Is my camera crap?

BrianJD

or am I using it completely wrong. I have a Canon 1000 DSLR and while I should be using the programme modes, the vast majority of my shots are on the landscape mode for shots like the ones attached.

Unfortunately I think they mostly all come out over exposed (i think?). Is there anything I can do this to correct this and yet not have to spend ages taking a photograph and setting up a shot? This is not always possible when holding back a group of friends.

Thanks for any advice and criticism you can give me. I apologise for bringing this photo to this forum

Telchak

BrianJD wrote: »

Is there anything I can do this to correct this

Manual. I know manual can take a bit of effort, but in auto modes the camera does an average exposure for the whole scene so you get results like this with bleached out skies. You know better, and with not much practice you can get reasonably quick at estimating exposure

the_monkey

BrianJD wrote: »

or am I using it completely wrong. I have a Canon 1000 DSLR and while I should be using the programme modes, the vast majority of my shots are on the landscape mode for shots like the ones attached.

Unfortunately I think they mostly all come out over exposed (i think?). Is there anything I can do this to correct this and yet not have to spend ages taking a photograph and setting up a shot? This is not always possible when holding back a group of friends.

Thanks for any advice and criticism you can give me. I apologise for bringing this photo to this forum

This is the problem, Landscape mode - or any mode other then manual, Ap. priority or shutter priority, using a DSLR you should learn about exposure -
Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" is an excellent book.

Ghost Train

Exposure compensation is a handy function if using any of the automatic modes, turn it down slightly if getting overexposed shots.

Eirebear

Your camera is not crap, in fact you'll be able to get some damn fine results from it - if you are willing to put in the time and effort into understanding it.

Just as an aside, the second picture you posted is actually rather nice given that you are only learning, you have an eye for composition - learn a little about how to operate the equipment in your hands and you'll do ok!

smelltheglove

I dont believe any camera is crap in the hands of someone who knows how to use it;) Practice makes perfect, start off with learning aperture mode, move on to shutter speed, when you have both of those sorted then move on to manual. Will take a while to get used to but you will never ever rely on your camera to do the thinking for you again.

Also consider shooting RAW, you can bring back over exposed areas to a degree through it and will be of benefit whilst you learn your different modes.

AnCatDubh

the_monkey wrote: »

Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" is an excellent book.

A fantastic read but technically as Charybis will testify a little low on detail. Great for getting going though and great for gaining an understanding.

OP - i don't think it is your camera. AFAIK the 1000D is a fine camera and well capable.

What time of the day were you shooting?

A lot of photography is about getting light right or capturing the moment when not able to think about getting light right (accepting anything that you can get from a shot without having to think about it)

Your question though I think poses an interesting difficulty with photography - imho, the more time you put in to getting a shot, the more likely you are in getting a result that you seek or will be pleased with.

In terms of what you have presented, can I enquire with the 1000D is the landscape mode decoupled from the metering? The main problem which you have imho is blowing out the highlights of the sky - yes, it means the camera is incapable of dealing with the dynamic range presented to it, however most dslrs will have limitations and usually can't copy with very bring to quite dark subjects in the same frame. This becomes a differentiating factor with a more professional camera which is better (but will still have its limitations)

Why I ask about metering is that if you are center weighted or spot (center) then what you've presented is to be expected. Your camera has computed the proper exposure for the center or spot center of the image which looks fine. however the sky portion then is *intentionally* blown out. Put it on metering for a scene or average and the darker parts will be a little underexposed, the brighter bits a little overexposed but detail should be visible and you can then work the socks of it in post. Or use bracketing ( presumably available on the 1000d but manually you'd be shooting multiple images for example -x stops, x stop, +x stops :: x = value) and blend the resulting images.

Why i ask about the time of day is if mid morning to mid afternoon then the light will be at its harshest - that brightness probably accentuated. Try an early morning or early/late evening shoot in the same location and see the difference.

TLDR - no your camera isn't crap (maybe a little challenged in some circumstance but no more probably than any other in its class, but you probably have a little to learn about the beautiful art (haven't we all))

AnCatDubh

Also meant to say, as landscapes go, I thought the second image you posted is a belter of an image. If you could pull a tad more detail into the sky (kinda stuff mentioned above), it would be really smart, and to do so you need to be thinking about how/when to use the camera to get the desired result.

BrianJD

Wow

Thanks for the replies folks.

I think both photos were taken mid afternoon. I think I just need to go out on my own and practise and not have somebody who i am slowing down. I'm not using the camera enough and only tend to use it on holidays or the odd day out. I'm getting better with photoshop but i can never get a normal sky (or else I get annoyed and it becomes very fake).

I don't know a thing about metering but I know there is some option for adjusting the point of focus on the pic whilst taking it so i'll check that out.

I'm made up with the bit of praise for the second pic. I'm just back from the Lake District in Cumbria (couldn't recommend it enough) and I've always loved photos with a dept or perspective. Hence 97% of my photos are framed by a wall or overhanging branch :D:D:D

Anybody fancy trying to fix pic 2 for a challenge or once it's underexposed is it beyond reasonable repair?

delly

Speaking as a complete novice and in the context of landscape shots, but would a polarizing filter be of benefit to the OP or will its benefits be lost if still left on auto?

BrianJD

delly wrote: »

Speaking as a complete novice and in the context of landscape shots, but would a polarizing filter be of benefit to the OP or will its benefits be lost if still left on auto?

To be honest, I had one on for ages but I didn't see much diff in the results..

Zxc

BrianJD wrote: »

As others have said, the second photograph is great.
My tuppence worth would be to crop to square format, to just above the big tree behind the wall.
Add an object of interest, a person or animal in the green area to the right foreground and I think it would make a very nice photograph with more or less what you've got.
Nice work, OP.

Freddie59

BrianJD wrote: »

Wow

Thanks for the replies folks.

I think both photos were taken mid afternoon. I think I just need to go out on my own and practise and not have somebody who i am slowing down. I'm not using the camera enough and only tend to use it on holidays or the odd day out. I'm getting better with photoshop but i can never get a normal sky (or else I get annoyed and it becomes very fake).

I don't know a thing about metering but I know there is some option for adjusting the point of focus on the pic whilst taking it so i'll check that out.

I'm made up with the bit of praise for the second pic. I'm just back from the Lake District in Cumbria (couldn't recommend it enough) and I've always loved photos with a dept or perspective. Hence 97% of my photos are framed by a wall or overhanging branch :D:D:D

Anybody fancy trying to fix pic 2 for a challenge or once it's underexposed is it beyond reasonable repair?

Go with Manual.

Here are shots taken with the 1000D on Flickr.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lewismcleod/5566188279/

As you can see, it's MORE than capable.

Yes, Understanding Exposure may be on the light side - for advanced photographers. For beginners? Perfect. I was in the same boat as you and on the verge of dumping a new 450D three years ago until I read this book (recommended to me on this forum).

It was a revelation. Get it - and start shooting in Manual. Now!:)

Freddie59

.

puddles22

u might find an grad nd filter of great use too, helps match the sky and ground exposure

BrianJD

Freddie59 wrote: »

Go with Manual.

Here are shots taken with the 1000D on Flickr.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lewismcleod/5566188279/

As you can see, it's MORE than capable.

Yes, Understanding Exposure may be on the light side - for advanced photographers. For beginners? Perfect. I was in the same boat as you and on the verge of dumping a new 450D three years ago until I read this book (recommended to me on this forum).

It was a revelation. Get it - and start shooting in Manual. Now!:)

Okay.

Got the book "Understanding Exposure". Gonna give it a read and I'm just gonna keep practising on Manual.

I'm getting really geeed up for this now.

AnCatDubh

BrianJD wrote: »

Anybody fancy trying to fix pic 2 for a challenge or once it's underexposed is it beyond reasonable repair?

Did you shoot in Raw or JPG?

This is one of the reasons for shooting RAW - if your resulting image is slightly overexposed with blown out highlights, then in RAW there may well be enough information to pull back the highlights a little into a usable space. With JPG you are left with a very definite white is white and that's that - with nothing more being available from the image.

As is, in the JPG - there are areas (of the sky) which are blown (complete white) and won't darken/brighten (or anything else), so the editing which you may need to do would be a cloning operation or perhaps complete sky swap.

I guess this is also a situation where as I was explaining previously, with bracketing (btw - really need tripod or something to stabilise the camera), you might have had a sky to work with in the underexposed image (-x as described previously).

Rainbowsend

BrianJD wrote: »

Anybody fancy trying to fix pic 2 for a challenge or once it's underexposed is it beyond reasonable repair?

Not a brilliant attempt as the file was tiny, but it shows you what is in there if you want to pull it out, this took seconds, just a grad mask to adjust the exposure of the sky, like I say not brilliant, the sky is quite pixalated.

Mike Litoris

Ditto for Nd grads but the light wasn't the best for those shots at all. Near sunrise or sunset is what you need and maybe photoshop or something similar to pull shadows/highlights a bit.

Most importantly, dont get disheartened. It takes time and you never stop learning but you'll get to the stage where this stuff can seem trivial.

FoxT

Lots of good advice above, your camera is working exactly as designed. I like the composition of shot #2, and technically shot #1 is :

- good depth of field
- good colour & detail rendition
- sky overexposed in order to ensure the greenery is bright & detailed.

This is the way cameras are designed to work. In most scenes like the ones above, the very brightest part of the photo is about 300-1000 times brighter than the darkest parts of the photo. (ie about 8-10 stops)

Digital camera sensors cannot cope with this huge range in brightness. So, in program or landscape modes they will expose so that the sky is white & foreground detail is good.

Things that help:

- polarizing filter can darken the sky ( your mileage will vary)
- Grad ND filters will definitely darken the sky but work well best with a flat horizon. Your mileage will vary here, if the horizon isnt flat.
- tripod/multi exposure/combine them -> probably the best solution if you are prepared to spend the time at it, especially if you shoot RAW.
- Shoot RAW & learn to use a free RAW converter like RAW Therapee. This is easier than multi-exposure, you dont have to buy filters, and it does help.

http://www.rawtherapee.com/

PS I have no affiliation with these guys, but I have found it a great product - and its free.


Regards,

-FoxT

BrianJD

Rainbowsend wrote: »

Not a brilliant attempt as the file was tiny, but it shows you what is in there if you want to pull it out, this took seconds, just a grad mask to adjust the exposure of the sky, like I say not brilliant, the sky is quite pixalated.

Wow. What a difference. I can't believe you were able to get that shade of sky without subsituting with a fake one.

Off to look up ND Gradients How To on Youtube.

Thanks!

BrianJD

Is something like this good to use? I understand it's going to darken the sky to make it easier for the camera to get the colour but surely will they not just darken the rest of my photo as well.

My apologies if I'm being a gimp with a gimps questions.

http://cgi.ebay.ie/58MM-Neutral-Density-ND-Filter-KIT-ND2-ND4-ND8-LENS-CAP-/220689400773?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item33621d03c5

Sleepy

It's cheap rubbish that's designed for a slightly different purpose than you're looking for tbh.

You need a gradiated ND filter which will darken the top part of your lens whilst allowing the light that's there pass through the bottom half of your lens. Look at Lee or Cokin filters on-line and you'll see what I'm talking about... square pieces of glass that fit into a holder.

5uspect

Hopefully without sounding like an asshole, can I ask have you read the manual for the camera? While often a bit terse it does give a good explanation of what everything does.

Also I would read all of this:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm

There will be a written exam at 2pm on friday.

challengemaster

I took this with a Canon 400D, which at the time was probably the newest or nearly newest X00 Eos model IIRC. In fairness, it is processed but still, you need a decent shot to start with. I'm sure the 1000D probably surpasses the 400D at this stage.

Still one of my favorite photos.

Mike Litoris

Sorry for going OT but that is deadly Challengemaster!!

The proccessing works imo. What time of the morning was it?

baal

definitely get yourself used to using the manual setting
once you get the basics of it, you wont want to go back to the presets
just take the camera out into the garden and keep messing about with the settings and see how each one affects the picture
it definitely makes it all the more satisfying when you get a good shot

challengemaster

Mike Litoris wrote: »

Sorry for going OT but that is deadly Challengemaster!!

The proccessing works imo. What time of the morning was it?

Believe it or not, it was 4:30pm in feb

Mike Litoris

challengemaster wrote: »

Believe it or not, it was 4:30pm in feb

Ahh. I couldn't figure it out from the shadows.

dmg1982

Eirebear wrote: »

Your camera is not crap, in fact you'll be able to get some damn fine results from it - if you are willing to put in the time and effort into understanding it.

Just as an aside, the second picture you posted is actually rather nice given that you are only learning, you have an eye for composition - learn a little about how to operate the equipment in your hands and you'll do ok!

I'll second that. You've got a perfectly capable camera.