I have to push my sunny f16 exposures by 1.4 stops in RAW converters for them to come out right. 1.4 stops!!! That is not a small amount. I don't have one weird lens; this happens with all my lenses with almost no variation between them.
I agree that you need to have it looked at if you so choose or adjust ISO accordingly to compensate. It most likely is an issue with your sensor or the way it was dialed in at the factory.
Jason,
I have not had any misunderstandings about htis image. You posted it - not me.
I have made no insinuations about your agenda. However, any belief that the image tells us something meaningful is based upon false assumptions.
It's just not something you can make a precise claim about. You shouldn't be using this rule of thumb to acuse Canon of being a bunch of liars.
The issue is that the car is actually exposed pretty reasonably, but it's easy to ignore this when the scene is composed almost entirely of stuff in shadow.
And the exposure on the car isn't that bad.
Again, the one object in bright light isn't exposed that badly. Moreover, you seem to be ignoring the concept of ambient light. Even if there is a beam of direct light hitting something, there is less ambient light if everything else is in shadow.
Makes things look less underexposed.It is to demonstrate how much darker the white border is than the
bright white car. The original image, full screen on the monitor,
seemed to brighten after looking at it for a little while, for the
exact same (or opposite) reason that you stated above; my eyes
adjusted to the overall dark image. which should have blown out
with sunny f16, because . My original plan was to use alternating
black and white lines, but I opted for the easier way. Let's try
this:
It's at most 1/2 stop.
Look - there's nothing that you're going to think of that I won't, "get." The scene and the lighting are very complex and you're trying to apply a simple minded rule of thumb to it.
I haven't hypothesized anything about your motivation.
We just did the math, so there's nothing to argue about here. If things look good with a 1.3 stop push in ACR, then there's either some DR compression going or you're blowing something out.
This is far from obvious given the loose nature of the rule of thumb and the amount of cloud cover in the example you provided.
PROSECUTOR: all evidences, i.e. results of an unindependent brand light meter and continuing evaluation of average results, combined with the metering of equal cameras of the same manufacturer and careful scientific research leads to the clue: this camera is defective and has to be calibrated to specs. Hough, me spoken.
--
How is the user a moron? Most of "my character" as it appears to you has come from other people's paraphrasing of my words and intentions. I started a thread here to see what experience other people are having. People replied to me as if I said things or had agendas that I did not say or have.
--
Sorry for this misunderstanding sentence, John. Please read it again. In this satire I wanted to express that a) the prosecutor is right, b) the advocat (some forum posters) is narrow-minded as often and that c) the judge honors your concerns. Mind keeping us informed what the Canon service will find out?
There is no need for service. The camera functions fine, as long as I shoot as if the ISO is about 40% of what it says, when not using the camera's metering. The hypothetical missing sensitivity at the high-ISO end is not much of an issue, as the images benefit little from extra amplifier gain, and arithmetic pushing does most of the job.
