RX100 III - overexposed images?

Started Aug 7, 2014 | Discussions thread
Interceptor121 Regular Member • Posts: 372
Re: You don't know how to read…….

DFPanno wrote:

lancespring wrote:

DFPanno wrote:

lancespring wrote:

lubej wrote:


Do you find out that images you take are overexposed, skies are blown out ...

Is it possible that sony produced high end (and quite expensive) camera which matering works incorrectly?

If the answer is yes, do you think there is any chance that we will see firmware update which will fix this problem?

I'm not an expert but I think that changing default settings to correct this problem is wrong approach.Pictures should be fine with default settings!

For example, check out my album:


For all pictures camera was set to iAuto mode.

that use a 1 inch sensor. I have to use exposure compensation when using both my Sony RX10 and AX100. If I do not, the exposure is usually overexposed.

I always set exposure compensation to at least a minimum of -.3 In direct sunlight, you will often need to use -.7

Skies being blown out is a common photography problem that has always existed. You can eliminate that problem when shooting in bright conditions by simply using a polarizing filter on your camera.

Photographers have been using polarizing filters for 75 years, ever since their invention by Edwin Land. It is a most useful tool that ever good photographer should own.

You avoid blowing out bright elements by properly exposing for them.

No CP needed unless you have maxed out the camera's exposure parameters.

Polarizers are typically used for dealing with blown out skies, sandy beaches, white concrete, and water. They help with anything non-metallic that is reflecting light intensely.

They are widely used by landscape photographers to improve their images. And if you take the time to look at his photos, that appears to be his primary interest in photography.

Recommending a CP to him is thus a perfectly valid and helpful recommendation. Every landscape photographer should own a polarizing filter.

So I disagree with you here 100%. You are wrong about whether he should look into using a CP with his camera.

The use of CPs is photography 101. I took that class many years ago but thanks for your attempt to explain it to me.

The filter required to acheive the effect he is looking for is a graduated neutral density filter, not a CP.

Read and learn; then post.

Even without a polariser filter the camera should still be expose correctly. If this was not the case every camera would be sold with one. If you shoot a landscape picture on snow or a sea landscape without a polariser the camera will still expose properly the image, however you will see reflections. When you put a polariser the polarised light reflecting gets eliminated and you can see the sea or snow surface, the filter reduces exposure across the frame.

In both cases the correct exposure is managed by the camera but the polariser filter makes the image more pleasing without harsh reflections. A polariser is not a cure for incorrect exposures.

If you have a completely blu sky and shoot through it and there are no reflecting surfaces on the ground you don't need a polariser. For a normal landscape shot that does not have a water surface or snow but just a few clouds is highly questionable if a polariser makes the image better or worse. I prefer the image without but that is down to personal taste.

David pictures are outstanding and demonstrate clear command of the camera, filters and what comes with it. I would take his advice on board and leave it at that as his pictures speak by themselves

-- hide signature --
 Interceptor121's gear list:Interceptor121's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D7100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +10 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow