DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 18 Posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1011 times:
Hi everyone,
I am quite new to photography and have recently acquired a Canon 300D, my first ever SLR camera. As I've never had the luxury of owning an SLR before, I am on a very sharp learning curve as to what different shutter speeds and apertures will give in different light conditions.
I usually shoot in shutter priority mode and then have a quick check on the LCD screen to see how it's exposed. I've noticed however that most of my shots from this aft at MAN and the ones I took at LBA a couple of days ago are very dark when I download them.
I notice that there are about 5 different brightness settings for the display. I was wondering if any other 300D users had ever experienced this and which 'bar' in the brightness menu option is most representative of what the photo will be when downloaded to the computer.
Wietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 61 Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 987 times:
The best thing is to use the normal setting. That would be setting 3 in your camera. (if the scale is from 1-5).
The reason for the dark pictures is most likely the fact that there was not enough light to allow for your selected shutterspeed. If you have a budget lens, the lens will not be able to open up far enough to allow enough light in there.
Either pick a slower shutterspeed so that more light will go through, or change the setting to Av, and select a diaphragm of about 7.1-8. That will ensure the highest possible quality from your lens. If that leaves you with shutterspeeds that you cannot handhold properly, bump the ISO a bit. Opening up a budget lens will cause it to loose contrast, sharpness and it will introduce distortion.
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 18 Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 976 times:
Hi Wietse,
On the days in question I have been using a Tamron 28-300mm f3.5-6.3 lens and typically shooting on ISO 400 or sometimes 200.
The weather I was shooting in at MAN this afternoon was bright sunshine (well... on and off!!!), at times to such an extent that I was wishing I had a polarising filter with me as there was quite some glare off the aircraft. The thing is, all the photos I've taken look fine on the LCD, as like I said, I have been using it as a benchmark for what settings to use. It just doesn't appear to be representative of what I actually get on the computer however as they seem darker.
Wietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 61 Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 969 times:
Ok, well another good way to see if the shot is exposed properly, is to look at the Histogram. You will find a histogram with every image if you press the "info" button while in viewing mode. (I take it that basic ops for the 300D are similar to those of my D60)
Ideally, in a perfect world, and shooting a greycard, the histogram should be a nice little bump right in the middle with the bump slowly declining to the sides, stopping RIGHT at the edges.
With a normal aviation photo the histogram changes quite a lot. The most important thing to check is if the bump doesnt disappear of either side. If it does, it is either overexposed (right side) or extremely underexposed (left side).
The peak of the bump roughly indicates how bright/dark a shot is. The more to the right, the brighter, the more to the left, the darker. So if you take a photograph and upon checking the histogram, it is concentrated on the left side of the scale, the image is too dark. Lengthening the exposure or opening up the lens will move the histogram to the right. Balance it and you will have a correct exposure. You just need to experience it and you will need experience itself to fully use this feature, but you sound like you want to learn, so work on it
To explain what a histogram really does: The histograms X axle indicates all possible grey tones in a photograph. From pure black to pure white. The graphic indicates the number of pixels there are on each given grey tone. So the more dark pixels you have in a photo, the more to the left the histogram will be. A peak on the right side of the histogram indicates that there are a lot of pixels that are pure white. Because pure white is a clear indicator of overexposure, a peak on the right will indicate an overexposure somewhere in the image. There will almost always be a peak though, because glare and landing lights for instance are almost always overexposed when compared to the rest of the photo. Just make sure that the peak is not too high.
Wietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 61 Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 963 times:
This is how it will look. The overexposed part will blink, and you can see the large peak on the right hand side of the histogram indicating the overexposure. In this case the overexposure is not a bad thing, but still, it shows what I mean.
CaptainTim From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2004, 431 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 910 times:
i'm a user of a 300D and i believe that it was the problem with the photograph not with the contrast/brightness of the LCD~ even at the extremes of the brightness 'bar', the pictures won't have such a sever/strong fluctuation of lighting on the photograph.
the difference from the LCD screen to the computer should usually not have such a big difference.. even if the LCD screen is super bright..
maybe check the exposure compensation??
tim
Gulfstream Planeview Cockpit: "why have hundreds of buttons when a CCD does the same thing and more?"
GOT From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 885 times:
In addition to what Wietse said (excellent tutorial BTW) I have noticed that while looking at the camera LCD the brightness varies greatly depending on what angle you see it from. Try looking somewhat from above (pic brighter) and slightly from below (pic darker). This could make quite a difference and therefore I only look at the picture to judge composition and always use histogram to judge the exposure.
Good luck!
/Robert
Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!
Wietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 61 Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 857 times:
maybe check the exposure compensation??
That wouldn't matter. +2 will cause the image to be 2 stops brighter in the LCD review. -2 will cause it to be 2 stops darker in the LCD. The LCD shows the image how it is stored on the card.
Mfz From Germany, joined Aug 2004, 257 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 838 times:
@ Wietse
Great tutorial on the histogram-issue. Even if a.net has unfortunately lost people like Colin Work as a "teacher" on issues like this one recently it's great to see that there are still folks around that have the knowledge and are willing to share it! Thanks a lot for explaining in such detail. Well, and though I kept checking the histogram on and off before I will keep a closer eye on it in the furture.
Best regards,
Michael
BTW: The animated GIF is cool...
[Edited 2005-01-04 17:59:03]
Extra Bavariam non est vita et si est non est ita! --- My flights: http://my.flightmemory.com/mfz
Bapilot2b From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 927 posts, RR: 28 Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 793 times:
Hi Tim,
I know exactly what you mean, expiriencing it with my 10D (first DSLR) and it is alittle off putting. You say you was at MAN today? So was I, I think I know who you was, was you with somebody else? Nice to see yet another member from South Yorkshire!
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 18 Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 773 times:
Hi Jason,
I was at MAN on Monday, shooting on the grassy mound near the threshold to 24R taking landing shots.
I was with my Dad over there last Tues (28th) in the same place (in the rain) and earlier near the threshold of 24L when the weather was better.
Wherabouts in Rotherham are you from??? I live in Barnsley. I get across to MAN maybe once a month, but hopefully more in the near future. We should organise a meet sometime and maybe share some tips???
Wagz From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 484 posts, RR: 22 Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 765 times:
I've found that the LCD on the 300D shows images brighter than they are as well. This is with the LCD brightness at 3 (the middle level) and looking at it straight on.
I've just gotten used to knowing that it shows things brighter, and compensate for it. This was a rather intresting task when I went out taking night shots of my city on my tripod once.
That said, I've found that Paint Shop Pro 9, and probably Photoshop CS (as I don't use it) should have no problems correcting a slightly dark image.
Joe Wagner
I think Big Foot is blurry, Its not the photographers fault. Theres a large out of focus monster roaming the countryside
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2909 posts, RR: 63 Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 758 times:
Tim - was that you there at around 2 to 2-30pm with the black dog? If so it was me leaving at around the same time.
I have said before in the forum that I find all my images come out relatively underexposed, unless the shots are taken in bright sunlight. But I would agree with other comments in this thread that often they look fine when you view them on the camera LCD screen (at a normal setting). I tend to rely on post-processing to correct the levels, though a friend of mine (another 300D user) says he generally sets the exposure compensation to at least + one stop to cope with this. However I would also say that it is much better for the actual shot to be underexposed and then need correction than to try to deal with it in camera, and then get an overexposed shot which is not then 'rescuable' in post-processing.
Sulman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, RR: 42 Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 740 times:
I'd agree that the 300D's display shows brighter and more vibrant images than what you get on the monitor, but my old Powershot A40 used to do exactly the same thing - pictures always looked better 'on the back'.
Paul - I've found the opposite to be true with my 300D. The slightest hint of clean sunlight and I underexpose by 1/3 or 2/3, especially if the subject has any white on it. When I was new to the camera I had alot of blown highlights in good weather. The longest spell I've had shooting with no exposure compensation was my visit to MAN in July, when the sun was hiding.
Bapilot2b From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 927 posts, RR: 28 Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 727 times:
Hi Tim,
I live in Maltby, about 7 miles away from Robin Hood Airport. Theres a few of us in the area, would be great to meet up. Drop me an e-mail sometime : aviation@napuk.wanadoo.co.uk , or add me to your MSN with the e-mail address below V.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1399 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2004, 431 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, 
From Germany, joined Aug 2004, 257 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 484 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
