Canon 30D - Photos too dark??

shepthedog

hey all
Got a quick newbie question..
Just got a 30D during the week and tried a test session of shots today but they were all way too dark..
I had it set to automatic settings, and tried different settings such as landscape, portrait etc...
They just came out totally too dark..
Its a Canon 30D, 18-55mm lens and UV Filter..
I know I probably have something minor done incorrectly..

challengemaster

why dont you set it manually? auto normally gets exposure wrong i've heard

Fenster

What metering are you using?

shepthedog

Does it not meter automatically in the AUTO settings??

ThOnda

Have you checked EV correction settings? It should be "+/-0" for neutral tonality.

shepthedog

They seem to be set at 0... I was using auto settings just to test it and get used to it..

ThOnda

Have you removed the lense cap? :-)

shepthedog

Thanks Thonda! Yup its off! Not a total noob.. Just upgrade from sony h2 to Canon 30D.. They are all too dark.. Shooting on Auto which should set metering etc until I get used to settings etc..

Calina

Now, that's not nice.

IIRC the auto settings on the 350D were pretty okay and so while I understand the 30D is a more expensive camera, the thought that is going through my head is the filter. Are you sure it's a UV filter and not a polariser?

Would help if you posted a picture or two with the exif so that we can have a look see.

DaireQuinlan

Calina wrote:

Now, that's not nice.

IIRC the auto settings on the 350D were pretty okay and so while I understand the 30D is a more expensive camera, the thought that is going through my head is the filter. Are you sure it's a UV filter and not a polariser?

Well technically It shouldn't make any difference given the TTL metering, but yeah, an example picture or two ought to sort this out. You're shooting JPG I take it ? Check the histograms in photoshop or whatever photo editor you use, it could be that your Monitor is badly calibrated ?!?

Borderfox

its very easy on the 30d to turn the power switch to activate to roller selector and change the exposure stops, shouldnt do it in auto only thing that comes to mind was the scene was too dark and the apeture should have been flashing?

shepthedog

Thanks for the comments guys..
Here are two examples.. They were taken tonight, it was a gorgeous summers evening with lots of light..




Number 2

challengemaster

well the sky is exposed fine.. so maybe that was the focus point? that was what it set the exposure from?

ThOnda

It looks like "spot" mettering, so exposure looks good.
Try to take some shots now, at home. Like some texture on the wall, on some cloth (possibly grey or colour equivalets, not white or black).

Edit - try a portrait with face almost in the whole image. Portrait of dog is enough ;-)

Borderfox

Point the centre point at the dark bit and press the * button on the back and then take the picture, in the picture above the exposure is fine for a really bright sky especially in spot meter..

Paulw

Details on the bottom photo -

1/400
f/11
Pattern metering
ISO 400
Color Temperature: 6600°K

To me, that sounds all wrong. The shutter speed is too slow, and maybe use f/5.6 instead.

The 20D/30D was not designed to use Auto/Auto, and in fact from all the reviews I read, it was crap using Auto.

Start to learn about the functions. Try AV mode, and set it to f/5.6 and see what you get. Also, it never hurts to over-expose a little, maybe by 1/3 of a stop.

SOL

To slow? clearly if he wants detail in the lowlights, he needs a slower shutter, and since it is a landscape he should go for max depth of field, so he could cut his shutter to 1/60 or 1/100 and see, I'd say there are about 2-3 stops extra light needed to get some detail from the darker areas, and then, maybe you could try a higher iso, but I don't knokw how the canon is for noise...

And also, if he uses the same metering mode in Av, it will give him the EXACT same exposure, as he has there...

Also, if never hurts to over expose and image? are you taking the piss?

Also, to the OP, they are pretty good for your first try out, I'd try reading up on basic exposure techniques, I think there are some stickied links at the top of the forum, and you'll soon realise what your camera has done... and that is the first step to getting excellent photos

ThOnda

You know - film flash-backs :-)

ZENER

Not very scientific I know but if you apply the gaussian blur repeatedly to your images above until you're left with a plain colour it pretty much looks like the 18% gray card most cameras try to imitate.

A standard center weighted light meter aimed at a scene will calculate the exposure so that the average luminance is the same as the light reflected of the Kodak 18% gray card in the same lighting conditions. This is why when you photograph snow it looks grey and when you photograph black coal or cats they also look grey.

A tip I learned before matrix metering and intelligent cameras was to take the light reading off green grass that has the same light on it as the main subject. Most cameras nowadays have an exposure lock facility that might be useful when doing this, otherwise switch to manual and dial the setting in from the grass measurement.

Sorry if this was already obvious to you.

ZEN

DaireQuinlan

ZENER wrote:

A standard center weighted light meter aimed at a scene will calculate the exposure so that the average luminance is the same as the light reflected of the Kodak 18% gray card in the same lighting conditions. This is why when you photograph snow it looks grey and when you photograph black coal or cats they also look grey.

This is true, hence the counter-intuitive rule of thumb to OVER-expose bright white objects (snow, sea surf, bright sand) and UNDER-expose dark objects (assuming thats what you want correctly exposed) given the meter readings.

@thonda , yes, I think that "never hurts to over-expose" is probably a throwback to film :-) specifically negative film. Shooting digital or transparency film on the other hand ...

As regards the OP, Looks like a classic mistake of simply metering off the wrong thing. The sky is, after all, perfectly exposed !

nilhg

Not a canonite but both of the pictures above look like a little careful PP would do the trick, most of the detail seems to be there in the darker area, it just needs to be brought out.

ThOnda

It almost looks that we should change lyrics of one Cardigans' song: Don't blame your daughter... to "Don't blame your camera..." :-)

Seriously, please, be sure by shooting lots of different pictures that there is soething not correct. I like happy people and technical problems don't make happy people.

Paulw

SOL - no, it doesn't hurt to slightly over expose the image. You can always bring back detail when it's captured by over exposing, but you can't bring back detail that's not there by under exposing. Just 1/3 of a stop is generally enough. You can work on the low lights and such with greater ease.

But I generally wonder, why someone would buy a €1,000 camera, a DSLR and then use automatic modes?? Surely the camera was bought to learn more about photography. Try out the advanced modes - AV generally being the easiest to start with, and moving on from there.

Just my view though.

shepthedog

thanks for all the replies. Just to clarify, this was my first time using this camera so maybe Paulw can cut me a little slack. I am sure it took even a photographer like yourself longer than an hour to use your first DSLR to its full potential. I did not obviously buy it as a P & S.
I am going out today for the day to learn and experiment..

Cheers again guys for the help, I have taken it onboard and will try it out today..

ThOnda

It is "hit and try" all the time, but more pictyres you take, the more good ones.
And have a look into manula - it can help you to explain terminology and agter that more thing will be easy and understandable.

Enjoy, it's lovely toy! And share some photos.

5uspect

ZENER wrote:

Not very scientific I know but if you apply the gaussian blur repeatedly to your images above until you're left with a plain colour it pretty much looks like the 18% gray card most cameras try to imitate.

A standard center weighted light meter aimed at a scene will calculate the exposure so that the average luminance is the same as the light reflected of the Kodak 18% gray card in the same lighting conditions. This is why when you photograph snow it looks grey and when you photograph black coal or cats they also look grey.

A tip I learned before matrix metering and intelligent cameras was to take the light reading off green grass that has the same light on it as the main subject. Most cameras nowadays have an exposure lock facility that might be useful when doing this, otherwise switch to manual and dial the setting in from the grass measurement.

Sorry if this was already obvious to you.

ZEN

Or use the average blur filter...

ladgie353

Paulw wrote:

SOL - no, it doesn't hurt to slightly over expose the image. You can always bring back detail when it's captured by over exposing, but you can't bring back detail that's not there by under exposing. Just 1/3 of a stop is generally enough. You can work on the low lights and such with greater ease.

But I generally wonder, why someone would buy a €1,000 camera, a DSLR and then use automatic modes?? Surely the camera was bought to learn more about photography. Try out the advanced modes - AV generally being the easiest to start with, and moving on from there.

Just my view though.

That is incorrect I'm affraid.
If you over expose, you will loose details (burning the whites out).
Digital is like slide film and has more latitude for under exposure (bringing out details from the shadow) than for over exposure (burned out skies for ex.).
Once parts of your images have gone white, there are no more details to be recovered, shadows, however are rarely pure black and will contains some amount of details.

5uspect

ladgie353 wrote:

That is incorrect I'm affraid.
If you over expose, you will loose details (burning the whites out).
Digital is like slide film and has more latitude for under exposure (bringing out details from the shadow) than for over exposure (burned out skies for ex.).
Once parts of your images have gone white, there are no more details to be recovered, shadows, however are rarely pure black and will contains some amount of details.

Well....

janmc

shepthedog wrote:

Just to clarify, this was my first time using this camera so maybe Paulw can cut me a little slack. I am sure it took even a photographer like yourself longer than an hour to use your first DSLR to its full potential. I did not obviously buy it as a P & S.

I'm another one who has just bought a DSLR (D80) for the first time so I'm echoing the OP - it takes a while to learn a new camera. Taking the first few shots on auto isn't a crime :rolleyes:

SOL

I think posting links to statements like this requires a whole new thread...

Why? Because CCD and CMOS chips are linear devices. And, of course, each F/Stop records half of the light of the previous one, and therefore half the remaining data space available.

Paulw

There are plenty of photographers who over expose their images and recover the data to a correct level. I'm not aware of anyone who under exposes.

When I first looked to buy a SLR, I read many reviews. The common theme was that the Canon 20D/30D models were quite poor in the Auto mode, but very good in the manual modes.

You can set some custom parameters in the camera, to add contrast, sharpen and add saturation. All three are useful, especially when shooting jpg, as the default settings are a little poor.

You'll have great fun with your camera, and certainly learn a lot, I know I did.

ladgie353

5uspect wrote:

Well....

From the site:
But, we all know (or at least should by now) that the worst sin in digital imaging is to blow out the highlights — just as it was when shooting slide film. Once they're blown (past the right-hand edge of the histogram) it's bye-bye data.


FYI, the only way to blow out the highlights is to overexpose.

DaireQuinlan

ladgie353 wrote:

From the site:
But, we all know (or at least should by now) that the worst sin in digital imaging is to blow out the highlights — just as it was when shooting slide film. Once they're blown (past the right-hand edge of the histogram) it's bye-bye data.
FYI, the only way to blow out the highlights is to overexpose.

Thats true, but (just having read that particular page now) he makes some fairly interesting points. I've the utmost respect for that guy (michael reichman), I've trawled through that site before, hopping from article to article. He knows his stuff, and is more than willing to share. His point is not to actually over-expose the image (which by definition would mean clipped highlights) but to override your camera's METERING of the scene if neccessary to shift the histogram to the right without clipping anything.

As regards the OP however, If he's just getting to grips with his new camera then he's probably shooting JPG and doing very little editing afterward. I'd advise just to trust the in-camera metering. Learn the various differant metering types, spot/CW/matrix (or whatever canon call it, evaluative ?), how to apply them in given situations and when you're better off using different types for different situations. No-one's denying that its a bit of a learning curve !

5uspect

ladgie353 wrote:

From the site:
But, we all know (or at least should by now) that the worst sin in digital imaging is to blow out the highlights — just as it was when shooting slide film. Once they're blown (past the right-hand edge of the histogram) it's bye-bye data.


FYI, the only way to blow out the highlights is to overexpose.

You didn't read all of it so.

Thomas Knoll wrote:

Only one or two of the channels being clipped is sometimes a problem. With raw capture it is not as bad as with JPEG capture, since with raw what you care about is clipping in the native camera color space, rather than in the working RGB space (since conversion to working space happens after the raw converter's tone adjustments). Lots of colors clip in sRGB or even Adobe RGB that don't clip in camera native space.

and

Ian Lyons wrote:

Even if the current crop of conversion apps can't handle the blown highlights future apps will. However, NOTHING will ever get you back the lost shadow detail.

The point is that dark tones = no or low signal on the sensor. When the camera converts what it records (what's stored in a RAW file) to an sRGB or Adobe RGB colourspace it often clips details that aren't actually clipped in the camera's colourspace. You're right that once its blown its blown, but you only see this after its been converted at which point information has been lost. It is quite possible that the image isn't blown as badly (or at all). We can see the first implementation of this in the latest version of Canon's Camera Raw which has a recovery setting. Works quite nicely too.

challengemaster

janmc wrote:

I'm another one who has just bought a DSLR (D80) for the first time so I'm echoing the OP - it takes a while to learn a new camera. Taking the first few shots on auto isn't a crime :rolleyes:

well in fairness.. as soon as i got my 400D it took me 15 mins to figure out what everything did, have it on manual and set up for the light conditions...

conzy

challengemaster wrote:

well in fairness.. as soon as i got my 400D it took me 15 mins to figure out what everything did, have it on manual and set up for the light conditions...

But you're very special at mastering challenges challengemaster....

challengemaster

Calina

Most advice I got is that it is easier to correct a slightly underexposed photograph than slightly overexposed. I think that you have a better chance of recovering an overexposed shot if you are shooting in RAW. Arguments on the subject then should distinguish what file format is under discussion.

I have, somewhere on my hard drive, a photograph of a kite taken in the dark, sole light source the moon. I couldn't even bounce a flash off it.

You could not see the kite at all, but you could - just about recover it. You didn't wind up with much of a photograph, this bit is true, however, the detail was there, buried in the night sky. I think you could even see the logo on the kite when you brought it up. On the other hand, there was a thread discussion on this board 6 months ago on how to handle blown highlights shooting an overly sunlit beach and kitesurfer. When you exposed correctly for the kitesurfer, everything else was completely blown. IIRC, the final opinion was that the blown highlights could not be recovered.

PaulW, I occasionally underexpose by one stop to recover afterwards if I need the shutter speed. there is not always one right way of doing things. So yes, you do know one.

I shoot fully manually all the time; I came from a fully manual background in film.

I shot the 350D on automatic for the first few weeks that I acquired it because I realised very quickly that the lightmeter worked differently to the one on my film camera and I didn't want to destroy all my holiday photographs while I got used to the language it spoke. It took about three months before I was comfortable with the camera to shoot it fully manually. Mostly I got there by looking at what the camera was doing in automatic and working out how to adjust it to my own tastes. Sometimes it is no bad thing to see how your camera sees things. It may be that the 20D/30D are not good in automatic mode but you can still learn much from trying it out. I think the OP might well agree at this stage.

5uspect

I think the lesson is to shoot in RAW.:p
Obviously blown out highlights cannot be recovered in extreme cases but you'd be surprised what you can recover.

Regarding using auto settings, I wouldn't consider that a bad thing at all. I would just try to avoid letting it become a crutch. As a learning tool its great.

nilhg

challengemaster wrote:

well in fairness.. as soon as i got my 400D it took me 15 mins to figure out what everything did, have it on manual and set up for the light conditions...

Those canons are to easy, you should have bought the Oly.:p

Show us some pictures,

challengemaster

nilhg wrote:

Those canons are to easy, you should have bought the Oly.:p

Show us some pictures,

heh.. oh alright! wasnt sure if my noobish photographic attempts warrented a thread/posting.. but if you insist!

ZENER

I use a Gossen Lunasix F when I want accurate exposures. Very accurate incident light meter which is much more accurate than most built-in reflected or incident light meters IMO.

In my earlier days I used OM-1 and OM-4 camera bodies from Olympus with those beautiful Zuiko lenses, the slide shots were fantastic. Pity they lost their way when digital came along otherwise I'd still be with them. Nowadays I use a Nikon D70s.

ZEN