Dark results

azzeretti · 06-12-2015 7:59pm #1

Strange one; I have a D3200 and I was out on the beach today taking a few snaps. It was around noon and the sun was high with very little cloud cover. I noticed any shots I took where appearing very dark when I looked back on them. I normally us aperture priority so I move ISO from 100 to 800 (then 1600) but noticed little difference. A typical shot was f 5.6, 1/2500, iso 800. The best way I can describe the images is that they look like you might expect using a ND filter with a fast shutter, way darker than they should be.

Does anyone have any suggestions as to what might be up? There is no exposure adjustment (0.0) and I've not noticed anything like this before. Could the camera be dodgy? It's only a few months old, count is less than 1300.

Myksyk · 06-12-2015 8:08pm

Was the sky in the shots bright? Looking at that shutter speed (very high), the camera may have been trying not to completely blow out the brights, leaving your darks very dark?

azzeretti · 06-12-2015 8:12pm

Myksyk wrote: »

Was the sky in the shots bright? Looking at that shutter speed (very high), the camera may have been trying not to completely blow out the brights, leaving your darks very dark?

No, everything was dark. The first few I took, on ISO 100, where all 1/640.

Silva360 · 06-12-2015 9:19pm

If the camera was trying to preserve highlights, then everything is likely to be dark.

Can you post a sample?

Have you tested the camera at home afterwards?

azzeretti · 06-12-2015 9:58pm

Can you post a sample?

Sure.

Myksyk · 06-12-2015 10:28pm

The subject is backlit, your camera has just exposed for your brights (they're fine imho) so your subject is dark.

Silva360 · 06-12-2015 10:55pm

I would agree. I reckon the camera has exposed for the highlights.

There is something called the 'sunny 16' rule for those kind of conditions. I generally don't rely on these 'rules', but perhaps you could try it in similar conditions to those you had today to see what happens. A quick google search will give you loads of links.

In those conditions, it's best to only increase the ISO if the shutter speed requires (unlikely in full sun).

I really doubt there is a problem with you camera, so don't be concerned.

azzeretti · 06-12-2015 10:58pm

Myksyk wrote: »

The subject is backlit, your camera has just exposed for your brights (they're fine imho) so your subject is dark.

Not 100% on this, the sun is to my 4 o'clock. Other shots, with the light behind me -and aiming back towards land - with brighter subjects are the same - very dim. How should I adjust for this type of light?

Myksyk · 06-12-2015 11:16pm

It's really just to do with the contrast levels. There's a fair bit of dynamic range in the shot. The sea and sky are very bright compared to the horse and rider so the shot is backlit regardless of sun position. The camera has exposed for the sea and sky. If you focused only on the rider/horse the sky would blow out.

CabanSail · 07-12-2015 12:02am

In what mode do you have the meter set?

I have had problems in the past where I had been using Spot Metering and left it selected. In that mode it will expose the whole frame according to the small section selected. If that happens to be on the sky then the rest can look underexposed. Matrix Metering does some scene evaluation.

Even in Centre Weighted mode the camera will attempt to make the whole frame 21% grey.

Unless you are looking to get a silhouette it would be better to expose for the horse and then recover the highlights in the RAW conversion.

pixbyjohn · 07-12-2015 1:00am

azzeretti wrote: »

Sure.

His Exif data>>>>
Standard Information
Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Model: NIKON D3200
Software: darktable 1.4
ImageSize: 6032x4012
CreateDate: 2015:12:06 13:12:39
ModifyDate: 2015:12:06 20:43:55
DateTimeOriginal: 2015:12:06 13:12:39
ExposureTime: 1/4000"
Aperture: F5.6
MaxAperture: F5.7
DepthOfFocus: 0.84 m (2.98 - 3.82)
CircleOfConfusion: 0.020 mm
HyperfocalDistance: 26.80 m
ExposureProgram: Aperture-priority AE
ExposureBiasValue: 0
MeteringMode: Center-weighted average
Flash: No Flash
ISO: 800
WhiteBalance: Auto
FocalLength: 55.0 mm
FocalLength35efl: 55.0 mm (35 mm equivalent: 82.0 mm)
SensingMethod: One-chip color area
SceneType: Directly photographed
ColorSpace: sRGB
NoiseReduction: Off
Contrast: Normal
Saturation: Normal
Sharpness: Normal
ShutterCount: 1789
LensSpec: 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G VR

CabanSail · 07-12-2015 2:27am

Cannot access EXIF here, so thanks for that.

pixbyjohn wrote: »

His Exif data>>>>

MeteringMode: Center-weighted average

Matrix Metering will probably work a bit better.

Zillah · 07-12-2015 2:12pm

My first guess was that it was saving the highlights, too, but that sample definitely looks under-exposed to me.

EDIT:
Yeah, this is the most basic curves adjustment possible with no loss of detail in the highlights. It's several stops too dark.

Myksyk · 07-12-2015 3:12pm

That's useful Zillah and I think you're correct. Definitely looks underexposed compared to your edit which still has the highlights exposed correctly. Hmmm not sure what's going on there. Sorry OP!!

Zillah · 07-12-2015 4:25pm

Myksyk wrote: »

That's useful Zillah and I think you're correct. Definitely looks underexposed compared to your edit which still has the highlights exposed correctly. Hmmm not sure what's going on there. Sorry OP!!

It looks exactly like the camera is set to underexpose by a few stops, so given that OP has checked that already I haven't a clue what the explanation is either.

You can get this phenomenon in snow some times because the sensor is calibrated to assume 50% grey rather than pure white so comes out dark, but I hardly think those clouds would be anywhere near bright enough to replicate the phenomenon.

CabanSail · 07-12-2015 10:07pm

Zillah wrote: »

the sensor is calibrated to assume 50% grey rather than pure white

I think it's 21% grey. The meter is set to Centre Weighted. I am assuming the OP is recording JPEG and I am not really that familiar with some of the options they have for them now.

Zillah · 07-12-2015 10:48pm

CabanSail wrote: »

I think it's 21% grey.

Er, yes, I think I went from "mid-grey" to "50% is the middle". I googled and am being told 18% apparently.

Dr_Bill · 09-12-2015 4:36pm

You could set the exposure compensation +0.7 to start and work up from there or test with bracketing a few shots to find the sweet spot and dial it in when shooting, annoying all the same thou.

Silva360 · 10-12-2015 11:18pm

Any luck with your camera, OP?

Kenny Logins · 10-12-2015 11:26pm

That's odd. When you look at the histogram for this image, there's nothing going on in the right hand side, anywhere in the frame. Weird.

Adrian.Sadlier · 11-12-2015 1:23am

IMHO I suggest that you use a single focus point, focus on the horse, use spot metering and adjust in camera raw afterwards (assuming you shoot in raw and use software that can process it).

Taking into account that the horse is long gone (and hoping that you shot in RAW) I suggest that you create 3 different exposures in RAW with maybe a 2 stop variation then combine the three raw files this created in an HDR exposure, taking care not to go overboard with the sliders

Adrian

magicbastarder · 11-12-2015 10:51am

CabanSail wrote: »

Matrix Metering will probably work a bit better.

even though it may do, centre weighted should still strive to produce an image that 18% grey on average. there's no real highlights in the posted image which might explain why it pushed it to underexpose.

CabanSail · 12-12-2015 3:25am

There is enough data in the JPEG file to process even though the underexposure creates a fair bit of noise.

Have also added a bit of space behind the horse.

azzeretti · 14-12-2015 2:37pm

Silva360 wrote: »

Any luck with your camera, OP?

Oddly, I can't reproduce it. All the shots I took on that day (may of them bright subjects) all appeared to be way darker than they should - almost as if I dropped the exposure compensation by accident - which isn't really possible on this camera.

I've tested it fairly heavily since and it all seems fine. Very strange!

azzeretti · 14-12-2015 2:40pm

CabanSail wrote: »

There is enough data in the JPEG file to process even though the underexposure creates a fair bit of noise.

Have also added a bit of space behind the horse.

Yeah, I got similar results myself, fairly noisy. The shot would have been better with that extra space (exposure aside). I can just about make out the canvas increase of that image but it still looks better than the original!

Echoes675 · 14-12-2015 5:53pm

pixbyjohn wrote: »

His Exif data>>>>
ExposureTime: 1/4000"
...
MeteringMode: Center-weighted average

I would guess this was the main reason for the shot being under exposed overall. The area the camera would have metered would be the spray on the waves and the bright sky. So, it's adjusted to keeping the highlights of these areas in check. IMO the exposure is correct and will allow recovery in Lightroom/Photoshop without blown highlights. I tend to shoot for the highlights much of the time.

The OP took the shot in aperature priority mode an kept the maximum aperature for the lens at that focal length. If I was shooting the same shot in manual mode I may have stopped down to around F11 to get the lens into its sweet spot for sharpness. I could have then reduced the shutter speed to 1/500 and the ISO to 100 to reduce the noise. This would have given me an equivalent exposure but again the two big benefits would be an image taken closer to the sharpest f stop for this lens and a reduction in noise. This reduction in noise would allow me to recover more before noise becomes a problem (of course there's always noise reduction to add to the mix but that's a whole other post)

If it was originally taken in RAW recovery can easily be done via the curves adjustments (or the Lightroom Highlights/Shadows/Whites/Blaks sliders)

Dark results

Comments