Linco22 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1380 posts, RR: 17 Posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1624 times:
Hey all,
Hope everyone is well this Friday! Just looking some advice on exposure. I'm finding that the majority of my photos have incorrect exposure. I dont really tamper with the expsosure setting on my 350D. When I'm shooting in good sunlight(like the picture below), I have my camera on Av, in and arounf f9 or there abouts depending on conditions. I have this photo in the que at the moment and was hopin if someone could tell if this is indeed over exposed? My kit is Canon 350D, and a 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 USM lens. EXIF is below
Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT
Shooting Date/Time
11/09/2005 12:23:51
Shooting Mode
Aperture-Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/250
Av( Aperture Value )
10.0
Metering Mode
Evaluative Metering
Exposure Compensation
-1/3
ISO Speed
100
Lens
100.0 - 300.0mm
Focal Length
230.0mm
Fly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 10 Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1574 times:
Hi Colin,
the plane itself is not overexposed, I would say oversharpened. However the building in the back is blown out and draws eyes away from the subject. You should have masked the building when adjusting your levels. Just my .
G-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1209 posts, RR: 10 Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 1516 times:
Alternatively use tv and compensate down.
I doubt the exposure meter is done for. If you suspect it is, take a non aviaition image, normal daylight and see how it's coming out. This should give you some idea.
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1508 times:
Quoting ChrisH (Reply 3): I think the exposure meter might be broken, you've even compensated down 1/3 and its still overexposed.
Probably not the case. This thread should answer all of your questions about failure of the in-camera metering system...
Aerlingus330 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 834 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1497 times:
Hey Colin,
I knew that I recognized that factory/background somewhere before...Belfast City Airport (BHD) Right?
If so, did you take the Picture on the footbridge or in the old airport car parking lot?
ChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 18 Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1466 times:
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 5): Probably not the case. This thread should answer all of your questions about failure of the in-camera metering system...
You mean the thread I posted in 3 times? And it has nothing to do with failing light meters. lol
I would still like to see the original file, perhaps he used autolevels or similar, cause if it came out that way from the camera, and it's not broken, then Canons are worse than I thought
Sorry Chris, I did notch it down myself -1/3, my mistake! I remember shooting that day and I think I only fiddled with it on that occassion. Thanks for the advice guys, just need to wait for the rejection......
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 16 Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1454 times:
Hi Colin,
I find that livery is an absolute sod to photo. Very difficult to get the colours looking anything like correct. I think that they are OK in your shot by and large, but the top of the aircraft is a little light and also the leading edge of the wings and around the engines hints at slight overexposure. The factory in the background is way overexposed, which is another indicator of the shot being overexposed generally. Due to the metering (I'm assuming it's the same on the 350D to my 300D), the effect you would normally expect in a situation like that is for the factory to be exposed more correctly and the plane to look a bit dark.
I'm surprised that using some exposure compensation didn't appear to make much difference though. I often have to compensate by -1/3 in strong light and in poor light my Canon is terrible. It way underexposes. My dad's Minolta Dynax 5 is a thousand times better at metering. With the Canon it's a bit of a guessing game at times.
Linco22 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1380 posts, RR: 17 Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1442 times:
Tim,
Yeah that old BMI livery is a pain in the backside most of the time! 75% of BMI movements at BHD are with the A321 so chances of gettin the new livery is sometimes slim. I'm not even sure what my metering is set to I must check. I guess it'll be another one for the personal collection
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1437 times:
Quoting ChrisH (Reply 7): You mean the thread I posted in 3 times? And it has nothing to do with failing light meters.
It doesn't?! Maybe you should read the thread again. It clearly discusses the failure and shortcomings of Canon's in-camera metering system and metering system alternatives.
Quoting ChrisH (Reply 7): if it came out that way from the camera, and it's not broken, then Canons are worse than I thought
Do ya think?! I could have told you this after the first post.
I have been plagued by metering errors with my 300D.
Your exposure problems are probably not any fault of your own. You probably should think about investing in a incident meter and/or gray card to assist with proper metering. I am getting a 350D in a couple weeks. I am not going to make the same mistake that I made with my 300D (trusting the in-camera metering). I am getting an incident meter.
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 16 Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1415 times:
It's interesting that this seems to be a problem with all Canons and not just the 300D. You'd have thought that it would have been improved on the 350D and 20D.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1380 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, 
.
From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2462 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
