does the D30 metering system su......

Gary said:

sorry to reply to my own post, but:

I greatly apreciate and enjoy the philosophical discussion
generated here, but I would really like more answers to a single
question:

after reviewing the pictures I posted (noting the exposure
settings), do you think your own D30 would give similar results to
mine in the same situation?

Whether I agree with the metering design/philosophy or not I would
like to know if it is working as designed.

thanks again for all the great replies.

Gary

Click to expand...

Gary said:

thanks for the tip, I will try it

Gary

Doug Walker said:

Gary41969 said:

I certainly agree with a (slight) bias to underexposure since blown
out highlights are the absolute worst result. But in my experience,
it is often miles away from that, the upper half of the histogram
is often empty. And despite how good the D30 is on noise, you still
pick up significant noise when adjusting this far in PS. In fact,
in some of my tests, after compensating in PS, the noise level can
easily get to be about where it was with my Oly C2020.

Click to expand...

I picked up this tip here in this group a few days ago (can't
remember who posted it) for brightening images in PhotoShop. It
works better than Auto Levels or playing with brightness and
contrast. Here goes:
=====================================
"I used this process to lighten the dark photo that I found better
than levels: (Try it!) I even did it in action / batch mode and
completed 400 hundred piuctures in about 30 minutes with minimal
effort.
CORRECTING UNDEREXPOSED PICTURES WITH PHOTOSHOP

Correcting underexposed shots:

Follow along open your picture.

• Image/Duplicate/OK

• Image/Mode/Grayscale/OK

• Filter/Gaussian Blur ( give a factor 4.0) OK

• Now select your original file leaving the copy open

• Original selected:

• Select/Load Selection (Channel Black) Check Invert OK
• Edit Fill/ Use: 50% Gray / Opacity: 100% (experiment with it)

Mode: Color
Dodge (you can apply this more than once using different Opacity's)
That's it!!!
You can hide the selection (marching ants) from View/Hide Edges if
it bothers you looking at it but don't forget you have it hidden.
underexposure correction jtgraphics suggests is pretty
foolproof/automatic (go slow and follow all the steps). You can get
a similar effect with curves but it takes some experience (I would
stick with the Duplicated and Fill with Dodge method).
A couple of other things. If it does too much, use the "FADE" under
Filters in PS5.5 and Edit in PS6.0). If it is not enough then do
the fill a second time (this will certainly be too much, so fade it
-- probably to less than 20% remeber you are working between 100%
and 200% with the second fill ). The advantage of this over
refilling with different numbers is that you can see the effect as
you move the Fade slider.

Basically it is the same math as jtgraphics, but it gives you more
control and MORE importantly you keep everything in the same file
so you can do a one button."
=====================================
Try it you'll like it.

Doug Walker

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jim Dawson said:

On the step "Select/Load Selection (Channel Black), I only have the
option of selecting Channel Gray. It is the only selection
available. Also, "Fade" is always grayed out.

Thanks for any help.

Jim

Gary said:

thanks for the tip, I will try it

Gary

Doug Walker said:

Member said:

I certainly agree with a (slight) bias to underexposure since blown
out highlights are the absolute worst result. But in my experience,
it is often miles away from that, the upper half of the histogram
is often empty. And despite how good the D30 is on noise, you still
pick up significant noise when adjusting this far in PS. In fact,
in some of my tests, after compensating in PS, the noise level can
easily get to be about where it was with my Oly C2020.

Click to expand...

I picked up this tip here in this group a few days ago (can't
remember who posted it) for brightening images in PhotoShop. It
works better than Auto Levels or playing with brightness and
contrast. Here goes:
=====================================
"I used this process to lighten the dark photo that I found better
than levels: (Try it!) I even did it in action / batch mode and
completed 400 hundred piuctures in about 30 minutes with minimal
effort.
CORRECTING UNDEREXPOSED PICTURES WITH PHOTOSHOP

Correcting underexposed shots:

Follow along open your picture.

• Image/Duplicate/OK

• Image/Mode/Grayscale/OK

• Filter/Gaussian Blur ( give a factor 4.0) OK

• Now select your original file leaving the copy open

• Original selected:

• Select/Load Selection (Channel Black) Check Invert OK
• Edit Fill/ Use: 50% Gray / Opacity: 100% (experiment with it)

Mode: Color
Dodge (you can apply this more than once using different Opacity's)
That's it!!!
You can hide the selection (marching ants) from View/Hide Edges if
it bothers you looking at it but don't forget you have it hidden.
underexposure correction jtgraphics suggests is pretty
foolproof/automatic (go slow and follow all the steps). You can get
a similar effect with curves but it takes some experience (I would
stick with the Duplicated and Fill with Dodge method).
A couple of other things. If it does too much, use the "FADE" under
Filters in PS5.5 and Edit in PS6.0). If it is not enough then do
the fill a second time (this will certainly be too much, so fade it
-- probably to less than 20% remeber you are working between 100%
and 200% with the second fill ). The advantage of this over
refilling with different numbers is that you can see the effect as
you move the Fade slider.

Basically it is the same math as jtgraphics, but it gives you more
control and MORE importantly you keep everything in the same file
so you can do a one button."
=====================================
Try it you'll like it.

Doug Walker

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Brian S said:

If you are using the off camera cord on a
flash bracket and take the flash off to fit the camera in a case -
be aware of this. As I said, I am a pro and didn't even think of
this. To anyone using a flash setup, run some tests to see if you
remove your flash from the off-camera cord but still leave it on
the hot shoe - does it give inconsistant results.

Just curious if this is a 'well duh, and you call yourself a pro'
or a mistake others may have made or a clue to inconsistant
exposures.

Click to expand...

Brian S said:

Just thought I'd throw this one out there since we are talking
about getting correct exposure consistantly. I am a pro and shoot
daily with the Kodak DCS 560 (canon body) as well as the D30. My
father has a G1 and had very very inconsistant exposrue problems.
As an example, we tested the camera on a fixed subject, camera on
tripod, and in 10 shots in a row, several would be 'correct' and
several more were way way blown out (+1 to +4 or more stops
overexposed) After much frustration and a calibration check by
Canon, we concluded that the Canon off camera cord which was
attached to the hot shoe but DID NOT have a flash attached was the
cause of the problem. If you are using the off camera cord on a
flash bracket and take the flash off to fit the camera in a case -
be aware of this. As I said, I am a pro and didn't even think of
this. To anyone using a flash setup, run some tests to see if you
remove your flash from the off-camera cord but still leave it on
the hot shoe - does it give inconsistant results.

Just curious if this is a 'well duh, and you call yourself a pro'
or a mistake others may have made or a clue to inconsistant
exposures.

Click to expand...

IanJ said:

My D30 exposes just the same as yours. I sent it back to Canon for
recal because outside in bright daylight I felt it was
underexposing. When I got it back it was certainly better, however
it still renders pics like yours (indoor pics with/without 550EX).

Here's some test pics I took tonight, all with 28-135 & 550EX
(where used). It was late evening, dark outside, curtains drawn.
Btw, my rooms are not very well lit.

Anyway, here we go:-

Ambient pic, no flash, AV mode. Result: quite close to correct, but
slightly underexposed. This is due to the amount of white and light
coloured surfaces in the pic.



Manual mode, 1/20th and wide open. Well under-exposed. 550EX was
facing directly forward and obviously got reflection which confused
ETTL.



Same settings and pic as above but simply bounced the 550EX off the
white ceiling. Much better exposure. Exposure quite close, but
possibly slightly underexposed.



550EX, 1/60th & wide open. 550EX facing forward, good exposure.



No flash, AV mode. Full evaluative metering. Mega under-exposed due
to the amount of white content,



Same shot but spot metered off the rug in manual mode. Good exposure.



Hope that helps you!

Ian.

Gary said:

sorry to reply to my own post, but:

I greatly apreciate and enjoy the philosophical discussion
generated here, but I would really like more answers to a single
question:

after reviewing the pictures I posted (noting the exposure
settings), do you think your own D30 would give similar results to
mine in the same situation?

Whether I agree with the metering design/philosophy or not I would
like to know if it is working as designed.

thanks again for all the great replies.

Gary

Click to expand...

Click to expand...