Does anyone else under expose a lot?

StephyB

StephyB

Messages
932
Name
Steph
Edit My Images
Yes
I've noticed with my 60D I'm going 1-3 stops below what it registers as 'correct' because when I go for the correct exposure I'm getting blown highlights and issues with the shadows. Is this common??
 
Ok. Given I have not written that clearly enough, there is the bar on the bottom of the viewfinder that has dark to the left and bright is to the right. Right in the middle is what I've been told is 'correct'.

It doesn't matter what the other settings are, for normal photos during the day if I aim for that middle 'sweet spot' the picture is wrong. I was asking if that is normal or not. If I aim for 1-3 stops under that middle point I get something that is actually right.
 
Last edited:
It would depend a lot on what subjects you are shooting and in what conditions. Have you been shooting particular subjects/ conditions or a variety?

What metering mode do you usually use?

Sorry to state the obvious, but have you checked to make sure you haven't accidentally left exposure compensation on?
 
MJWC1 said:
It would depend a lot on what subjects you are shooting and in what conditions. Have you been shooting particular subjects/ conditions or a variety?

What metering mode do you usually use?

Sorry to state the obvious, but have you checked to make sure you haven't accidentally left exposure compensation on?
Click to expand...

I shoot a lot of different subjects and its across the board - literally every shot I take excluding night shots.

I've used exp comp a couple of times but its off until I put it on manually and I always turn it off again.

Varying shutter speeds, apertures, isos, varying light during the day yet every shot needs be be at least one stop below the middle mark.

Maybe my camera is just weird?

And stating the obvious can be a good thing! :lol:
 
StephyB said:
Maybe my camera is just weird?
Click to expand...
Possibly but VERY unlikely.

I think it is far more likely to be user error.

Post us a sample photo of one that has under exposed and tell us exactly what the camera settings were including the metering mode and where your focus point was. Also, do you focus then recompose?
 
-Rob- said:
Possibly but VERY unlikely.

I think it is far more likely to be user error.

Post us a sample photo of one that has under exposed and tell us exactly what the camera settings were including the metering mode and where your focus point was. Also, do you focus then recompose?
Click to expand...

...or do you set the camera while looking at the back screen? If so, it's possible that you are taking a reading with the camera pointing slightly down, then when you lift it to your eye it is pointing higher and into brighter light.
 
Using the viewfinder (not the screen unless it's a really awkward angle) but these were with the viewfinder.

This indicated perfect exposure on the butterfly:



This was the one stopped down:

 
I'm fairly certain it's on evaluative metering but it could have been on centre average, and the focus point was the butterfly. I don't usually focus then recompose, but I'm not sure :D

If it's user error I'll be happy - in all likelihood that's all it is.

Exif for the slightly blown one:

f/8.0
1/250 sec
ISO 250
Exp Bias 0 Stop
Focal Length 171mm
Metering Mode: Centre weighted average
With Flash

and the second one:

f/8.0
1/250 sec
ISO 200
Exp Bias 0 Stop
Focal Length 171mm
Metering Mode: Centre weighted average
With Flash
 
Is your screen calibrated? Every screen I've ever used has been way too bright without calibration.
 
StephyB said:
Using the viewfinder (not the screen unless it's a really awkward angle) but these were with the viewfinder.

This indicated perfect exposure on the butterfly:



This was the one stopped down:

Click to expand...

I tend to underexpose slightly Steph. In all honesty as mentioned there is not a lot wrong with those shots, so long as you are shooting Raw then you can quite easily in PP get #1 looking like #2 and vise versa.
 
With centre weighted metering on this image, 3/4 of the metering area is dark. The metering doesn't know you want the butterfly exposed correctly, it will average the centre of the image and expose correctly for that. Which is exactly what it has done in the first image. BTW the second one is probably as much under exposed as the first one is over.
 
Last edited:
If I'm in aperture priority mode I usually have exp comp set to -0.7 - for some reason the Nikon cameras seem to expose better this way. In my experience at least.
 
-Rob- said:
I don't see what your issue is with these photos. They're not 100% perfect but they look ok to me.

What do you think is wrong with them?
Click to expand...

I actually love the second, it came out exactly how I wanted it to.

The first I think the butterfly is a little to bright/pale.

I am able to get the results I want, I just thought with all the books I've read saying aim for the middle of the meter bar thing and as I'm aiming one to three stops below I thought maybe there was a problem with my camera or something - now I think about it it's probably just me - I'm using an iPad so I'm not sure on the calibration but I'd like to say yes!

And thank you everyone! So glad it's me not the camera!!
 
I'm completely confused now.

Your original post said you were unhappy because you were metering for the middle but it was coming out under exposed. You then posted photos that are absolutely fine. Now you're saying you're happy with your results but you've been aiming 1-3 stops under.

I'm lost.
 
I'm sorry, I don't know how to make it clearer than I have :-(


Edit: it wasn't I am unhappy - I'm happy with most of what I take - it was curiosity not unhappiness. Ie does anyone else find they do that.
 
Last edited:
StephyB said:
I actually love the second, it came out exactly how I wanted it to.

The first I think the butterfly is a little to bright/pale.

I am able to get the results I want, I just thought with all the books I've read saying aim for the middle of the meter bar thing and as I'm aiming one to three stops below I thought maybe there was a problem with my camera or something - now I think about it it's probably just me - I'm using an iPad so I'm not sure on the calibration but I'd like to say yes!

And thank you everyone! So glad it's me not the camera!!
Click to expand...

Going back to Trevor's point. What metering mode are you using as this is what will drive the metering your camera gives you.
For example if you used spot metering and metered on the butterfly you may get exactly what you want without using any compensation.
 
I think what Steph's trying to say is that she has to exposure compensate (in this case under expose) for the final picture to look correctly exposed.

Steph, have you tried spot metering instead of centre weighed? This may have given you the results you wanted without having to under expose. Just a thought.

Maybe you could try experimenting with the different metering modes and see the effect it has on the final exposure of your subject....
 
ernesto said:
Going back to Trevor's point. What metering mode are you using as this is what will drive the metering your camera gives you.
For example if you used spot metering and metered on the butterfly you may get exactly what you want without using any compensation.
Click to expand...

It was centre weighted average, but I'll try spot metering next time :-) thanks

amer369 said:
I think what Steph's trying to say is that she has to exposure compensate (in this case under expose) for the final picture to look correctly exposed.

Steph, have you tried spot metering instead of centre weighed? This may have given you the results you wanted without having to under expose. Just a thought.

Maybe you could try experimenting with the different metering modes and see the effect it has on the final exposure of your subject....
Click to expand...

Will do, and yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say!! I'll try the metering modes to outgrow - it was only today after it was brought up that I realised I could change it!
 
StephyB said:
It was centre weighted average, but I'll try spot metering next time :-) thanks

Will do, and yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say!! I'll try the metering modes to outgrow - it was only today after it was brought up that I realised I could change it!
Click to expand...

Learning by experiences is the best way to learn :)
 
Is it always when you use flash as you have in those 2 photos? Generally if you are using flash you want the lowest ISO you can.

What mode do you use your camera in?
 
Dan_H said:
Is it always when you use flash as you have in those 2 photos? Generally if you are using flash you want the lowest ISO you can.

What mode do you use your camera in?
Click to expand...

Full manual mode normally. And no, I dont usually use the flash because its normally light enough without. I've found the auto modes (the p, av and tv mode things) do the same or just annoy me because it doesn't do what I want it to (it'll raise the iso instead of dropping shutter etc), it was just the on camera flash at the lowest setting. Never really used flash before and I wanted to try it out.
 
Last edited:
I echo the 'check your screen calibration', the second one is quite underexposed, the top one is better exposed, but the flash seems to have reduced the contrast of the subject (which is probably partly what you don't like)...

If you had some non-flash examples, that would help greatly :)

Other then that, I think when you want a certain contrasty look etc, you are better off exposing correctly (like the first shot) and then using PP to dial down midtones etc.. if you underexpose to start with, you have less shadow detail to play with..
 
"Correct" exposure is, as I understand it, based on 18% grey exposing correctly. Anything else it becomes less accurate.

Real "correct" exposure depends as much on personal taste as anything else. Many portraits (of Caucasian people anyway, unsure about other skintones) are slightly overexposed as the lightness disguises blemishes.

Ultimately, I'd argue both of your photographs here are "correctly" exposed as neither highlights are blown nor dark parts made black, however your personal taste is to the second. And depending on light, sometimes you may blow highlights are still have too dark patches if it's hitting parts differently.


Oh, and one final thing - assuming the flash was the same level, one was ISO 200, one ISO 250 - that's I think 1/3 of a stop difference, not very big really.
 
littlemonster said:
Ultimately, I'd argue both of your photographs here are "correctly" exposed as neither highlights are blown nor dark parts made black, however your personal taste is to the second.
Exactly :thumbs: As for the comment about the OP calibrating the screen :thinking:Nobody can see what her monitor is like
so a pointless comment really, if her examples where way off then calibrating might be an idea. Like I said in my earlier reply you can alter the image in PP and change the final outcome to anything you like.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
littlemonster said:
"Correct" exposure is, as I understand it, based on 18% grey exposing correctly. Anything else it becomes less accurate.
Click to expand...

I can't recall the exact reason for this not being strictly true but I think some maufacturers calibrate to 12% IIRC.

I would have a quick Google if I were you.

HTH

David

Here you go http://bythom.com/graycards.htm found this.
 
Last edited:
The point of photography is the picture...
we do whatever it takes to achieve it.
The butterfly shots do not look blown.
Extreme highlights "Need" not contain detail, they often look dull if they do.

Experiment more
especially with exposure modes other than centre weighted. try partial or spot.
Only by trying things for yourself will it all fall into place.

The shots of the butterfly are flat because the flash is "head on" and gives fill but little modelling. You need a main light (sun, off camera flash) to give shape, modelling and texture. and fill to lighten the shadows ( but not kill them) a reflector is good.
 
depends where the light is

if its directly in front of the camera, fill flash is used to light the subject which would otherwise be underexposed

:)
 
phil-t said:
I echo the 'check your screen calibration', the second one is quite underexposed, the top one is better exposed, but the flash seems to have reduced the contrast of the subject (which is probably partly what you don't like)...

If you had some non-flash examples, that would help greatly :)

Other then that, I think when you want a certain contrasty look etc, you are better off exposing correctly (like the first shot) and then using PP to dial down midtones etc.. if you underexpose to start with, you have less shadow detail to play with..
Click to expand...

I'm on the iPad - I don't know how to check screen calibration on there? But I'll google later.

littlemonster said:
Ultimately, I'd argue both of your photographs here are "correctly" exposed as neither highlights are blown nor dark parts made black, however your personal taste is to the second. And depending on light, sometimes you may blow highlights are still have too dark patches if it's hitting parts differently.

Oh, and one final thing - assuming the flash was the same level, one was ISO 200, one ISO 250 - that's I think 1/3 of a stop difference, not very big really.
Click to expand...

This was showing as -1 on my in camera meter that shows in the viewfinder. That's all I can go by.

Terrywoodenpic said:
The point of photography is the picture...
we do whatever it takes to achieve it.
The butterfly shots do not look blown.
Extreme highlights "Need" not contain detail, they often look dull if they do.

Experiment more
especially with exposure modes other than centre weighted. try partial or spot.
Only by trying things for yourself will it all fall into place.

The shots of the butterfly are flat because the flash is "head on" and gives fill but little modelling. You need a main light (sun, off camera flash) to give shape, modelling and texture. and fill to lighten the shadows ( but not kill them) a reflector is good.
Click to expand...

The sun was behind the tree & I don't have off camera flash, it was an experiment with the on camera flash.

Jayst84 said:
As said, the difference in those two is 1/3rd of a stop no where near 1-3 stops, and a very negligible difference.

Anyway, I think it would serve you well to look up the basics of how (reflective in particular) metering and exposure works. I feel you may be missing the starting blocks of understanding this stuff.
Click to expand...

It was showing as a full step down, not 1/3 not 1/2, but one full stop according to the meter.

Want to point me to some more reading then? I've read Bruce peterson's understanding exposure six times so far, plus the hand exposure meter book and exposure & lighting for digital photographers.

Or perhaps there's a tutorial you could send me to?
 
Based on the OP's examples of the butterfly, of course the meter in the viewfinder indicates under exposure as it's reading the ambient light, which is all it can do, and not the flash that is contributing the lion's share of the light.

Edit: Briefly, the meter reads what it 'thinks' is correct exposure, and in most typical scenes it will not be far out, but there are exceptions. The OP also seems to be suggesting problems of dynamic range rather than exposure, and no exposure settings can change that - you have to modify the dynamic range in some way. A graduated filter for a blown sky in landscapes for example, or fill-in flash for a back-lit portrait. If you want to know what is correct exposure, the histogram will tell you.

BTW, if the OP want's to understand exposure, Bryan Peterson's book is woefully mis-titled. For example, it doesn't even mention the histogram... :thinking:
 
Last edited:
So make some suggestions on what I should read!!!!!
 
Thanks :-D
 
Trying not to sound too harsh, but there's some real inconsistency in your postings here Steph.
Firstly you claim your meter is out by 1-3 stops and then show us an example where the difference was 1/3 of a stop.
Your example was lit by flash, you'd know because you've read the exposure book 6 times, that your ambient meter has had very little to do with that shot because you'd need to set FEC to make a big difference there.
You talk about overexposure, but haven't told us how that manifests itself other than 'it looks wrong to me'
Are you seeing the overexposure:
On the screen on the camera - could be just set too bright.
On the histogram - 3 stops would show as everything beyond the centre and right off the right edge of the histogram
On your computer screen- maybe a little work on rudimentary calibration would help
Your preview shows blinkies - tbh for a full stop or 3 the majority of the screen ought to be flashing.
Have you got some examples of exactly what your problem is, as above your posted example doesn't show it at all.
 
Thanks Phil, I figured it out today and sorted the problem though, no further help necessary - there was an issue with my cameras sensor which has been repaired - I wanted to double check so I took it into a canon repairer today and voila problem solved.

ETA: I knew there was something wrong by the reactions here. The meter said it was one full stop under exposed, given the reaction here something was wrong.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top