Xti exposure. For whatever it's worth...

keithk42 · Feb 10, 2007

Even though the Xti is my first dslr, I've had 4 digital cameras with manual controls over the past 5 years.

I got my Xti a little over a month ago. My initial reaction was that a lot of my pictures seemed on the dark side (I won't use the "u" word). Mostly indoor, but some outdoor as well.

I don't use the "auto" mode. I have gotten to the point, that I am for the most part getting pictures to expose the way I'd like them to be by adjusting the settings on the camera. There were still times however when I thought the darkness of the shots didn't seem right.

My personal feeling was that as long as my camera wasn't "broken" I was ok with fine tuning adjustments to get my pictures to look the way I want. If I was making adjustments to compensate for something that was wrong with the camera, that was different.

I bought my camera at a locally owned camera shop. The staff there is very knowledgable and has always been very helpful. I decided to stop by this morning and ask thier opinion.

I took some shots inside the store and discussed what I thought of the shots. The guy helping me, told me what to do to in order to make the shots I took, look more the way I wanted them to. In one situation he had me increase the ISO, in one he said I had an unrealistic expectation of the onboard flash, in one case I had pinged on something bright which made the rest of the shot look dark. Ultimately he gave me a few pointers and in every situation was able to get a lot nicer looking picture than I was. We took some pictures outside in the parking lot as well with basically the same results.

He said I was being "very" critical of the exposure, which was great, but that it basically took some practice to get the camera to do what I wanted it to do. He said that every camera has it's peculiarities and in order to get shots the way that I wanted to see them, that I basically had to be in tune with my camera and learn how to take control of it.

There was no motivation for him to convice me my camera was fine when it wasn't. He was very sincere. He also in just a few minutes gave me a lot of good advice that will help me take better pictures.

I left feeling much better. I think I was being "hyper sensitive" because of the "over exposure" of this issue. (Sorry, couldn't resist).

The skinny is that I'm at a point with my photography where I know what I want my pictures to look like, but don't have the experience to make that happen as often as I'd like.

These are just my own personal thoughts as it relates to my particular camera.

I can understand where some people would expect more out of the "auto" mode. I also understand that there may be defective cameras out there.

It kind of bothered me to see people get fired on so hard to "learn how to use their camera." After spending some time to do just that and also seeing someone with more experience use my camera... I'd have to say point taken.

Keith

Sandman · Feb 10, 2007

keithk42,

Well said. Like you, I think there are defective cameras out there and these simply need to be sent back to Canon or the retailer for a replacement. Once you are sure you have a "good" camera, the rest is up to you. DSLRs are not simply expensive prosumer digicams. There are fundamental differences that make auto performance quite different between the two types of cameras. I've said it before and I'll say it again ~ you will get BETTER auto performance from the average digicam than with a DSLR.

But once you tame this beast, the image quality and level of creative control cannot be touched by the BEST of the prosumer digicams. I like the tone, spirit and theme of your post. I hope it will inspire others.

All the best,

jim

wrote:

keithk42 said:
Even though the Xti is my first dslr, I've had 4 digital cameras
with manual controls over the past 5 years.

I got my Xti a little over a month ago. My initial reaction was
that a lot of my pictures seemed on the dark side (I won't use the
"u" word). Mostly indoor, but some outdoor as well.

I don't use the "auto" mode. I have gotten to the point, that I am
for the most part getting pictures to expose the way I'd like them
to be by adjusting the settings on the camera. There were still
times however when I thought the darkness of the shots didn't seem
right.

My personal feeling was that as long as my camera wasn't "broken" I
was ok with fine tuning adjustments to get my pictures to look the
way I want. If I was making adjustments to compensate for
something that was wrong with the camera, that was different.

I bought my camera at a locally owned camera shop. The staff there
is very knowledgable and has always been very helpful. I decided
to stop by this morning and ask thier opinion.

I took some shots inside the store and discussed what I thought of
the shots. The guy helping me, told me what to do to in order to
make the shots I took, look more the way I wanted them to. In one
situation he had me increase the ISO, in one he said I had an
unrealistic expectation of the onboard flash, in one case I had
pinged on something bright which made the rest of the shot look
dark. Ultimately he gave me a few pointers and in every situation
was able to get a lot nicer looking picture than I was. We took
some pictures outside in the parking lot as well with basically the
same results.

He said I was being "very" critical of the exposure, which was
great, but that it basically took some practice to get the camera
to do what I wanted it to do. He said that every camera has it's
peculiarities and in order to get shots the way that I wanted to
see them, that I basically had to be in tune with my camera and
learn how to take control of it.

There was no motivation for him to convice me my camera was fine
when it wasn't. He was very sincere. He also in just a few
minutes gave me a lot of good advice that will help me take better
pictures.

I left feeling much better. I think I was being "hyper sensitive"
because of the "over exposure" of this issue. (Sorry, couldn't
resist).

The skinny is that I'm at a point with my photography where I know
what I want my pictures to look like, but don't have the experience
to make that happen as often as I'd like.

These are just my own personal thoughts as it relates to my
particular camera.

I can understand where some people would expect more out of the
"auto" mode. I also understand that there may be defective cameras
out there.

It kind of bothered me to see people get fired on so hard to "learn
how to use their camera." After spending some time to do just that
and also seeing someone with more experience use my camera... I'd
have to say point taken.

Keith

--
Shoot more, ***** less!
galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/sandman3
photography workshop schedule at:
http://www.pbase.com/sandman3/schedule

eyecatcher · Feb 11, 2007

I echo what the Sand Man says, .......A very good post, and wise words from your man at the photo shop.............Bryon

Language Lab · Feb 11, 2007

Well done. I have been learning to live with 400D too and sometimes, the "underexposure" has actually helped.

m1ks · Feb 11, 2007

I think you've highlighted a very very important and valid point in your thread, (nice to see one that isn't moaning about the 'U' issue).

You stated:

The skinny is that I'm at a point with my photography where I know what I want my pictures to look like, but don't have the experience to make that happen as often as I'd like.

This really is the crux of the problem for most, most are coming from a P&S which is designed to do what it thinks is best for you, kind of like growing up into adulthood.

You start with parents to tell and do things that are best for you because they want you to get good results then you reach a point where you have to adjust the settings and make the decisions for yourself because sittig back and hoping something or someone else will do it for you doesn't necessarily yield the desired results.

In my opinion too many people get an SLR (yes this used to happen with film too), and expect it to turn out stunning dazzling and astounding beautifully exposed, saturated and well composed shots, of course seeing nice galleries helps to put this idea in peoples heads because they see a beautiful image and 'shot with Canon EOS XTi and Canon 10-22L' for example, of course they don't see the 'oh yeah and 1.5 hours of expert PS manipulation and tweaks' bit that generally comes afterwards.

Your camera has a metering tool which most need to learn to use, it's not a mind reading tool. (yes i'm aware that there may be an actual issue on some bodies),

keithk42 · Feb 11, 2007

Thanks for the positive feedback on the post. This is such a touchy issue that I wasn't sure how it would be taken.

I've wanted to chime in on some of the other posts, but wanted to wait until I was really sure about how I felt.

Keith

lexscripta · Feb 11, 2007

How do you know it wasn't someone from this forum, with an eye toward proving a point?

Auto-Mode is just that - Auto mode. It ought to deliver real world expectations - otherwise take the option of

"Auto-Mode" away. I bet have you'd have a lot less of us lowly P&S guys buying the camera. Maybe we'd jump ship to a camera that gives more of what MOST of the world expects, like Nikon

Auto-Mode means - "Point and Shoot" to most peoples way of thinking.

Interesting all of the gymnastics people are willing to perform to convince sensible people otherwise.

UNDEREXPOSURE is a problem with this camera.

UNDEREXPOSURE! UNDEREXPOSURE! UNDEREXPOSURE!

OK, maybe Auto Mode produces pictures that are too dark - too dark, too dark!

Hope my tone is loved and appreciated - It made me feel so warm on the inside to hear how many people agreed with the poster.

LexScripta

BanderSnatchReverb · Feb 11, 2007

He said that every camera has it's peculiarities and in order to get shots the way that I wanted to see them, that I basically had to be in tune with my camera and learn how to take control of it.

Give that person a cigar!
--
Livin' the blues, one note at a time

keithk42 · Feb 11, 2007

lexscripta said:
How do you know it wasn't someone from this forum, with an eye
toward proving a point?

Auto-Mode is just that - Auto mode. It ought to deliver real world
expectations - otherwise take the option of
"Auto-Mode" away. I bet have you'd have a lot less of us lowly P&S
guys buying the camera. Maybe we'd jump ship to a camera that gives
more of what MOST of the world expects, like Nikon Auto-Mode
means - "Point and Shoot" to most peoples way of thinking.

Interesting all of the gymnastics people are willing to perform to
convince sensible people otherwise.

UNDEREXPOSURE is a problem with this camera.

UNDEREXPOSURE! UNDEREXPOSURE! UNDEREXPOSURE!

OK, maybe Auto Mode produces pictures that are too dark - too dark,
too dark!

Hope my tone is loved and appreciated - It made me feel so warm on
the inside to hear how many people agreed with the poster.

LexScripta

LexScripta,

What strikes me about your post is your tone. It's argumentative. The capalitized words and exclamation points come across as screaming. You state your opinion as if it's fact. It comes off as very defensive.

All I did was try to articulate my own personal feelings as they relate to my own particular camera. I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything.

I can appreciate everyone's opinion and perspective (yours included) whether I personally agree or not.

If I was as displeased as you are about the camera, I would either return it, or have never bought it in the first place and moved on.

Keith

lexscripta · Feb 11, 2007

BanderSnatchReverb said:
He said that every camera has it's peculiarities and in order to
get shots the way that I wanted to see them, that I basically had
to be in tune with my camera and learn how to take control of it.

Alot of these comments are almost like red herring arguments. If someone states that the Auto Mode has a problem with under-exposing - or at least being too dark, then certain folks start the lecture about not knowing how to use proper foregrounds, backgrounds, lighting and all manner of very valid points - if talking about MANUAL mode, or AP, or SP modes. They completely disregard the fact that the issue is the AUTO MODEs.

Auto-Mode is just that. There are no adjustments - Point and Shoot, by definition is what Auto Mode is. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect a decently exposed image - an image that most people would expect to be "decent" Not dark, not blown highlights the majority of the time. Not superb, mind blowing beauty - Just decent. Even the 30D does that, I am told.

I am fortunate. After having the camera for nearly 2 weeks, the retailer is letting me return it. Reason: UNDEREXPOSURE. After looking at the camera shots in the store, even they realize and understand that an AUTO MODE camera should act very similar to a P&S camera, as this is the public perception of what auto-mode is.

Fine - You want to be Xti gurus, and not use AUTO, and never look at it, thats your business. But there are people that want the camera to work as advertised, and I would venture to say that Canon isn't going to tell the P&S crowd that Auto-Mode won't satisfy them while they are learning the advanced features of the camera.

I have read the definitions of proper exposure arguments concerning this issue, and the problem is, I agree - but I do not agree with those arguments when we are talking about a Point and Shoot mode. Thats where the rules of Photography become "bent". Or at least thats what it has been in the past. If this rule has changed - then the manufacturer should have warned us. As it is, I imagine that many people will believe what has been said in this forum, that they are the problem, and not the camera. This is good for Canon. But thats not playing fair.

Do I smell class action Lawsuit? We shall see. I would jump on board for that one, unless Canon fesses up, and gives the consumer a fix...

For you folks that recognize that this is a problem, I suggest referring to it as the P&S mode of the Xti in any future discussions. It clarifies a lot.

Don't want to call it P&S mode? Show some Canon literature that states otherwise. If no such definition or explanation exists, one way or another, it is safe for people to assume what they always have - AutoMode is just like Point and Shoot. If no such lterature exists, It would be difficult for jurisprudance to ignore such preponderance of common perception.

LexScripta.

jrynash · Feb 11, 2007

lexscripta said:
BanderSnatchReverb said:

He said that every camera has it's peculiarities and in order to
get shots the way that I wanted to see them, that I basically had
to be in tune with my camera and learn how to take control of it.

Click to expand...

Alot of these comments are almost like red herring arguments. If
someone states that the Auto Mode has a problem with under-exposing

or at least being too dark, then certain folks start the lecture

about not knowing how to use proper foregrounds, backgrounds,
lighting and all manner of very valid points - if talking about
MANUAL mode, or AP, or SP modes. They completely disregard the fact
that the issue is the AUTO MODEs.

Can you please explain to me why I don't have any problems with my XTi producing very nice, well exposed photos in auto mode?

You seem to be arguing that all XTis are defective and unusable in auto modes. I know that's not true because mine works just fine in auto modes. I don't use them all the time. But when I do use the auto modes they work as I expect and produce good images.

lexscripta · Feb 11, 2007

It's argumentative...

Well, it has been an argument for quite awhile now.

Water off a ducks back, thats how I see it. I hope you do too.

You were simply fooled. Thats all. Not your fault. The fact is, there is a problem with the camera, if only by definition. Canon should have told people that they could not rely on AutoMode as a point and shoot style setting.

Is it true that the camera can be managed by a very well trained person? You bet. It takes beautiful images. Thats not the issue. The issue is AutoMode output being too dark, or underexposed, in the majority of the cameras in view of commonly held perceptions as to how Auto Mode is supposed to function. If that is not how this camera works - then the manufacturer should come out and say so. That is, if AutoMode gives a different result than what people would normally expect, then that should be clearly disclosed in the advertising of the camera. Further, I think it could be demonstrated that Canon knew, or should have known, that this would be an issue with a large section of consumers...

Well, I don't mind. I got to return mine, as I have no idea what the deal is with the camera. Maybe all this will go away, and it will turn out that it is working perfectly. I don't care. I don't have confidence in the camera... Water off a ducks back.

I will probably get a 30d

... I have seen some good user reviews on that one - and no heated discussions about under-exposure. Hmmm, I wonder why?

Argumentative? Well, maybe a little - The shouting was geared toward people who were calling it the "U" word. I just was being a little bit ornery and using the word. PC isn't fashionbable anymore... Haven't you heard?

In any event, if I offended you, please accept my apology. No reason to do that. No right to either.

LexScripta

lexscripta · Feb 11, 2007

Can you please explain to me why I don't have any problems with my XTi producing very nice, well exposed photos in auto mode?

You got a good one, I suppose.

LexScripta

lexscripta · Feb 11, 2007

But maybe not... I am taking your word for it.

Go into your living room and snap off a few P&S shots of your cat, full auto and lets see what you get...

LexScripta

jrynash · Feb 11, 2007

lexscripta said:
But maybe not... I am taking your word for it.

Go into your living room and snap off a few P&S shots of your cat,
full auto and lets see what you get...

LexScripta

Not my idea of great photos and I don't have a cat, but I do have a kid and these two were taken just a few minutes ago in full "green box" auto mode in our family room. Look alot like a P&S, don't ya think?

lexscripta · Feb 11, 2007

Yes, well, if I could get those results with mine, I think that I would consider the camera to be working more closely to what it should be. ANd, no - not ideal, however, Point - and shoot

The vast majority of people having problems would be happy if they got those results...

What were "automodes" you were using?

LexScripta

lexscripta · Feb 11, 2007

oops, I see you said full green box - that is nice, Mine wont do that in a million years - unless Canon fixes it!

There must be a batch of bad cameras - you apparently got a good one.

Someone suggested taking down serial numbers. Here is mine:

0420103081

jrynash · Feb 11, 2007

lexscripta said:
Yes, well, if I could get those results with mine, I think that I
would consider the camera to be working more closely to what it
should be. ANd, no - not ideal, however, Point - and shoot

The vast majority of people having problems would be happy if they
got those results...

What were "automodes" you were using?

The "green mode" full auto.

Marshallj25 · Feb 11, 2007

keithk42 wrote:
s.

keithk42 said:
He said I was being "very" critical of the exposure, which was
great, but that it basically took some practice to get the camera
to do what I wanted it to do. He said that every camera has it's
peculiarities and in order to get shots the way that I wanted to
see them, that I basically had to be in tune with my camera and
learn how to take control of it.

keithk42 said:
Keith

It could also be that he's making you work around a problem with the camera. If you set it to auto mode and it can't produce a usable shot, what does that say for auto mode?

I'm having this very problem. People tell me to adjust the settings to make it look the way I want. There is however, a problem with that: auto mode has no settings to change. I have to shift it to manual mode and then change all the parameters. I can get a good shot that way, but in the end, I didn't solve the root of the problem, I merely worked around the problem.

Take this hypothetical scenario for instance: What if the camera's exposure sensor was shot? You could set everything manually and prevent the camera from ever having to use that broken sensor, but it doesn't change the fact that the camera has a bad sensor. You paid $800 for that camera, it came with an exposure sensor and it should work. You shouldn't have to do everything manually to work around that broken sensor.

As for your problem, I don't know what, if anything, is wrong with your camera. But shouldn't the troubleshooting process involve getting to the root of the problem and addressing it? Or does letting the problem exist and working around it on your new $800 camera seem like an acceptable solution

Marshallj25 · Feb 11, 2007

jrynash, your indoor shot looks perfectly fine to me. I wish my XTi could do that.

That's what I would expect from my XTi set to full auto. Mine simply will not take a shot like that. Out of the hundreds that I've shot, none come out properly exposed. They're all dark. Even if I set it to P mode and bump the exposure up 2/3 stop, it'll still be dark.

Xti exposure. For whatever it's worth...

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Active member

Active member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts