Reading mode: Light Dark

Go ahead... convince me the XTi (400D) got this right!

Go to last post
Here's your problem in the first photo:



Even at these exposure settings, the pumpkin is already clipping badly in the red channel. You couldn't really ask the camera to be exposing any more in auto mode, could you!

Chip
 
Alain D said:
First shot looks great to me - foreground nicely lit without
blowing details
Click to expand...
Its a bright sunny day - look at the strong shadows. I prefer it like this:



Chip
 
Overall, the brigtened pic looks ok

Looking at pumpkins, the brighter pic has the ridges washed out... it kind of reflects harshly.

Based on which of the above I want, I would shoot accordingly. If I ever want to crop and keep the central part of image, I will not shoot with +ive compensation; if you try it will be difficult for you to get the first picture back from your edited one

--
PicPocket
 
400d is not compact, Canon suggested that most people buying 400D will not use full auto mode too much, they will try to take more from photography, and most likely those people will use some post processing. The idea of Canon is not lost any details, camera is always trying to keep all information in a picture. If you want to use full auto mode, buy Nikon compact, they are the best in automatic shooting. Another 100£ and full auto compact is yours. Personally I would prefer to avoid burned highlights. If you want more natural look for this image use Shadows/Highlights feature in Adobe or some of Dynamic range compression algorithms. This is the old dilemma how to hide an elephant in a matches box... Dynamic range is too big and either your image is darker or highlights are burned.
 
PicPocket said:
I agree. If you look at the two chopper pics, you will notice a
strong flash reflection in the G6 pic thats nowhere in the XTi pic.
The composition seems different

Also, have you checked the ETTL-II custom function (evaluative v/s
average) for flash exposure. Many people are not happy with the
default evaluative mode

I for myself find using flash effectively quite difficult (hope to
learn soon)

--
PicPocket
Click to expand...
The flash definitely fired. All my shots are underexposed... this is just two examples... one flash... one not.
 
I was not suspecting whether the flash fired. It surely wasn't equally strong in both the pictures and I was suggesting reasons for that (one for sure is the distance from the chopper)
secheese said:
PicPocket said:
I agree. If you look at the two chopper pics, you will notice a
strong flash reflection in the G6 pic thats nowhere in the XTi pic.
The composition seems different

Also, have you checked the ETTL-II custom function (evaluative v/s
average) for flash exposure. Many people are not happy with the
default evaluative mode

I for myself find using flash effectively quite difficult (hope to
learn soon)

--
PicPocket
Click to expand...
The flash definitely fired. All my shots are underexposed... this
is just two examples... one flash... one not.
Click to expand...
--
--
PicPocket
 
secheese said:
jrynash said:
What auto focus (matrix metering) points did the camera use for
each shot?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The AF points used for the shot are important. Which ones were used?
secheese said:
secheese said:
Did flash fire on the first shot or just the second?
Click to expand...
Nope.
secheese said:
On the second one: what flash (in camera or external flash) was used?
Click to expand...
430EX
Click to expand...
Think again, not for a hanger that size.
secheese said:
secheese said:
BTW. The first one looks great and well exposed to me. The second
one probably suffered a bit from the inverse square law of light
from your flash: the flash was just not powerful enough for such a
large room?
Click to expand...
Again... 430EX. Plenty of power.
secheese said:
Nevertheless, even the second shot is usable...and not bad the way
it is.
Click to expand...
My P&S G6 would've made easy work of the second shot, and it's 1/3
of the price. :)
Click to expand...
I challenge you to prove that G6 claim in that hanger with that lighting.
 
secheese said:
Oak and Acorn said:
Just out of curiousity, can you post your son's shot from the G6?
I'd be interested to see it.
Click to expand...
Here it is... amazing, eh? And the G6 is 1/3 the cost of the XTi.
Click to expand...
Actually, it looks horrible. The lighting it uneven and way to harsh on the copter door. It's also quite soft.

You do realize that the G6 shot is significantly closer to the copter, no?
 
secheese said:
PicPocket said:
I agree. If you look at the two chopper pics, you will notice a
strong flash reflection in the G6 pic thats nowhere in the XTi pic.
The composition seems different

Also, have you checked the ETTL-II custom function (evaluative v/s
average) for flash exposure. Many people are not happy with the
default evaluative mode

I for myself find using flash effectively quite difficult (hope to
learn soon)

--
PicPocket
Click to expand...
The flash definitely fired. All my shots are underexposed... this
is just two examples... one flash... one not.
Click to expand...
Your first shot looks great. The second shot suffers from a area that's too large for your flash.

The G6 shot looks horrible. Harsh, uneven lighting and soft.
 
  • You think that the first photo, which is perfectly fine, is no good which indicates that you don't know a good photo when you see one.
  • You think the G6 shot, which is quite bad, is good which indicates you don't know a bad photo when you see one.
  • You think a flash should be able to illuminate to infinity which indicates you don't understand how lighting works.
  • You think because a camera cost $900 that you should be able to put it on full auto mode and it should produce your idea of a perfect photo no matter what the conditions or the subject or the setting. This indicates you don't have any understanding of photography whatsoever.
  • You don't seem to want to listen to the advice of talented photograhpers who offer their advice to you.
You have many "issues" here that indicate your $900 would have been better spent on some photography lessons. Is there any chance you can return you XTi for a refund and go get some training?
 
On my monitor, the door on that chopper look like it blew out the highlights. I wouldn't be happy with that shot because I can't go back and recover the data from the door.
secheese said:
Oak and Acorn said:
Just out of curiousity, can you post your son's shot from the G6?
I'd be interested to see it.
Click to expand...
Here it is... amazing, eh? And the G6 is 1/3 the cost of the XTi.

Click to expand...
--
John from Southern California
http://www.pbase.com/domdom
http://www.pbase.com/johnrweb/favorite

F707 and 300D
 
I think that situation can be also quite opposite:
  • maybe that's you, who in the end can be dishonest with the poster, actually knowing little about him. In some other threads, I could even see ppl being arrogant to poster, who shoots for some 15 years with DSLR, and just dared to ask, why some of 400D photos look underexposed to him. Such attitude does not help anyone.
  • some self called gurus here know nothing better, than simply suggesting to stay with p&s. Thank's god there are other ones, who try to explain the situation with eventually underexposed images.
  • yes, G6 photo si not good, and 400D ones posted here, are probably not so bad, at least the first one is adequate (dunno precisely, as me, neither you, was there!), but seems mostly ok. But - there was many other photos posted, which were simply off.
  • if you think, that good advice = create special theory for each single image to explain yourself, why it turned out that way, and why eventual 1% of close to white pixels can influence overall image, well then. But as for me, I don't want to check, if there is not eventually fly sitting on my table, which eye reflection could darkent my photo :-)) Well, exagerrating here, but ...
I just wonder - you surely are a DSLR owner. Have you held 400D? Because I did, twice, for 20 minutes. Not much, but I could see it underexposing too ... So, if you don't own 400D or actually never held one, save your advices, please, because maybe even yourself, comparing 400D to your current, DSLR would be surprised.

I think, that even Phil admitted, there are some underexposure problems. What ppl probably expected is, that it would be explained - when that happens, and why that happen, or even if problem really exist or it is just matter ofconsistent, but different metering Canon chose for new model...

friendly,
Petr
 
xxxxxxx
 
The 400d does suffer from "occasional under-exposure" but the 3 photos you posted thus far do not represent that effect. As others have mentioned, the 400d performed well in those photos preserving highlights (as much as possible).

A brighter exposure in your pumpkin photo would have blown out the pumpkins completely. That scene would've been properly exposed with a legitmate use of EC.

Underexposure in you second photo, as others have mentioned, was the result of poor flash use.

I would suggest taking more time to get acclimated with your camera before posting more "examples" as it undermines the credibility of those who actually have underexposure concerns.
 
I was rather surprised by your answer here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=20493915

when you actually DEFENDED the 400D choice of metering. :)

Overall, I think people are mixing several issues together : (i) flash underexposure in auto mode to protect background (which is a non-issue for me) (ii) auto metering to protect highlights (again non-issue for me) (iii) reduced sensor sensitivity.

The third point is quite a problem as I discussed several weeks ago before Phil published his reviews:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=20236089

I still suspect this has something to do with the anti-dust layer on top of the AA filter. Probably the sensor was developed and characterized before the anti-dust layer was laid down.

Anyway, if this issue does not surface when the 30D upgrade is released, we will know for sure it was a genuine mistake on Canon's part (which they'll NEVER admit, of course).

This is why I am still holding back upgrading the 350D. :) I want (i) even better autofocus than what's on the 400D (ii) even better noise characteristics due to improved sensor design, not any software thing (iii) even better dynamic range.

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com
 
thw said:
I was rather surprised by your answer here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=20493915

when you actually DEFENDED the 400D choice of metering. :)
Click to expand...
I don't know why you are surprised.

My 400D was underexposing much worse than most of the images I see around here. So I questioned whether my 400D was working properly.

Perhaps you thought this was some personal campaign of mine to rubbish all 400D's? You certainly seemed to react that way.

As you can see from the quote above, it was not.

Personally I do think this image could do with a little help from Photoshop. But I don't think the camera has done a bad job at all given the brightness of the pumpkins.

Chip
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top