E500 frustrations

[Yoddle Laheehoo]

Supposedly, setting WB with a white card should give good results.
I mostly shoot outdoors, so for me, "Cloudy" and "Sunny" work
pretty good.

Same here, I didn´t experience WB problems outdoor. Cloudy worked fine for me. It´s the Netherlands, so basically we only need cloudy WB since there isn´t a "rain" WB setting I haven´t figured out yet how to include an image in a posting so I cannot show the indoor picture with the wrong WB.

One thing I'd like to caution you about: It's quite possible that
the colors on the camera's LCD monitor will not look the same as
the colors on your desktop or on a print. After an extremely
frustrating exercise (I tried to find a WB setting to get the
correct colors of read and yeallow autum foliage during a sunset) I
decided that the camera LCD can only be used as a very rough
guide for evaluating color, and not at all for exposure.

Yes, I already found out. My pictures looked ok on the LCD but turned out to be underexposed in print. The histogram info did show the underexposure, though (all bars on the left side), so I use that information instead now to determin whether the exposure is good.

 

[Melbourne Park]

So, I've gathered from this thread that I really have to buy a WB card - is there an affordable one that's good and folds up?

 

[ExCibular]

ESP is not the most universal one, center weighted average is. ESP is specifically designed for highlight/contrast shooting and tends to overexpose/underexpose on pictures without big contrast differences.

This is exactly what ESP does and it is very predictable. For general purposes you may find better use when using center weighted average.

Well, ESP is supposed to be the most "universal" metering mode, so
you were correct in using it. But even ESP doesn't always know
which parts of the shot you want to pay more attention to, and
which parts to ignore.

If there's no strong contrast however, I tend to use
center-weighted metering. I found it to be more predictable than
ESP, because I know exactly what it does.

Spot meter gives you precise control. In effect, you're telling
the camera: "Make this point in the shot neutral-grey". So if you
happen to be pointing to a dark object, your shot will be
overexposed, and if it's a white object, the shot will be
underexposed. IIRC, E-500 has the "highlight-spot" and
"shadow-spot" modes, that let you tell the camera "make this object
dark" and "make this object light".

And of course, there's the method of checking the hystogram (and
blinking highlights/shadows), adjusting the exposure and
reshooting. This is by far most precise way.

 

[BorisK1]

ESP is not the most universal one, center weighted average is. ESP
is specifically designed for highlight/contrast shooting and tends
to overexpose/underexpose on pictures without big contrast
differences.

This is exactly what ESP does and it is very predictable. For
general purposes you may find better use when using center
weighted average.

From the E300 manual:
"Digital ESP metering ESP

The camera meters and calculates the light levels or light level differences in the center and other areas of the image separately. Recommended for shooting under conditions where there is high contrast between the center of the screen and the area around it, such as when shooting backlit subjects or under excessively bright light."

"Center weighted averaging metering

This metering mode provides the average metering between the subject and the background lighting, placing more weight on the subject at the center. Use this mode when you do not want the light level of background to affect the exposure value."

"Spot metering

The camera meters a very small area around the center of the subject, defined by the spot metering area mark in the viewfinder. Use this mode for intensively backlit subjects, etc."

So you're quite right on that one. Thank you!

Boris

 

[Yoddle Laheehoo]

From the E300 manual:
"Digital ESP metering ESP
The camera meters and calculates the light levels or light level
differences in the center and other areas of the image separately.
Recommended for shooting under conditions where there is high
contrast between the center of the screen and the area around it,
such as when shooting backlit subjects or under excessively bright
light."

"Center weighted averaging metering
This metering mode provides the average metering between the
subject and the background lighting, placing more weight on the
subject at the center. Use this mode when you do not want the light
level of background to affect the exposure value."

"Spot metering
The camera meters a very small area around the center of the
subject, defined by the spot metering area mark in the viewfinder.
Use this mode for intensively backlit subjects, etc."

So you're quite right on that one. Thank you!

Boris

I don´t really see the difference between ESP and Spot. I understand the text but would not know when to choose which method. For example, they seem both suitable for backlit subjects. Would it be too much to ask if someone can post 3 pictures of the same subject in teh same light situation shot with these 3 metering methods?

 

[Calico Cat]

Previous users such as grandp have complained about the WB.

Regarding exposure, the E-500 always undersposes flash pictures, you need to set flash compensation to +0.7 EV.

Metering for non-flash I have found to be pretty inconsistent. There is definitely a tendency in some scenes to underexpose. The metering on the E-500 is pretty weak.

I definitely can't count on the E500 metering to work right, I have to look at the histogram after taking the picture.

 

[Louis_Dobson]

I'm a computer and HiFi person rather than a digital photography expert, but it is clear to me that if the information is there on the Olympus screen, then it is in the file, so if it isn't in the print that's down to the PC screen and printer and / or how they are set.

I have my doubts about the whole Olympus idea: four thirds may be a dead end now full size sensors are coming down. However the E500 prices really are very attractive, I find the exposure and white balance spot on at least as often as with a D5, with far nicer handling, and overall it is Jolly Nice. Just have to remember not to blow too much dosh on glassware that may become obsolete...

 

[Inigo Montoya]

I have my doubts about the whole Olympus idea: four thirds may be a
dead end now full size sensors are coming down.

Don't be so sure -- when a Nikon fansite posts articles that support Olympus' claims about digital and lens design (i.e. getting the light to hit perpendicular to the sensor), we may be seeing the turning of the tide.

Ref: http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/body/FF_vs_DX_sized_sensors/index.html

 

[Calico Cat]

I have my doubts about the whole Olympus idea: four thirds may be a
dead end now full size sensors are coming down.

Canon is the only brand with full sized sensors. Nikon is commited to the smaller size.

The only way for smaller companies to compete in the DSLR market may be to join with 4/3.

Olympus had a press release saying they will put more emphasis on DSLR and less on compact cameras, so Olympus made a clear statement that it's 4/3 DSLR or bust.

 

[Melbourne Park]

Calico Cat wrote:
...

Canon is the only brand with full sized sensors. Nikon is commited
to the smaller size.

There are several digital camera companies who use sensors much larger than what Canon can deliver.

 

[Yoddle Laheehoo]

I'm a computer and HiFi person rather than a digital photography
expert, but it is clear to me that if the information is there on
the Olympus screen, then it is in the file, so if it isn't in the
print that's down to the PC screen and printer and / or how they
are set.

I am a computer person too. I agree that the data must be in the file if the E500 displays it on its display. But the level of detail that is shown on the display is not on my computer screen or on my prints (without processing the pictures). I have also seen replies in this thread that the E500 underexposes with indoor pictures. Couldn't it be that the camera is programmed in such a way that the pictures look good on the display and that the display's contrast and brightness settings differ significantly from most monitors and printers? That would explain why pictures look good on the display but not when they are exported out of the camera? A way to check this would be to shoot the same object under the same circumstances with different camera's in auto setting and than compare Aperture, Speed, WB and ISO for the different pictures.

 

[Calico Cat]

Canon is the only brand with full sized sensors. Nikon is commited
to the smaller size.

There are several digital camera companies who use sensors much
larger than what Canon can deliver.

Sorry, Canon is the only brand with full sized sensors except for companies making niche products costing many times more than a 5D

 

[BorisK1]

I'm pretty sure that the camera displays pictures LCD using something like auto-contrast (similar to auto-levels in Photoshop). Pretty much all cameras do that.

I'm a computer and HiFi person rather than a digital photography
expert, but it is clear to me that if the information is there on
the Olympus screen, then it is in the file, so if it isn't in the
print that's down to the PC screen and printer and / or how they
are set.

I am a computer person too. I agree that the data must be in the
file if the E500 displays it on its display. But the level of
detail that is shown on the display is not on my computer screen or
on my prints (without processing the pictures). I have also seen
replies in this thread that the E500 underexposes with indoor
pictures. Couldn't it be that the camera is programmed in such a
way that the pictures look good on the display and that the
display's contrast and brightness settings differ significantly
from most monitors and printers? That would explain why pictures
look good on the display but not when they are exported out of the
camera? A way to check this would be to shoot the same object under
the same circumstances with different camera's in auto setting and
than compare Aperture, Speed, WB and ISO for the different pictures.

 

[Yoddle Laheehoo]

Hello everybody,

I have monitored this forum for some time now, because I want(ed)
to buy the new E500. My local camerastore finally called last week
that an E500 had arrived (they are not widely available in the
Netherlands). The good thing is, he gave met the E500 to play with
during the weekend. The bad thing is that I tested it all weekend
and I am disppointed. I am about 100% sure that I am doing
something wrong, because I only see positive stories about the
E500, here. I experieced 2 major issues. White balance and dark
pictures. I tried to shoot a painting of colored squares on a white
background, on a white wall. Indoor with the room lit. All preset
white balance settings failed. As did the one button calibration,
as did the temperature settings (from 2000 to 14000K). Then I moved
the painting outdoor and I got perfect colors with the first shot
(preset WB Cloudy).

I found out how to upload pictures. I uploaded some with WB totally off. The filename indicates the color temperature. Goes from 2000K, where the white is blue, to 14000K, where the white is orange. I figured somewhere between 4000K en 6000K the white should appear, but it didn´t work. Maybe because of underexposure? I would welcome your comments and suggestions.
The url is: http://www.pbase.com/yoddle_laheehoo/messed_up_wb_pictures

 

[BorisK1]

I found out how to upload pictures. I uploaded some with WB totally
off. The filename indicates the color temperature. Goes from 2000K,
where the white is blue, to 14000K, where the white is orange. I
figured somewhere between 4000K en 6000K the white should appear,
but it didn´t work. Maybe because of underexposure? I would welcome
your comments and suggestions.
The url is:
http://www.pbase.com/yoddle_laheehoo/messed_up_wb_pictures

Look at this one:



http://www.pbase.com/yoddle_laheehoo/image/52663818

Near the middle, the background looks to be neutral grey, no visible cast.
At the top right, the light is visibly warmer.
At the bottom left, the light gets a bluish tint.

Could it be that you had some light coming from a window, and some - from a tugscen lamp? If so, there's no way to get good color balance.

 

[BorisK1]

I don´t really see the difference between ESP and Spot. I
understand the text but would not know when to choose which method.
For example, they seem both suitable for backlit subjects. Would it
be too much to ask if someone can post 3 pictures of the same
subject in teh same light situation shot with these 3 metering
methods?

Sorry - don't have anything handy. What you can do is point your camera at a bright light source, like a lamp, and move it side-to-side while watching the light meter in the viewfinder. The response in Spot mode should be different from ESP.

I think the difference shouldl be even more pronounced if you pick a dark object on light background.

 

[Denny Colvin]

I found out how to upload pictures. I uploaded some with WB totally
off. The filename indicates the color temperature. Goes from 2000K,
where the white is blue, to 14000K, where the white is orange. I
figured somewhere between 4000K en 6000K the white should appear,
but it didn´t work. Maybe because of underexposure? I would welcome
your comments and suggestions.
The url is:
http://www.pbase.com/yoddle_laheehoo/messed_up_wb_pictures

Oh, great, color patches on a white background. All you have to do is look at the histogram to see these are significantly underexposed. Shooting predominantly white backgrounds will fool ANY autoexposure system.

Of course, I don't know what this is SUPPOSED to look like, but a simple levels adjustment in Photoshop on the 5000 or 6000 WB looks reasonably normal to me.

Use Auto-WB, get the exposure right. You're making this far too complicated.

 

[Yoddle Laheehoo]

Could it be that you had some light coming from a window, and some

• from a tugscen lamp? If so, there's no way to get good color

balance.

Yes. The painting is near a window and there is also a light pointed at the painting. By "no way" you mean that it is impossible to shoot a realistic picture?

 

[Yoddle Laheehoo]

Oh, great, color patches on a white background. All you have to do
is look at the histogram to see these are significantly
underexposed. Shooting predominantly white backgrounds will fool
ANY autoexposure system.

Of course, I don't know what this is SUPPOSED to look like, but a
simple levels adjustment in Photoshop on the 5000 or 6000 WB looks
reasonably normal to me.

Use Auto-WB, get the exposure right. You're making this far too
complicated.

I started with the Auto settings. Then tried all the preset WB settings and then tried the color temperature settings. Nothing worked. It was my intention to test the Auto settings of the camera. I was not interested in the composition, but in the white balance and exposure (I borrowed the camera 2 days to test it). Anyway, it´s supposed to be color patches on a white painting, on a white wall, next to a window with a spotlight directed to it. Should I in such a case just get the exposure right and adjust the WB later during postprocessing?

 

[Yoddle Laheehoo]

Could it be that you had some light coming from a window, and some

• from a tugscen lamp? If so, there's no way to get good color

balance.

Yes. The painting is near a window and there is also a light
pointed at the painting. By "no way" you mean that it is impossible
to shoot a realistic picture?

I forgot to say that I am really impressed by your analysis. You told exactly what type of light came from which direction by looking at a picture.