Let's talk exposure

[Groucho]

Looks like the first picture just plain has too much dynamic range. It's either underexposed, just right, or over-exposed, depending on where you look.

Re: the last two pictures (of the back steps), the DSLR shot looks a lot sharper and more colorful to me. You may find that the DSLR will slightly underexpose in general, as it's easier to brighten up a dark image without losing detail than it is to darken a bright one.

As for white balance, if you shoot raw, you never have to worry about it, since you can adjust it later.

 

[mabas9395]

I also lurk at the dpreview forums and there is thread after thread after thread where people post complaining that the 400d just plain underexposes no matter what setting or what lens you use. And your examples aren't as bad as some as have been posted on that other board.

The solutions the boards provide is to make exposure compensation your friend or to send it in to Canon for recalibration. If you mention the 400d and underexposure, the repair tech will know exactly what you are talking about and how to fix it, which they will happily do.

So don't worry, its not just you.

 

[DVC Jen]

I have the same camera and just by playing with it I have found that if I want vivid color I have to shoot in landscape mode - regardless of what I am actually shooting.

If I do portrait - I get what you have - dull - faded - lifeless.

Maybe it is just my camera - or me (very likely).

Check and see what picture mode you are shooting in and if it is not landscape - switch to it and see if you are happier with the results.

 

[jann1033]

if you have parameters (like the 350 does) you can adjust the saturation, contrast, sharpness and color tone to how you like it and set it that way then shoot in that parameter. the parameter 1 in the rebel xt( not sure if it's the same in the xti) is more vivid, 2 more neutral, 3 i think is just custom. you can also set your exposure compensation to how you like it and it stays that way till you change it( even with the camera off i mean) ie i have mine set to underexpose by one block as i kept blowing out highlights
agree as well about the auto white balance...my over all colors were better when i used custom white balance which i set for snow, not sure what i'll use now that the snow is gone for the next few months at least

 

[photo_chick]

There is one thing I have not seen mentioned here... monitor calibration. You all give great advice on the images but no one mentioned the monitor it is viewed on! I just bring up monitor calibration because it is often overlooked when people have probelms with their images. Usually it is when people go to print though. (And also because my MIL insisted her camera was defective when really her gamma was totally out of whack.)

Not saying it is an issue here, just surprised it was not brought up. I guess I think of it first since I print so much!

Also, I agree the AWB on the 350 is terrible as well. But since I went to only shooting RAW it is not a problem.

 

[MICKEY88]

There is one thing I have not seen mentioned here... monitor calibration. You all give great advice on the images but no one mentioned the monitor it is viewed on! I just bring up monitor calibration because it is often overlooked when people have probelms with their images. Usually it is when people go to print though. (And also because my MIL insisted her camera was defective when really her gamma was totally out of whack.)

Not saying it is an issue here, just surprised it was not brought up. I guess I think of it first since I print so much!

Also, I agree the AWB on the 350 is terrible as well. But since I went to only shooting RAW it is not a problem.

I can't speak for everyone, but the reason I didn't mention it is 2 different camera gave different results, if it was a monitor issue they both should
show underexposure...

 

[fuse04]

Thanks for all the great advice....where do I start!

Well, if for no other reason than the pictures didn't feel right/intuition (which no doubt I will be proved wrong!) I rang Canon today to see what they said.

They asked one question...is it the same in auto, to which I replied yes. She (Alexandra) said the unit is faulty, I even double checked about the decision given they had so little information and had not seen any
images Alexandra again stated the unit is fautly and gave me a reference number and asked me to contact the retailer about the returns policy. Oh dear thought I, this is where I get passed between internet retailer and Canon for the next few weeks

Well, all being well my old body will be collected from my home tomorrow and a new one delivered at the same time Now should that actually happen then that is gold customer service.

For Canon to so readily ackowledge a faulty body suggests to me that there must have been a significant number of faulty units already returned.

However I could of course get a new body and it not produce better resultst, either because of how the picture is taken or because I have a body from the same batch (given the retailer is shipping a new unit rather than mine being repaired). Lets wait and see

thanks again for all the advice.

Rob

 

[photo_chick]

I can't speak for everyone, but the reason I didn't mention it is 2 different camera gave different results, if it was a monitor issue they both should
show underexposure...

On my monitor (mine is calibrated with a spyder) they all vary and the original is not really underexposed. A litlte dark in places, but the sky is blown out as well. Like I said, not saying it was the problem. And a monitor issue would only show underexposure if the user has altered the photos.

I am glad it is getting sorted out for the OP in any case!

 

[tinksdad]

(And also because my MIL insisted her camera was defective when really her gamma was totally out of whack.)

I HATE it when my gamma is whacky!!!


Seriously, it can make a BIG difference. Especially on LCD screens.

 

[fuse04]

There is one thing I have not seen mentioned here... monitor calibration. You all give great advice on the images but no one mentioned the monitor it is viewed on! I just bring up monitor calibration because it is often overlooked when people have probelms with their images. Usually it is when people go to print though. (And also because my MIL insisted her camera was defective when really her gamma was totally out of whack.)

Not saying it is an issue here, just surprised it was not brought up. I guess I think of it first since I print so much!

Also, I agree the AWB on the 350 is terrible as well. But since I went to only shooting RAW it is not a problem.

Thought I would respond on this one to avoid any potential skirmish!!!

Before posting I took the camera into a specialist photographic shop during lunch and they ran the card on their monitor. They looked at some shots and said that some (but to be fair not all) shots appear to have a grey...whoops...gray (!) with a hint of green, overlay to the pictures, a bit like having tracing paper overlaying the picture. I can only assume their monitors are callibrated correctly but who knows

They ran some of the images via software and used auto adjustment to the image. On those taken in bright sunlight the software did make some minor adjustment but not siginifcant. However on the images which seemed dull, the software, adobe I think, made signficcant change to the image; the guys said it was unsual for such a big change in auto correction.

Not sure if it helps but I use a 19in CRT screen which I have yet to callibrate for this purpose.

thanks
Rob

 

[MICKEY88]

On my monitor (mine is calibrated with a spyder) they all vary and the original is not really underexposed. A litlte dark in places, but the sky is blown out as well. Like I said, not saying it was the problem. And a monitor issue would only show underexposure if the user has altered the photos.

I am glad it is getting sorted out for the OP in any case!

I'm confused ...it is quite possible to have an underexposed picture with a blown out sky if it is a very high contrast scene..

why would a monitor isssue only show underexposure if the originals were altered...something as simple as the brightness being mis adjusted could make a properly exposed pic look underexposed, while a slightly over exposed pic would look good..,,,or vice versa...

 

[CathrynRose]

thanks
Rob

I have no advicee, but you have such a cute yard!!!

 

[mabas9395]

For Canon to so readily ackowledge a faulty body suggests to me that there must have been a significant number of faulty units already returned

As I mentioned in an ealier post, other photograhy boards are flooded with threads about this. They call it the UX problem. When they start to abbreviate things like that, you know it has reached a critical level. It also explains why the operator was so quick to admit that there is a problem instead of user error, they probably get several of those calls a day.

That being said, there are also many, many people on other boards who have had no problems at all.

 

[photo_chick]

I'm confused ...it is quite possible to have an underexposed picture with a blown out sky if it is a very high contrast scene..

why would a monitor isssue only show underexposure if the originals were altered...something as simple as the brightness being mis adjusted could make a properly exposed pic look underexposed, while a slightly over exposed pic would look good..,,,or vice versa...

Ok. What I meant about the monitor issue looking like underexposure if the user has altered the photos.... If they are straight from a camera that is working properly and is properly exposed.. then when viewed on a properly calibrated monitor they should look fine. BUt if the images were altered by the user on a monitor that was not properly calibrated to what they see as "normal" (a highly subjective term in it's self) then it will likely look a litle off on a calibrated monitror. OF course some of this also depends on what your monitor is calibrated to and the ambient light in the room in some cases. I was really getting at was that they were not altered by the user, and many people saw an issue, so likely not the monitor. I did not word my thought very well. Sorry. A hazard of ADD, I can't type my thoughts as fast as they come into my head.

Did I not say that I just wondered why it had not been brought up? THat was all??? I did not mean to get into an arguement over monitor calibration. I have just seen similar situations where it was the culprit. That is all. End of story. Not attacking, or questioning anyone here. Just bringing a topic to the table so to speak.

Obviously since the OP had taken the images and viewed them somewhere else than it was likely not a monitor issue.

 

[MICKEY88]

Ok. What I meant about the monitor issue looking like underexposure if the user has altered the photos.... If they are straight from a camera that is working properly and is properly exposed.. then when viewed on a properly calibrated monitor they should look fine. BUt if the images were altered by the user on a monitor that was not properly calibrated to what they see as "normal" (a highly subjective term in it's self) then it will likely look a litle off on a calibrated monitror. OF course some of this also depends on what your monitor is calibrated to and the ambient light in the room in some cases. I was really getting at was that they were not altered by the user, and many people saw an issue, so likely not the monitor. I did not word my thought very well. Sorry. A hazard of ADD, I can't type my thoughts as fast as they come into my head.

Did I not say that I just wondered why it had not been brought up? THat was all??? I did not mean to get into an arguement over monitor calibration. I have just seen similar situations where it was the culprit. That is all. End of story. Not attacking, or questioning anyone here. Just bringing a topic to the table so to speak.

Obviously since the OP had taken the images and viewed them somewhere else than it was likely not a monitor issue.

sorry, no arguement intended,
I said I was confused and was just trying to understand, if anything I said came across wrong or confrontational I apologize...

I'm not here to argue or cause problems, just to have fun, help others, and learn new things....

 

[photo_chick]

sorry, no arguement intended,
I said I was confused and was just trying to understand, if anything I said came across wrong or confrontational I apologize...

I'm not here to argue or cause problems, just to have fun, help others, and learn new things....

Me too. I think I was trying to say someting similar to what you siad. But half the time I don't even know what I am saying!

 

[Groucho]

As I mentioned in an ealier post, other photograhy boards are flooded with threads about this. They call it the UX problem. When they start to abbreviate things like that, you know it has reached a critical level. It also explains why the operator was so quick to admit that there is a problem instead of user error, they probably get several of those calls a day.

That being said, there are also many, many people on other boards who have had no problems at all.

I suspect that just about every electronic product's help desk curses the internet. It's like "electronic hypochondria" - a slightly suspicion of something being wrong leads to a web search leads to others with the same suspicions, next thing you know, it's assumed that every one of that particular product is flawed in this way. People who'd otherwise think things are fine are likely to call the help line and say "well, I read on this web site... and this guy got his repaired..."

In this case, who knows? I don't as I don't read the Canon boards so I haven't heard of people getting them repaired, but I didn't really see anything in the posted photo that would make me think that it was not working properly. And it sounds like the OP isn't 100% sure that there's a malfunction either... it'll be interesting to see if there's any difference with the replacement camera. I'd say to try to retake some inside photos, so that the lighting is consistent... outdoors can vary so much depending on time of day, cloudiness, etc.

 

[fuse04]

I have no advicee, but you have such a cute yard!!!

Thanks. It is a bit messy at the moment. The garden used to slop from top to bottom but landscaped it last year and need to finish it! Also no real colour at the moment as a bit early for the flowers.

Rob

 

[fuse04]

Well, I have tested many things today (in retrospect!)

a) Firstly tested the efficiency of Canon and retailer customer service 10/10. The new body arrived less than 24 hrs after phoning Canon

b) tested the new body and my initial feeling is that the body was probably fine but more tests tomorrow.

c) the builder tested my pateince as water poured through the Kitchen ceiling whilst working on the bathroom refurb.

d) I tested DW pateince as I then promptly left the house to visit the dentist, leaving her and the builder to sort out what to do with the water logged electrics

e) the dentist then tested my pain and cash barrier with double the expected treatment (oh boy how I hate needles )

f) got home to find the builders have gone and loads of hot water in the new shower but no cold!


PS why was it last night when DD had earache the only word she knew was Daddy!!!

Rob

 

[photo_chick]

PS why was it last night when DD had earache the only word she knew was Daddy!!!

Mine only know Mommy! They NEVER ask for Daddy when they are sick.

Hope you are not tested as much tomorrow.