400D underexposing, Screen badly calibrated or lousy photographer

If you took a photo of a subject that had one small region of bright light, and the 400d preserved the highlights of that small region thereby darkening the rest of the scene, would that exposure be considered "correct?"
--

My XTi doesnt do that, highlights, mid tones & shadows are placed just where they should be unless the subject is mostly light ar dark, then some ec is needed, just like every other camera.
Brian Schneider

It would be nice if Canon offered a base exposure compensation level in setup for the fully auto mode or even all modes. That way you could have hot metering by default like the XT, but safe exposures for those who don't want point and shoot metering.

I'd amend your words a little. Conservative exposure works very well with people who can use exposure compensation or people who post process.

JohnAugust said:

"Conservative exposure" works very well with people who PP, but it
hurts those who like bright images right out of the box. The 350d
(at default settings) and it's tendency to sometimes blow
highlights is a much better camera for people who want a DSLR that
takes photos just like the p&s with little or no PP. The 400d (at
default settings) is a better camera for those who are willing to
spend time post processing.

Click to expand...

I don't want to get into the "over" or "under" exposure debate too much, because often that's pretty subjective (although the IXUS shot does look possibly blown from the histogram). But I am a bit wary of the statement that the darker pics from the 400D are a result of purposely trying to preserve highlights.

There have been many many examples posted where the 400D exposes significantly less than the 350D even when there is no chance of blown highlights (e.g even test pictures of a completely white wall where the histogram is just a very narrow peak way to the left of centre.)

I still just think the 400D exposes a bit less in general. (Note I said exposes 'less' not 'underexposes'). High dynamic range pictures will always be difficult. I think for bright pictures outdoors the 400D preserves highlights nicely, but I think that's just a nice side-effect of the decreased sensitivity (presumably because of the extra 2MP?) Because it seems to be the same for indoor pics in low light, where there are no blown highlights.

I like the 400D image more then the sideways image from the IXus.

Is this the first picture you took with the 400D?

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com

--
Please drop by my bird galleries! (Other stuff, too!)
http://www.pbase.com/billko



Who, me???

Jeff Varszegi said:

... that the OP's subject line was truncated.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Maybe you did not Read The F Message before suggesting RTFM

Jeff Varszegi said:

What appeared to be
a statement about the camera underexposing was a question.

Click to expand...

What appeared to.... Whatever it was, reading the manual does not answer the OPs question. You may interpret parts of manual in whatever way you wish based on your knowledge and stubbornness, but the manual doesnt help anyone directly on the OPs queries

Jeff Varszegi said:

HOWEVER, the good advice "RTFM" still stands.

Click to expand...

Not in the context. There are millions of unrelated advises that you can give, but that wasn't asked for here. Though it holds for you if you read it as RTF Message

--
PicPocket

unbelievable but we agree today

These "underexposing" threads are hilarious... these people need to read some books about metering and exposure...

I agree for the books part (simply because it might be relevant here). Don't agree with the manual in this case though

--
PicPocket

400D looks good. P&S looks overexposed.

Drivel isnt a nice word.
Did you read the other posts?
My tests are very scientific actually. I do it for a living with electronics.

I dont own either, I would have liked to but I still like the 300D better. I have direct compared multiple copies at the same time.
The last part you wrote is basically identical to one of my earlier posts.
Drivel by both of us?

My numbers "plucked from the air" are more accurate than the ones you say are true to defend your 400D.

graviT

Green_Thark said:

graviT said:

The 400D is much less sensitive than the 350D and also under
exposes where the 350 tended to slightly over expose.

Click to expand...

The 400 isnt "much less" I find it is a "little less"

Green_Thark said:

If you shoot the same scene with the same exposure, the 400D is
going to be 2/3 to 1stop slower shutter compared to 350D. Losing
shutter is no fun.

Click to expand...

Again numbers plucked from the air, I find at most a 1/3 stop
difference usually less and I own both, do you actually own either?

Green_Thark said:

I was going to buy the 400D until i tested 3 of them in 2 different
stores with the same results.

Click to expand...

Very scientific lol

Green_Thark said:

graviT

Click to expand...

As to the origional question, I think the 400 pic could have done
with about a +1/3 EC which isn't unusual with so much sky in the
pic (would need more with a bright grey sky) and the ixus looks at
least a 1/3 over exposed, its hard to say because the highlights
are gone so you cant tell where they would have come back. There is
in reality no right and wrong in a picture you take for yourself
just what you do and dont find pleasing.

Click to expand...

Its perfect? how do you figure its perfect if the op thinks its too dark?

graviT

Brian D. Schneider said:

--Agreed, the XTi shot is perfect as is.
Brian Schneider

Click to expand...

Hello John,

Well, i guess i have just riled up those folks you speak of, its not going to matter what i say anymore.
The ixus is a completely different photo. Orientation is different.

The 400D folks like the 400D photo better even though they have no idea what the subject is.
Everything except the church and brick wall is dark.
The op likes the ixus photo better.

I told him there is nothing wrong with the camera and to use +ec and that it depends where he focuses for exposure.

I think the op is OK with me, just everyone else jumped on me without even reading my second post.
Im going to try to bow out of this slowly......

graviT

JohnAugust said:

I agree with you. I prefer the ixus photo over the 400d photo. Yes,
you lose some detail in the Ixus photo from overexposure in the
brick areas. But you lose even more detail in the harsh shadows of
the bridge in the 400d photo.

But once you factor in post processing, you can recover details in
the shadow of the 400d, but not the blown highlights of the Ixus
photo. I've post processed both and both look fine with minor curve
adjustments.

These pictures aren't exactly the same though. The difference in
orientation could make a difference in exposure. I'd be curious to
see how different these photos would look if the orientations were
identical.

This just goes to show how subjective proper exposure can be.
Factor in brand loyalty or the need to defend one's recent camera
purchase, and you'll get even more subjectivity.

Click to expand...

Its perfect? how do you figure its perfect if the op thinks its too dark?

The op clearly doesnt know a good exposure when he sees one.
--
Brian Schneider

We are just guessing the the church is the main subject like i said before.

The op didnt point the cameras at the church, it looks like he wanted a photo of the whole scene.

I alreadu said, the ixus over exposed a tiny bit, the 400D is quite under exposed.

graviT

jrynash said:

What's the color of the cathedral stone? Which shot betters
displays the details and color of the buildings?

The 400D shot is clearly superior in exposure, color and detail.

graviT said:

graviT

jrynash said:

graviT said:

All this talk about "oh you just shoot raw and post process with
Photoshop(which costs 300$ if you pay for it) and at least the
camera was smart enough to not clip that one little white rock at
the far left of the image.

Click to expand...

The 400D example shot in the OP looks fine. No need for anything
like Photoshop or PP at all.

It's the Ixus shot that's badly in need of some post processing help.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/pespen
--
Canon Digital Rebel XT and XTi (Silver and Black),Canon 10-22mm
lens,Canon
50mm 1.8 mkII
lens,Canon 35mm 2.0 lens,Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens,Canon 70-200mm
F/4L
lens,Canon 580EX
Flash,Lowepro
Micro Trekker 200 backpack

Click to expand...

How is the 400D not underexposed? What monitor do you have? Did you see the histogram? The brightest parts of the scene are no where near the right edge, and most of the rest of the scene is lumped up at the far left.

If the white shirt was the main subject I would not want it clipped and it wouldnt be because any camera pointed at a big white shirt will under expose it.
What if the bridge is the main subject? Thats where the OP pointed his camera.

Doesnt make sense even if you try a little bit? The ixus is slightly too bright, the 400D is more than slightly too dark.
The op likes the ixus better, he was wondering if his 400D is broken.

graviT

Jeff Varszegi said:

graviT said:

Hello jrynash,
Im just wondering what monitor do you have? are we seeing something
totally different?
The 400D is underexposed but not horrendously in this example,

Click to expand...

No, not underexposed.

Jeff Varszegi said:

the
Ixus might just barely have clipped a few stones but there is
nothing blown in it.

Click to expand...

The highlights are blown-- clipped = blown. This is the best
possible scenario for blown highlights, though-- the stones are
surrounded by darker mortice, so one could easily overlook the
blown highlights. In that sense it is the best-case scenario for
an assertion like yours, that blown highlights are okay. If it
were the white shirt of the main subject that the P & S had blown,
no one could agree with you.

Jeff Varszegi said:

400D looks a bit better because of the silky smooth big sensor and
darker image is easier on the eyes. Also because its so dark, the
only thing you can see is the Church which just luckily happens to
be the main subject. Its not better exposed though.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is. The highlights are not blown.

Jeff Varszegi said:

The ixus didnt
clip any clouds or blow the whole scene.

Click to expand...

You're correct-- the IXUS did not shoot a white frame. That's what
it means to blow the whole scene.

Jeff Varszegi said:

The 400D is darker than the ixus is bright.

Click to expand...

This statement doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

graviT said:

Hello John,
Well, i guess i have just riled up those folks you speak of, its
not going to matter what i say anymore.

Click to expand...

Just because the majority doesn't agree with you doesn't mean you've "riled up" anyone.

I don't agree with you, but I'm not riled up...I just think you're incorrect.

Myself, I don't like either photo. The scene you tried to capture has a little too much dynamic range for either camera, but you could possibly have done okay using the 400D in RAW and doing a little post processing. The IXUS clipped the highlights fairly badly, especially in the red and blue channels. For this particular scene, especially at the size you published it at, the clipping doesn't detract too badly, but if you exposed a person up close this way I doubt you'd find the results appealing. The 400D couldn't capture the entire dynamic range of the image either, and shows a small amount of clipping in the red channel on the highlights, and slight clipping in the blue channel for the shadow detail. In this instance, the 400D did a better job of capturing the available light, but the visual results may or may not be what you desired.

It appears to me that your 400D is working correctly. It doesn't appear however it's doing what you want it to do. I'd suggest reading up on how the camera meters exposure so you can better learn how to predict and control how it exposes the scene. In this instance you could have easily had the camera meter more for the shadows, but of course would have lost some of the highlights in the process. You might also want to study up on high dynamic range images, and possibly learn about RAW. Shooting in RAW and doing a little post processing would most likely have resulted in your getting an image you could have been proud of, even even if you had chosen to blown it up to a larger size.

Good luck learning about your new camera....

Well no it is not my first photo, but I admit it is one of my first 100 photos.

Whereas photos with small dynamic range are quite nice, this photo seemd strange to me because I would thing that I should obtain a photo that does not "hide" this details, and when compared to the Ixus I was extremely suprised.

Also, all photos with shadows and a blue sky, have the same effect. Like if the shadows are always a bit dark so that the sky does not get overexposed

I suppose that I should try to shoot raw, and see what I can get out of it.

Thank you all for feedback

PS : OP (that's me) did not point either the church, neither the bridge as subject (photo is not a crop) but he does not remember which focus point was selected by the camera.

Also OP is very new to DSLR and hence he does RTFM, but the FM does not explain everything.

Paul De Bra said:

abeverat said:

Thanks for your answers, but I still have my question. Is my camera
not good, or should I learn to shoot better photos ?

I am not sure that here in europe I can send it back and get
another copy of the camera in case it is the well known
underexposure problem.

Thanks everyone

Alex

Click to expand...

--
Slowly learning to use the DRebel (only around 26.000 shots) and
now also the Fuji F11.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .

Click to expand...

The 400D is OK.I did test my 400D with my 10D(sold) and it was max 1/4 underexposed.Nothing wrong with that.Since the 350D overexpose by 1/3 and the 400D under expose by lets say 1/4 we could understand how people with 350D are saying about 2/3 under expose.check at

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=20577573