the drip in the roof, I tried
    vainly to take pictures of the leaking plywood for the roofer. I must
    have tried at least a hundred times, in AutoFocus, and kept getting
    "Busy." The shutter speed "light" in the viewfinder kept "beeping,"
    the aperture number kept going up and down, the exposure compensation
    number kept flashing...

    I was in a state of panic of course, and tried to take photos in Manual
    as well (so I can't say for sure what beeping/flashing/going up and
    down occurred during which Shooting Mode), but I *do* know for sure
    that even though the Flash tried to engage in AutoFocus, the camera
    simply would not take more than three photographs and kept saying Busy.

    The only elements of the "composition" (ha!) I can think of that would
    be pertinent--if indeed any are--are: 1) I was standing in a dark
    closet (totally dark), standing on a ladder pointing the camera up at
    2) a point where a bare light bulb illuminating the crawl space attic
    was adjacent to 3) the prodigious leak.

    I thought that if I kept the camera *out* of range of the glare of the
    bare bulb, the flash might engage. It didn't. Then I thought that if
    I kept the camera *in* the glare, the flash would engage. It didn't.

    So-- In Caps-- WHAT IN GOD'S NAME DID I DO TO KEEP THIS CAMERA SO
    "BUSY?"
    , Nov 17, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mike Russell Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > There was a tempest on the East Coast last night. I got in after
    > taking whatever pictures I could with m new Digital Rebel 400D to find
    > an upper story linen closet with its own new ceiling-level faucet.
    >
    > After ripping everything apart to locate the drip in the roof, I tried
    > vainly to take pictures of the leaking plywood for the roofer. I must
    > have tried at least a hundred times, in AutoFocus, and kept getting
    > "Busy." The shutter speed "light" in the viewfinder kept "beeping,"
    > the aperture number kept going up and down, the exposure compensation
    > number kept flashing...
    >
    > I was in a state of panic of course, and tried to take photos in Manual
    > as well (so I can't say for sure what beeping/flashing/going up and
    > down occurred during which Shooting Mode), but I *do* know for sure
    > that even though the Flash tried to engage in AutoFocus, the camera
    > simply would not take more than three photographs and kept saying Busy.
    >
    > The only elements of the "composition" (ha!) I can think of that would
    > be pertinent--if indeed any are--are: 1) I was standing in a dark
    > closet (totally dark), standing on a ladder pointing the camera up at
    > 2) a point where a bare light bulb illuminating the crawl space attic
    > was adjacent to 3) the prodigious leak.
    >
    > I thought that if I kept the camera *out* of range of the glare of the
    > bare bulb, the flash might engage. It didn't. Then I thought that if
    > I kept the camera *in* the glare, the flash would engage. It didn't.
    >
    > So-- In Caps-- WHAT IN GOD'S NAME DID I DO TO KEEP THIS CAMERA SO
    > "BUSY?"


    One guess is that you were taking raw or tiff images, your flash card was
    slow, and it was taking a long time to transfer the images from the camera
    to the flash card.
    --

    Mike Russell
    www.curvemeister.com/forum/
    Mike Russell, Nov 17, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    On Nov 17, 6:53 am, "Mike Russell"

    > One guess is that you were taking raw or tiff images, your flash card was
    > slow, and it was taking a long time to transfer the images from the camera
    > to the flash card.


    No, I was taking jpeg photos.
    , Nov 17, 2006
    #3
  4. chrisu Guest

    wrote:
    > There was a tempest on the East Coast last night. I got in after
    > taking whatever pictures I could with m new Digital Rebel 400D to find
    > an upper story linen closet with its own new ceiling-level faucet.
    >
    > After ripping everything apart to locate the drip in the roof, I tried
    > vainly to take pictures of the leaking plywood for the roofer. I must
    > have tried at least a hundred times, in AutoFocus, and kept getting
    > "Busy." The shutter speed "light" in the viewfinder kept "beeping,"
    > the aperture number kept going up and down, the exposure compensation
    > number kept flashing...
    >
    > I was in a state of panic of course, and tried to take photos in Manual
    > as well (so I can't say for sure what beeping/flashing/going up and
    > down occurred during which Shooting Mode), but I *do* know for sure
    > that even though the Flash tried to engage in AutoFocus, the camera
    > simply would not take more than three photographs and kept saying Busy.
    >
    > The only elements of the "composition" (ha!) I can think of that would
    > be pertinent--if indeed any are--are: 1) I was standing in a dark
    > closet (totally dark), standing on a ladder pointing the camera up at
    > 2) a point where a bare light bulb illuminating the crawl space attic
    > was adjacent to 3) the prodigious leak.
    >
    > I thought that if I kept the camera *out* of range of the glare of the
    > bare bulb, the flash might engage. It didn't. Then I thought that if
    > I kept the camera *in* the glare, the flash would engage. It didn't.
    >
    > So-- In Caps-- WHAT IN GOD'S NAME DID I DO TO KEEP THIS CAMERA SO
    > "BUSY?"
    >


    plonk
    chrisu, Nov 17, 2006
    #4
  5. Guest

    Hey ChrisU FANBOY-- Go wank off with your lens cap.
    , Nov 17, 2006
    #5
  6. Tom Ross Guest

    On 17 Nov 2006 06:43:34 -0800, wrote:

    >On Nov 17, 6:53 am, "Mike Russell"
    >
    >> One guess is that you were taking raw or tiff images, your flash card was
    >> slow, and it was taking a long time to transfer the images from the camera
    >> to the flash card.

    >
    >No, I was taking jpeg photos.


    I've had similar problems taking low-light flash photos of a flat,
    blank surface. The pre-flash will fire and the lens will try to focus,
    but the shutter will not trip. Sometimes it would show BUSY, other
    times it wouldn't.

    I assume it has something to do with the Auto-Focus not being able to
    focus. Something similar occurs when the subject is closer than the
    minimum focusing distance. The "problem' goes away when I switched to
    manual focus.

    TR
    Tom Ross, Nov 17, 2006
    #6
  7. Bill Funk Guest

    On 17 Nov 2006 02:51:29 -0800, wrote:

    >There was a tempest on the East Coast last night. I got in after
    >taking whatever pictures I could with m new Digital Rebel 400D to find
    >an upper story linen closet with its own new ceiling-level faucet.
    >
    >After ripping everything apart to locate the drip in the roof, I tried
    >vainly to take pictures of the leaking plywood for the roofer. I must
    >have tried at least a hundred times, in AutoFocus, and kept getting
    >"Busy." The shutter speed "light" in the viewfinder kept "beeping,"
    >the aperture number kept going up and down, the exposure compensation
    >number kept flashing...
    >
    >I was in a state of panic of course, and tried to take photos in Manual
    >as well (so I can't say for sure what beeping/flashing/going up and
    >down occurred during which Shooting Mode), but I *do* know for sure
    >that even though the Flash tried to engage in AutoFocus, the camera
    >simply would not take more than three photographs and kept saying Busy.
    >
    >The only elements of the "composition" (ha!) I can think of that would
    >be pertinent--if indeed any are--are: 1) I was standing in a dark
    >closet (totally dark), standing on a ladder pointing the camera up at
    >2) a point where a bare light bulb illuminating the crawl space attic
    >was adjacent to 3) the prodigious leak.
    >
    >I thought that if I kept the camera *out* of range of the glare of the
    >bare bulb, the flash might engage. It didn't. Then I thought that if
    >I kept the camera *in* the glare, the flash would engage. It didn't.
    >
    >So-- In Caps-- WHAT IN GOD'S NAME DID I DO TO KEEP THIS CAMERA SO
    >"BUSY?"


    I will hazzard a guess that, assuming the roof wasn't too close to
    focus on, there wasn't enough contrast in the image to focus properly
    on.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
    Bill Funk, Nov 17, 2006
    #7
  8. Guest

    On Nov 17, 3:25 pm, Bill Funk <> wrote:

    > I will hazzard a guess that, assuming the roof wasn't too close to
    > focus on, there wasn't enough contrast in the image to focus properly
    > on.


    I'm concerned I somehow harmed the camera...
    , Nov 17, 2006
    #8
  9. Joan Guest

    Has it worked since?

    --
    Joan
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    : On Nov 17, 3:25 pm, Bill Funk <> wrote:
    :
    : > I will hazzard a guess that, assuming the roof wasn't too close to
    : > focus on, there wasn't enough contrast in the image to focus
    properly
    : > on.
    :
    : I'm concerned I somehow harmed the camera...
    :
    Joan, Nov 18, 2006
    #9
  10. Guest

    On Nov 17, 9:17 pm, "Joan" <2> wrote:
    > Has it worked since?


    Ha! I deserved that one. I haven't tried it. I'm busy repairing
    storm damage. Another poster suggested what the problem *might* be,
    but because this camera is so new, I'm calling Canon today to find out
    why this ever should have been an issue with an instrument supposedly
    so sensitive.
    , Nov 18, 2006
    #10
  11. Bill Funk Guest

    On 18 Nov 2006 03:01:59 -0800, wrote:

    >On Nov 17, 9:17 pm, "Joan" <2> wrote:
    >> Has it worked since?

    >
    >Ha! I deserved that one. I haven't tried it. I'm busy repairing
    >storm damage. Another poster suggested what the problem *might* be,
    >but because this camera is so new, I'm calling Canon today to find out
    >why this ever should have been an issue with an instrument supposedly
    >so sensitive.


    If I were you, before I called Canon, I'd check to see if something is
    actually wrong with the camera.
    You don't seem to be interested in knowing this; why not?
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
    Bill Funk, Nov 18, 2006
    #11
  12. Mike Fields Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Nov 17, 9:17 pm, "Joan" <2> wrote:
    >> Has it worked since?

    >
    > Ha! I deserved that one. I haven't tried it. I'm busy repairing
    > storm damage. Another poster suggested what the problem *might* be,
    > but because this camera is so new, I'm calling Canon today to find out
    > why this ever should have been an issue with an instrument supposedly
    > so sensitive.
    >


    While waiting for a reply, you might try the camera under
    more normal conditions. You are far more likely to get
    help (either here or from Canon) if you can define the
    conditions where it works and where it doesn't work.
    I would agree with the others about trying to focus on
    low contrast - drives autofocus nuts in many cameras,
    but as others have pointed out, "does it work under
    normal conditions" is a critical piece of the puzzle.

    mikey
    Mike Fields, Nov 18, 2006
    #12
  13. Guest

    On Nov 18, 3:15 pm, "Mike Fields"

    > low contrast - drives autofocus nuts in many cameras,
    > but as others have pointed out, "does it work under
    > normal conditions" is a critical piece of the puzzle.


    Yes, that is the question. I'm just recovering from a phenomenally
    destructive storm and going to call Canon right now and see what they
    say. Low contrast is one thing (if one is shooting in Manual). The
    inability to have the camera fire when you've done everything you can
    is another. Thanks again for articulating what I might say to the
    Canon tech folk.
    , Nov 18, 2006
    #13
  14. Bill Funk Guest

    On 18 Nov 2006 13:53:33 -0800, wrote:

    >On Nov 18, 3:15 pm, "Mike Fields"
    >
    >> low contrast - drives autofocus nuts in many cameras,
    >> but as others have pointed out, "does it work under
    >> normal conditions" is a critical piece of the puzzle.

    >
    >Yes, that is the question. I'm just recovering from a phenomenally
    >destructive storm and going to call Canon right now and see what they
    >say. Low contrast is one thing (if one is shooting in Manual). The
    >inability to have the camera fire when you've done everything you can
    >is another. Thanks again for articulating what I might say to the
    >Canon tech folk.


    Are you saying that the camera won't fire at all?
    If you can't articulate it here...
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
    Bill Funk, Nov 19, 2006
    #14
  15. Guest

    I thought I'd post a follow-up for those who responded in a helpful way
    about my new Digital Rebel's questionable behavior.

    I spoke to one great tech support guy, very young, who suggested the
    wildly fluctuating exposure settings in the digitalized portion of the
    viewfinder were completely normal. He pointed me to a really excellent
    site, apparently maintained by the Japanese arm of Canon
    (www.enjoydslr.com). I was satisfied that the misfiring camera was my
    fault.

    However, the next morning, Canon was thoughtful enough to send me a
    comprehensive customer service survey--and to ask, at the end, if my
    problem had been resolved. When I noted the techie's professionalism
    and courtesy, but stressed that the problem really wasn't resolved,
    they gave me a "special" 800 number. The much older tech support man
    at this number put me through a series of tests and concluded the
    camera was faulty, and that I should send it back.

    His primary test was to put the camera in Program Mode, half click the
    shutter, and then see if any of the settings *still* fluctuated. Did
    they ever! (Hope it goes without saying that I was holding the camera
    still and pointing it in the same direction, with no change in ambient,
    indoor light.)

    Anyway, he was very confident that wildly fluctuating exposure readings
    meant something inauspicious. I sent the camera back to Amazon, just
    got my new one, and the fluctuations have not reappeared in this unit.

    Just wanted to follow-up with you guys. Everyone who gave
    passive-aggression-free help, wish I could buy you a round.
    , Nov 28, 2006
    #15
  16. Joan Guest

    This is good news and shows that perseverance pays off.

    --
    Joan
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    :I thought I'd post a follow-up for those who responded in a helpful
    way
    : about my new Digital Rebel's questionable behavior.
    :
    : I spoke to one great tech support guy, very young, who suggested the
    : wildly fluctuating exposure settings in the digitalized portion of
    the
    : viewfinder were completely normal. He pointed me to a really
    excellent
    : site, apparently maintained by the Japanese arm of Canon
    : (www.enjoydslr.com). I was satisfied that the misfiring camera was
    my
    : fault.
    :
    : However, the next morning, Canon was thoughtful enough to send me a
    : comprehensive customer service survey--and to ask, at the end, if my
    : problem had been resolved. When I noted the techie's
    professionalism
    : and courtesy, but stressed that the problem really wasn't resolved,
    : they gave me a "special" 800 number. The much older tech support
    man
    : at this number put me through a series of tests and concluded the
    : camera was faulty, and that I should send it back.
    :
    : His primary test was to put the camera in Program Mode, half click
    the
    : shutter, and then see if any of the settings *still* fluctuated.
    Did
    : they ever! (Hope it goes without saying that I was holding the
    camera
    : still and pointing it in the same direction, with no change in
    ambient,
    : indoor light.)
    :
    : Anyway, he was very confident that wildly fluctuating exposure
    readings
    : meant something inauspicious. I sent the camera back to Amazon,
    just
    : got my new one, and the fluctuations have not reappeared in this
    unit.
    :
    : Just wanted to follow-up with you guys. Everyone who gave
    : passive-aggression-free help, wish I could buy you a round.
    :
    Joan, Nov 28, 2006
    #16
  17. Joan wrote:
    > This is good news and shows that perseverance pays off.
    >

    Could you please trim your replies??

    --
    lsmft
    John McWilliams, Nov 28, 2006
    #17
  18. Guest

    On Nov 28, 7:26 am, "Joan" <2> wrote:
    > This is good news and shows that perseverance pays off.
    >
    > --
    > Joanhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly


    Thanks, Joan. (BTW, I looked up your link during the maelstrom of the
    past two weeks. Didn't have time for precise comments, but your photos
    are sensitive and attentive. Does Flickr allow you to make money on
    your work?)

    Well, everybody, in the spirit of the (travel industry) season, Happy
    Dead Week!
    , Nov 28, 2006
    #18
  19. Joan Guest

    Thanks for the compliments.

    No, I haven't seen anything in Flickr about making money. I've never
    had any plans to make money from photography. As they say in the
    classics "Many are called but few are chosen".

    I really enjoy Flickr with the groups and community spirit and
    friendship of others.

    --
    Joan
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    :
    : Thanks, Joan. (BTW, I looked up your link during the maelstrom of
    the
    : past two weeks. Didn't have time for precise comments, but your
    photos
    : are sensitive and attentive. Does Flickr allow you to make money on
    : your work?)
    :
    : Well, everybody, in the spirit of the (travel industry) season,
    Happy
    : Dead Week!
    :
    Joan, Nov 29, 2006
    #19
  20. Joan Guest

    If that's all you have to say, why bother? You're a complete twat.

    --
    Joan
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

    "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    : Joan wrote:
    : > This is good news and shows that perseverance pays off.
    : >
    : Could you please trim your replies??
    :
    : --
    : lsmft
    Joan, Nov 29, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Stephen J. Rush

    Re: Prove important update [I hope nobody fell for this scam]

    Stephen J. Rush, Dec 29, 2003, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    439
    Stephen J. Rush
    Dec 29, 2003
  2. Kat
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    440
    LnkWizard
    May 12, 2004
  3. Diane
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,848
    Ron Martell
    Jan 23, 2004
  4. Kimball K Kinnison

    How Did This Happen??

    Kimball K Kinnison, May 30, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    512
    Ralph Wade Phillips
    May 30, 2004
  5. Andre Da Costa [Extended64]

    OT: Did anything bad happen today?

    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jun 7, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    525
    David R. Norton MVP
    Jun 9, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page