Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New 20D

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 1:15:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ok, please be gentle I'm a newbie to SLR Photography but have a few
questions?

I just received my 20D a few days ago and because of money constraints opted
to get the kit with the EFS 18-55mm lens. A few observations I have noticed.

1.) This lens seems a little dark when shooting indoors (even with flash on)
I'm using a Kalimar UV filter on it, but it doesn't make a difference with
it on or off as far as the darkness goes.

2.) Under florescent lights it's even darker, even when setting the white
balance to florescent.

Now for some questions. Because it looks like I need to purchase a few new
lenses when I get the money. What would be a good indoor lens that's
brighter than the one I have? And because I look to shoot wildlife outdoors,
what's a good zoom lens that will give me good results at say 150 Yards
without breaking the bank?

Thanks for your time.

Tim in Phoenix

More about : 20d

January 16, 2005 8:54:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tim S." <hjk@cox.com> wrote in message
news:NixGd.8149$ru.4656@fed1read07...
> Ok, please be gentle I'm a newbie to SLR Photography but have a few
> questions?
>
> I just received my 20D a few days ago and because of money constraints
opted
> to get the kit with the EFS 18-55mm lens. A few observations I have
noticed.
>
> 1.) This lens seems a little dark when shooting indoors (even with flash
on)
> I'm using a Kalimar UV filter on it, but it doesn't make a difference with
> it on or off as far as the darkness goes.
>

Have you tried to increase the ISO to say 800 or 1600. The 20D has very low
noise at those levels. I think that doing so will greatly improve the issue
you are seeing.

> 2.) Under florescent lights it's even darker, even when setting the white
> balance to florescent.

Stick with AWB and shoot RAW. You can always fine tune color temperature
after you shoot.

>
> Now for some questions. Because it looks like I need to purchase a few new
> lenses when I get the money. What would be a good indoor lens that's
> brighter than the one I have? And because I look to shoot wildlife
outdoors,
> what's a good zoom lens that will give me good results at say 150 Yards
> without breaking the bank?

Sounds like budget is important for you. For a cheap and very good sharp and
bright lens, try the EF 50mm f/1.8 II. This is $70. The brighter f/1.4 model
is almost $400. Remember this is a "prime" or a fixed focal length lens (not
a zoom).

I am assuming for the second part of the question, you mean a telephoto lens
_with_ zoom capability. I am biased since I own one, but the 70-200mm f/4L
for under $600 is an absolute bargain (for L glass). You can add the
extender and you will get great reach.

>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Tim in Phoenix
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 8:54:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:LTxGd.21530$Z%.14131@fe1.texas.rr.com...
>
> "Tim S." <hjk@cox.com> wrote in message
> news:NixGd.8149$ru.4656@fed1read07...
>> Ok, please be gentle I'm a newbie to SLR Photography but have a few
>> questions?
>>
>> I just received my 20D a few days ago and because of money constraints
> opted
>> to get the kit with the EFS 18-55mm lens. A few observations I have
> noticed.
>>
>> 1.) This lens seems a little dark when shooting indoors (even with flash
> on)
>> I'm using a Kalimar UV filter on it, but it doesn't make a difference
>> with
>> it on or off as far as the darkness goes.
>>
>
> Have you tried to increase the ISO to say 800 or 1600. The 20D has very
> low
> noise at those levels. I think that doing so will greatly improve the
> issue
> you are seeing.
>
>> 2.) Under florescent lights it's even darker, even when setting the white
>> balance to florescent.
>
> Stick with AWB and shoot RAW. You can always fine tune color temperature
> after you shoot.
>
>>
>> Now for some questions. Because it looks like I need to purchase a few
>> new
>> lenses when I get the money. What would be a good indoor lens that's
>> brighter than the one I have? And because I look to shoot wildlife
> outdoors,
>> what's a good zoom lens that will give me good results at say 150 Yards
>> without breaking the bank?
>
> Sounds like budget is important for you. For a cheap and very good sharp
> and
> bright lens, try the EF 50mm f/1.8 II. This is $70. The brighter f/1.4
> model
> is almost $400. Remember this is a "prime" or a fixed focal length lens
> (not
> a zoom).
>
> I am assuming for the second part of the question, you mean a telephoto
> lens
> _with_ zoom capability. I am biased since I own one, but the 70-200mm f/4L
> for under $600 is an absolute bargain (for L glass). You can add the
> extender and you will get great reach.
>
>>
>> Thanks for your time.
>>
>> Tim in Phoenix
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Musty,

Yes I tried increasing the ISO to first 400 and then 800 and 1600. It did
help brighten the picture a little but I just now figured it out. I was
shooting a karate meet and everyone wears white, hence the dim problem. I
also learned to turn up the AEB a stop or two and this also helps. Luckily
shooting in RAW gives me some excellent data to play with and change the
temp and brightness.

Tim
Related resources
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 8:54:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tim S." <hjk@cox.com> wrote in message
news:L9BGd.8162$ru.7072@fed1read07...
>
> "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:LTxGd.21530$Z%.14131@fe1.texas.rr.com...
>>
>> "Tim S." <hjk@cox.com> wrote in message
>> news:NixGd.8149$ru.4656@fed1read07...
>>> Ok, please be gentle I'm a newbie to SLR Photography but have a few
>>> questions?
>>>
>>> I just received my 20D a few days ago and because of money constraints
>> opted
>>> to get the kit with the EFS 18-55mm lens. A few observations I have
>> noticed.
>>>
>>> 1.) This lens seems a little dark when shooting indoors (even with flash
>> on)
>>> I'm using a Kalimar UV filter on it, but it doesn't make a difference
>>> with
>>> it on or off as far as the darkness goes.
>>>
>>
>> Have you tried to increase the ISO to say 800 or 1600. The 20D has very
>> low
>> noise at those levels. I think that doing so will greatly improve the
>> issue
>> you are seeing.
>>
>>> 2.) Under florescent lights it's even darker, even when setting the
>>> white
>>> balance to florescent.
>>
>> Stick with AWB and shoot RAW. You can always fine tune color temperature
>> after you shoot.
>>
>>>
>>> Now for some questions. Because it looks like I need to purchase a few
>>> new
>>> lenses when I get the money. What would be a good indoor lens that's
>>> brighter than the one I have? And because I look to shoot wildlife
>> outdoors,
>>> what's a good zoom lens that will give me good results at say 150 Yards
>>> without breaking the bank?
>>
>> Sounds like budget is important for you. For a cheap and very good sharp
>> and
>> bright lens, try the EF 50mm f/1.8 II. This is $70. The brighter f/1.4
>> model
>> is almost $400. Remember this is a "prime" or a fixed focal length lens
>> (not
>> a zoom).
>>
>> I am assuming for the second part of the question, you mean a telephoto
>> lens
>> _with_ zoom capability. I am biased since I own one, but the 70-200mm
>> f/4L
>> for under $600 is an absolute bargain (for L glass). You can add the
>> extender and you will get great reach.
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for your time.
>>>
>>> Tim in Phoenix
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> Musty,
>
> Yes I tried increasing the ISO to first 400 and then 800 and 1600. It did
> help brighten the picture a little but I just now figured it out. I was
> shooting a karate meet and everyone wears white, hence the dim problem. I
> also learned to turn up the AEB a stop or two and this also helps. Luckily
> shooting in RAW gives me some excellent data to play with and change the
> temp and brightness.
>
> Tim
>
>

You might also want to calibrate your monitor. I found that my monitor was
showing too light and when I printed, the photo was dark. Have you printed
the photos yet to see if your monitor and printer are seeing the same thing?

Don Dunlap
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 9:34:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tim S. wrote:
> Ok, please be gentle I'm a newbie to SLR Photography but have a few
> questions?
>
> I just received my 20D a few days ago and because of money
> constraints opted to get the kit with the EFS 18-55mm lens. A few
> observations I have noticed.

Good camera and good lens. I have both.

>
> 1.) This lens seems a little dark when shooting indoors (even with
> flash on) I'm using a Kalimar UV filter on it, but it doesn't make a
> difference with it on or off as far as the darkness goes.

It should not make any difference.

>
> 2.) Under florescent lights it's even darker, even when setting the
> white balance to florescent.

I can't see why it is darker. See below.

>
> Now for some questions. Because it looks like I need to purchase a
> few new lenses when I get the money. What would be a good indoor lens
> that's brighter than the one I have?

The lens is not making your pictures dark. Changing lenses will not fix
it.

> And because I look to shoot
> wildlife outdoors, what's a good zoom lens that will give me good
> results at say 150 Yards without breaking the bank?

Anything I know of will not quite do it or will brake the bank. I a
have a 75-300 zoom and it is not quite enough. You will also likely want is
IS (stabilized) lens and they will be even more. I suggest going for at
least 400 mm.

>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Tim in Phoenix

OK about the dark photos. How about a little more information.

* What settings are you using? Give everything you can think of.
* How are you looking at the images?
1. having prints made. (By Whom)
2. Viewing using the built in display on the back of the camera
3. Viewing on your computer monitor
* without color matching
* with color matching
4. With or without any post exposure processing?


--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 9:42:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Joseph Meehan wrote:
> Tim S. wrote:
>
>>Ok, please be gentle I'm a newbie to SLR Photography but have a few
>>questions?
>>
>>I just received my 20D a few days ago and because of money
>>constraints opted to get the kit with the EFS 18-55mm lens. A few
>>observations I have noticed.
>
>
> Good camera and good lens. I have both.
>
>
>>1.) This lens seems a little dark when shooting indoors (even with
>>flash on) I'm using a Kalimar UV filter on it, but it doesn't make a
>>difference with it on or off as far as the darkness goes.
>
>
> It should not make any difference.
>
>
>>2.) Under florescent lights it's even darker, even when setting the
>>white balance to florescent.
>
>
> I can't see why it is darker. See below.
>
>
>>Now for some questions. Because it looks like I need to purchase a
>>few new lenses when I get the money. What would be a good indoor lens
>>that's brighter than the one I have?
>
>
> The lens is not making your pictures dark. Changing lenses will not fix
> it.
>
>
>>And because I look to shoot
>>wildlife outdoors, what's a good zoom lens that will give me good
>>results at say 150 Yards without breaking the bank?
>
>
> Anything I know of will not quite do it or will brake the bank. I a
> have a 75-300 zoom and it is not quite enough. You will also likely want is
> IS (stabilized) lens and they will be even more. I suggest going for at
> least 400 mm.
>
>
>>Thanks for your time.
>>
>>Tim in Phoenix
>
>
> OK about the dark photos. How about a little more information.
>
> * What settings are you using? Give everything you can think of.
> * How are you looking at the images?
> 1. having prints made. (By Whom)
> 2. Viewing using the built in display on the back of the camera
> 3. Viewing on your computer monitor
> * without color matching
> * with color matching
> 4. With or without any post exposure processing?
>
>
Even better, post a dark picture with EXIF data. I found that people
wearing white clothes could throw off the exposure, as an example of
something we could spot in the photo.

Chip Gallo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chipgallo/
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 9:42:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Chip Gallo" <cgallo@nospamcitlink.net> wrote in message
news:jAyGd.314$R%3.225@news02.roc.ny...
> Joseph Meehan wrote:
>> Tim S. wrote:
>>
>>>Ok, please be gentle I'm a newbie to SLR Photography but have a few
>>>questions?
>>>
>>>I just received my 20D a few days ago and because of money
>>>constraints opted to get the kit with the EFS 18-55mm lens. A few
>>>observations I have noticed.
>>
>>
>> Good camera and good lens. I have both.
>>
>>
>>>1.) This lens seems a little dark when shooting indoors (even with
>>>flash on) I'm using a Kalimar UV filter on it, but it doesn't make a
>>>difference with it on or off as far as the darkness goes.
>>
>>
>> It should not make any difference.
>>
>>
>>>2.) Under florescent lights it's even darker, even when setting the
>>>white balance to florescent.
>>
>>
>> I can't see why it is darker. See below.
>>
>>
>>>Now for some questions. Because it looks like I need to purchase a
>>>few new lenses when I get the money. What would be a good indoor lens
>>>that's brighter than the one I have?
>>
>>
>> The lens is not making your pictures dark. Changing lenses will not
>> fix it.
>>
>>
>>>And because I look to shoot
>>>wildlife outdoors, what's a good zoom lens that will give me good
>>>results at say 150 Yards without breaking the bank?
>>
>>
>> Anything I know of will not quite do it or will brake the bank. I a
>> have a 75-300 zoom and it is not quite enough. You will also likely want
>> is IS (stabilized) lens and they will be even more. I suggest going for
>> at least 400 mm.
>>
>>
>>>Thanks for your time.
>>>
>>>Tim in Phoenix
>>
>>
>> OK about the dark photos. How about a little more information.
>>
>> * What settings are you using? Give everything you can think of.
>> * How are you looking at the images?
>> 1. having prints made. (By Whom)
>> 2. Viewing using the built in display on the back of the camera
>> 3. Viewing on your computer monitor
>> * without color matching
>> * with color matching
>> 4. With or without any post exposure processing?
>>
>>
> Even better, post a dark picture with EXIF data. I found that people
> wearing white clothes could throw off the exposure, as an example of
> something we could spot in the photo.
>
> Chip Gallo
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/chipgallo/

Thanks Chip and Joseph,

I have no place to upload that big of a file but here's the data.

File Name
IMG_0064.CR2
Camera Model
Canon EOS 20D
Shooting Date/Time
1/15/2005 10:45:47 AM
Shooting Mode
Program AE
Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/80
Av( Aperture Value )
6.3
Metering Mode
Center-Weighted Average Metering
Exposure Compensation
0
ISO Speed
800
Lens
18.0 - 55.0 mm
Focal Length
55.0 mm
Image Size
3504x2336
Image Quality
RAW
Flash
Off
White Balance Mode
Fluorescent
AF Mode
AI Servo AF
Parameters Settings
Contrast Standard
Sharpness Standard
Color saturation Standard
Color tone 0
Color Space
sRGB
Noise Reduction
Off
File Size
7115 KB
Custom Function
C.Fn:01-0
C.Fn:02-0
C.Fn:03-0
C.Fn:04-0
C.Fn:05-0
C.Fn:06-0
C.Fn:07-0
C.Fn:08-0
C.Fn:09-0
C.Fn:10-0
C.Fn:11-0
C.Fn:12-0
C.Fn:13-0
C.Fn:14-0
C.Fn:15-0
C.Fn:16-0
C.Fn:17-0
C.Fn:18-0
Drive Mode
Single-frame shooting
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 9:42:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I believe it is a lens problem. You need a longer exposure, which you
cannot do with handheld or a faster lens. The 50mm f1.8 that someone
mentioned would work. I personally use the 50mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/2 indoors
with great results. Also, I do not use the AWB. Instead I use custom.
Take a shot of one of those white karate uniforms indoors, then for that
phote session, use that "white uniform" short as your reference point on the
Custom White Balance setting. The manual will tell you how to set it up.
It will take you two minutes.

Jimmy


"Tim S." <hjk@cox.com> wrote in message
news:6dBGd.8163$ru.8075@fed1read07...
>
> "Chip Gallo" <cgallo@nospamcitlink.net> wrote in message
> news:jAyGd.314$R%3.225@news02.roc.ny...
> > Joseph Meehan wrote:
> >> Tim S. wrote:
> >>
> >>>Ok, please be gentle I'm a newbie to SLR Photography but have a few
> >>>questions?
> >>>
> >>>I just received my 20D a few days ago and because of money
> >>>constraints opted to get the kit with the EFS 18-55mm lens. A few
> >>>observations I have noticed.
> >>
> >>
> >> Good camera and good lens. I have both.
> >>
> >>
> >>>1.) This lens seems a little dark when shooting indoors (even with
> >>>flash on) I'm using a Kalimar UV filter on it, but it doesn't make a
> >>>difference with it on or off as far as the darkness goes.
> >>
> >>
> >> It should not make any difference.
> >>
> >>
> >>>2.) Under florescent lights it's even darker, even when setting the
> >>>white balance to florescent.
> >>
> >>
> >> I can't see why it is darker. See below.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Now for some questions. Because it looks like I need to purchase a
> >>>few new lenses when I get the money. What would be a good indoor lens
> >>>that's brighter than the one I have?
> >>
> >>
> >> The lens is not making your pictures dark. Changing lenses will
not
> >> fix it.
> >>
> >>
> >>>And because I look to shoot
> >>>wildlife outdoors, what's a good zoom lens that will give me good
> >>>results at say 150 Yards without breaking the bank?
> >>
> >>
> >> Anything I know of will not quite do it or will brake the bank. I
a
> >> have a 75-300 zoom and it is not quite enough. You will also likely
want
> >> is IS (stabilized) lens and they will be even more. I suggest going
for
> >> at least 400 mm.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Thanks for your time.
> >>>
> >>>Tim in Phoenix
> >>
> >>
> >> OK about the dark photos. How about a little more information.
> >>
> >> * What settings are you using? Give everything you can think of.
> >> * How are you looking at the images?
> >> 1. having prints made. (By Whom)
> >> 2. Viewing using the built in display on the back of the camera
> >> 3. Viewing on your computer monitor
> >> * without color matching
> >> * with color matching
> >> 4. With or without any post exposure processing?
> >>
> >>
> > Even better, post a dark picture with EXIF data. I found that people
> > wearing white clothes could throw off the exposure, as an example of
> > something we could spot in the photo.
> >
> > Chip Gallo
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/chipgallo/
>
> Thanks Chip and Joseph,
>
> I have no place to upload that big of a file but here's the data.
>
> File Name
> IMG_0064.CR2
> Camera Model
> Canon EOS 20D
> Shooting Date/Time
> 1/15/2005 10:45:47 AM
> Shooting Mode
> Program AE
> Tv( Shutter Speed )
> 1/80
> Av( Aperture Value )
> 6.3
> Metering Mode
> Center-Weighted Average Metering
> Exposure Compensation
> 0
> ISO Speed
> 800
> Lens
> 18.0 - 55.0 mm
> Focal Length
> 55.0 mm
> Image Size
> 3504x2336
> Image Quality
> RAW
> Flash
> Off
> White Balance Mode
> Fluorescent
> AF Mode
> AI Servo AF
> Parameters Settings
> Contrast Standard
> Sharpness Standard
> Color saturation Standard
> Color tone 0
> Color Space
> sRGB
> Noise Reduction
> Off
> File Size
> 7115 KB
> Custom Function
> C.Fn:01-0
> C.Fn:02-0
> C.Fn:03-0
> C.Fn:04-0
> C.Fn:05-0
> C.Fn:06-0
> C.Fn:07-0
> C.Fn:08-0
> C.Fn:09-0
> C.Fn:10-0
> C.Fn:11-0
> C.Fn:12-0
> C.Fn:13-0
> C.Fn:14-0
> C.Fn:15-0
> C.Fn:16-0
> C.Fn:17-0
> C.Fn:18-0
> Drive Mode
> Single-frame shooting
>
>
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 9:42:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jimmy Smith" <nospam@pleaseno.more> wrote in message
news:H8CGd.16908$Zv5.9514@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>I believe it is a lens problem. You need a longer exposure, which you
> cannot do with handheld or a faster lens. The 50mm f1.8 that someone
> mentioned would work. I personally use the 50mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/2 indoors
> with great results. Also, I do not use the AWB. Instead I use custom.
> Take a shot of one of those white karate uniforms indoors, then for that
> phote session, use that "white uniform" short as your reference point on
> the
> Custom White Balance setting. The manual will tell you how to set it up.
> It will take you two minutes.
>
> Jimmy


Thanks Jimmy,

I spoke with my son-n-law today and he going to be bringing over several
lenses he has for me to try and I'll go from there. I am getting better with
practice and patients though. Hopefully I will get this all figured out. So
far I love this camera and looks like I just need to spend more time with
it.

Tim
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 12:54:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tim S." <hjk@cox.com> wrote in message
news:NixGd.8149$ru.4656@fed1read07...
> Ok, please be gentle I'm a newbie to SLR Photography but have a few
> questions?
>
> I just received my 20D a few days ago and because of money constraints
opted
> to get the kit with the EFS 18-55mm lens. A few observations I have
noticed.
>
> 1.) This lens seems a little dark when shooting indoors (even with flash
on)
> I'm using a Kalimar UV filter on it, but it doesn't make a difference with
> it on or off as far as the darkness goes.

The "darkness" you see has nothing to do with the lens, and definitely
doesn't have anything to do with which white balance setting you selected.

You are having exposure value problems (your camera is under-exposing due to
where it's setting aperture/shutter).
This is usually caused by pointing the camera in a direction where a
relatively light subject is in the center of your frame. Even when shooting
in a darkish room, this will still happen, because the flash sends a tiny
flash quickly BEFORE the REAL flash...which measures reflectance of the
subject, and thn instantly sets the exosure flash intensity based on that
reflectance. --To deal with this:

First... Take the camera off of the green box setting (and off of any of
the pre-set modes, like action, close-up, etc.) adn set the camera dial to
"P".

Next...learn to use the button on the upper-right back of the camera,
labeled "*", which is the Exposure Lock, or Flash Exposure Lock button.
When framing a shot, first point the camera so that something at a similar
distance is centered, but one that is primarily a middle toned item (an
example of this is green grass, or blue jeans that aren't super dark or
super faded). If you're using flash, do this as well (which will emit a
separate flash when you push the button, and then you reframe the shot and
press the shutter button). This will tell your camera to meter based on a
reading it will take on that middle-toned subject, rather than basing it's
exposure setting on something that is bright/light. The reason centering on
something white/light/brighter than a middle toned object can fool a camera
is because all camera meters try to turn everything into a middle tone
(neutral tone--not too dark...and not too light). If you point at something
overly light, the camera assumes it is TOO bright, and under-exposes because
it wants to give you a middle-toned rendition of what it thinks the scene
is. This is why most people who shoot snow pictures with an automatic
camera usually end up with under-exposed shots...which is especially
puzzling to them since they are shooting inthe incredible brightness of a
snowy day! :)  The opposite problem will happen when you're shooting a
picture of a, for example, guy in a black suit. --The camera will assume it
needs needs to brighten the scene (because the camera doesn't know it's
supposed to be primarily black), which means that a light-skinned guy would
have their face way over-exposed, and certainly any small areas of
white/bright shirt that may be partially visible.

Once you get used to spotting subject tones which can easily fool your
camera's metering system, you'll get a feel for when you need to lock
exposure (or flash exposure) and recompose...OR...simply learn how much to
use exposure compensation (either over or under) using the back dial
adjustment (which only becomes active after half-pressing the shutter).
This will move the indicator on the top LCD (and in the viewfinder) either
left of, or right of zero...indicating exposure compensation under...or over
what the camera thinks it's supposed to expose at.

It could also be that in your "newness"...you inadvertantly turned that back
dial counter clock-wise so that your camera things it is supposed to
under-expose. --For that, check the top LCD display, and make sure the
little square indicater on the scale is set to "0", and not below (to the
left of "0").

You may find that you consistently like to shoot with your camera set to 1/2
or 1/3 stop over-exposure (exposure compensation), but this will never
always be right. You'll have to learn to identify these things.

The best news... You're shooting digital, so you can experiment all you
want with this, and immediately see what's working...what's not.

Last tip:
Go into the menu and set your camera's image review setting to: "info"
Then...learn to read the histogram which will now be displayed with each
image after you shoot it.
You can also view the histogram during regular playback of images by simply
hitting the "info" button while viewing an image on the screen of your
camera. This will tell you all the information about how the image was
exposed, and what your settings were, including the exposure compensation
scale.

You'll get better at it in short order.

Bottom line here is... It's not your lens.
Your camera is working just fine.
It just assumes that you are in control...
....It may take a while before that is actually true.
:) 
-Mark
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 12:57:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jimmy Smith" <nospam@pleaseno.more> wrote in message
news:H8CGd.16908$Zv5.9514@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> I believe it is a lens problem. You need a longer exposure, which you
> cannot do with handheld or a faster lens. The 50mm f1.8 that someone
> mentioned would work. I personally use the 50mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/2 indoors
> with great results. Also, I do not use the AWB. Instead I use custom.
> Take a shot of one of those white karate uniforms indoors, then for that
> phote session, use that "white uniform" short as your reference point on
the
> Custom White Balance setting. The manual will tell you how to set it up.
> It will take you two minutes.
>
> Jimmy

It is most like NOT a lens problem at all.
Putting a "faster" lens on it won't do anything at all, because the camera
will still instruct the lens to shrink the aperture down the same way.

You have to deal with instructing the camera to expose properly, regardless
of what lens is attached.

See my post to the original poster's original question.
-Mark
January 17, 2005 1:58:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
> It is most like NOT a lens problem at all.

I agree with Mark. It aint a lens problem, and it aint an ISO problem
(if you are using a flash, increasing the ISO will mitigate the problem
by increasing the effective range of the flash, which may have
accounted for the noticed improvement). It is an exposure problem.
White gis and dark background make for tricky exposure.

One other thing: your Exif info says that you are shooting in
center-weighted mode. Unless you know center-weighted metering well,
I'd recommend switching to evaluative metering - that is likely to give
you better exposures, especially with flash.

Read the manual on how to set exposure compensation in P mode - and
then go to www.luminous-landscape.com and search the site for the
article on using the histogram to set exposures.

Note that these are short-cuts to help you right now. Ideally, you'd
want to use the partial meter and flash exposure control to nail the
exposure down, but if you are a beginner, that's going to be a bit
complicated at this point. I'd suggest going down to B&N or Borders,
and picking up a couple of books on photography: John Shaw's Nature
Photography books are superb at explaining the technicalities of
exposure.

To the OP:
Re. your other question about lens for wildlife at 150 yards - what
kind of wildlife are we talking about here? If birds and small
mammals, fuggedaboutit. Plan to spend around $8000, and still miss a
lot of shots.

If medium to large sized mammals, the Sigma 170-500 is probably the
cheapest lens that will work here (and give you good quality to boot).
If you can, you'd be better off with a 100-400 IS, which is a fair bit
more pricey though.

Whatever you get, remember that you'll need a good tripod at these
focal lengths.

HTH,
Vandit
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 3:34:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tim S. wrote:
>...

> Thanks Chip and Joseph,
>
> I have no place to upload that big of a file but here's the data.
>
> File Name
> IMG_0064.CR2
> Camera Model
> Canon EOS 20D
> Shooting Date/Time
> 1/15/2005 10:45:47 AM
> Shooting Mode
> Program AE
> Tv( Shutter Speed )
> 1/80
> Av( Aperture Value )
> 6.3
> Metering Mode
> Center-Weighted Average Metering
> Exposure Compensation
> 0
> ISO Speed
> 800
> Lens
> 18.0 - 55.0 mm
> Focal Length
> 55.0 mm
> Image Size
> 3504x2336



> ****** Image Quality
> ****** RAW

OK I have not played with RAW but I suspect this is the issue. As I
understand it, a RAW image has not been processed yet, that is it is not
ready for show. That file is so large because in part it has information in
it as if you used an number of different film speeds white balances etc.
You need in effect make those choices - adjustments on your computer.

Have you been processing the images after the exposure.

I think if you can answer the questions below Number 1 - 4 we may have
the answer to your question.


* What settings are you using? Give everything you can think of. DONE

* How are you looking at the images? NO ANSWER YET
1. having prints made. (By Whom)
2. Viewing using the built in display on the back of the camera
3. Viewing on your computer monitor
* without color matching
* with color matching
4. With or without any post exposure processing? NO ANSWER YET


BTW You can select to have both a RAW image saved and a standard image
from each exposure. You may want to try that.


> Flash
> Off
> White Balance Mode
> Fluorescent
> AF Mode
> AI Servo AF
> Parameters Settings
> Contrast Standard
> Sharpness Standard
> Color saturation Standard
> Color tone 0
> Color Space
> sRGB
> Noise Reduction
> Off
> File Size
> 7115 KB
> Custom Function
> C.Fn:01-0
> C.Fn:02-0
> C.Fn:03-0
> C.Fn:04-0
> C.Fn:05-0
> C.Fn:06-0
> C.Fn:07-0
> C.Fn:08-0
> C.Fn:09-0
> C.Fn:10-0
> C.Fn:11-0
> C.Fn:12-0
> C.Fn:13-0
> C.Fn:14-0
> C.Fn:15-0
> C.Fn:16-0
> C.Fn:17-0
> C.Fn:18-0
> Drive Mode
> Single-frame shooting

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 11:03:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> The "darkness" you see has nothing to do with the lens, and definitely
> doesn't have anything to do with which white balance setting you selected.
>
> You are having exposure value problems (your camera is under-exposing due
> to
> where it's setting aperture/shutter).
> This is usually caused by pointing the camera in a direction where a
> relatively light subject is in the center of your frame. Even when
> shooting
> in a darkish room, this will still happen, because the flash sends a tiny
> flash quickly BEFORE the REAL flash...which measures reflectance of the
> subject, and thn instantly sets the exosure flash intensity based on that
> reflectance. --To deal with this:
>
> First... Take the camera off of the green box setting (and off of any of
> the pre-set modes, like action, close-up, etc.) adn set the camera dial to
> "P".
>
> Next...learn to use the button on the upper-right back of the camera,
> labeled "*", which is the Exposure Lock, or Flash Exposure Lock button.
> When framing a shot, first point the camera so that something at a similar
> distance is centered, but one that is primarily a middle toned item (an
> example of this is green grass, or blue jeans that aren't super dark or
> super faded). If you're using flash, do this as well (which will emit a
> separate flash when you push the button, and then you reframe the shot and
> press the shutter button). This will tell your camera to meter based on a
> reading it will take on that middle-toned subject, rather than basing it's
> exposure setting on something that is bright/light. The reason centering
> on
> something white/light/brighter than a middle toned object can fool a
> camera
> is because all camera meters try to turn everything into a middle tone
> (neutral tone--not too dark...and not too light). If you point at
> something
> overly light, the camera assumes it is TOO bright, and under-exposes
> because
> it wants to give you a middle-toned rendition of what it thinks the scene
> is. This is why most people who shoot snow pictures with an automatic
> camera usually end up with under-exposed shots...which is especially
> puzzling to them since they are shooting inthe incredible brightness of a
> snowy day! :)  The opposite problem will happen when you're shooting a
> picture of a, for example, guy in a black suit. --The camera will assume
> it
> needs needs to brighten the scene (because the camera doesn't know it's
> supposed to be primarily black), which means that a light-skinned guy
> would
> have their face way over-exposed, and certainly any small areas of
> white/bright shirt that may be partially visible.
>
> Once you get used to spotting subject tones which can easily fool your
> camera's metering system, you'll get a feel for when you need to lock
> exposure (or flash exposure) and recompose...OR...simply learn how much to
> use exposure compensation (either over or under) using the back dial
> adjustment (which only becomes active after half-pressing the shutter).
> This will move the indicator on the top LCD (and in the viewfinder) either
> left of, or right of zero...indicating exposure compensation under...or
> over
> what the camera thinks it's supposed to expose at.
>
> It could also be that in your "newness"...you inadvertantly turned that
> back
> dial counter clock-wise so that your camera things it is supposed to
> under-expose. --For that, check the top LCD display, and make sure the
> little square indicater on the scale is set to "0", and not below (to the
> left of "0").
>
> You may find that you consistently like to shoot with your camera set to
> 1/2
> or 1/3 stop over-exposure (exposure compensation), but this will never
> always be right. You'll have to learn to identify these things.
>
> The best news... You're shooting digital, so you can experiment all you
> want with this, and immediately see what's working...what's not.
>
> Last tip:
> Go into the menu and set your camera's image review setting to: "info"
> Then...learn to read the histogram which will now be displayed with each
> image after you shoot it.
> You can also view the histogram during regular playback of images by
> simply
> hitting the "info" button while viewing an image on the screen of your
> camera. This will tell you all the information about how the image was
> exposed, and what your settings were, including the exposure compensation
> scale.
>
> You'll get better at it in short order.
>
> Bottom line here is... It's not your lens.
> Your camera is working just fine.
> It just assumes that you are in control...
> ...It may take a while before that is actually true.
> :) 
> -Mark
>
>

Mark, and everyone else who has responded to this post. I would like to
thank you all for your kindness and your time in answering my questions
better than I could have imagined.

I am reading and doing a lot of the suggestions you have given me and yes
it's not the lens it's the guy behind the viewfinder. I will however get
better with practice and reading. Also my son-n-law says he will help me
with things also.

Anyway I just wanted to thank you all for your words of wisdom and
consideration for a new person going from fixed lens to SLR.

God Bless
Tim
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 11:05:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tim S." <hjk@cox.com> wrote in message
news:mtQGd.9592$ru.3763@fed1read07...
>
> > The "darkness" you see has nothing to do with the lens, and definitely
> > doesn't have anything to do with which white balance setting you
selected.
> >
> > You are having exposure value problems (your camera is under-exposing
due
> > to
> > where it's setting aperture/shutter).
> > This is usually caused by pointing the camera in a direction where a
> > relatively light subject is in the center of your frame. Even when
> > shooting
> > in a darkish room, this will still happen, because the flash sends a
tiny
> > flash quickly BEFORE the REAL flash...which measures reflectance of the
> > subject, and thn instantly sets the exosure flash intensity based on
that
> > reflectance. --To deal with this:
> >
> > First... Take the camera off of the green box setting (and off of any
of
> > the pre-set modes, like action, close-up, etc.) adn set the camera dial
to
> > "P".
> >
> > Next...learn to use the button on the upper-right back of the camera,
> > labeled "*", which is the Exposure Lock, or Flash Exposure Lock button.
> > When framing a shot, first point the camera so that something at a
similar
> > distance is centered, but one that is primarily a middle toned item (an
> > example of this is green grass, or blue jeans that aren't super dark or
> > super faded). If you're using flash, do this as well (which will emit a
> > separate flash when you push the button, and then you reframe the shot
and
> > press the shutter button). This will tell your camera to meter based on
a
> > reading it will take on that middle-toned subject, rather than basing
it's
> > exposure setting on something that is bright/light. The reason
centering
> > on
> > something white/light/brighter than a middle toned object can fool a
> > camera
> > is because all camera meters try to turn everything into a middle tone
> > (neutral tone--not too dark...and not too light). If you point at
> > something
> > overly light, the camera assumes it is TOO bright, and under-exposes
> > because
> > it wants to give you a middle-toned rendition of what it thinks the
scene
> > is. This is why most people who shoot snow pictures with an automatic
> > camera usually end up with under-exposed shots...which is especially
> > puzzling to them since they are shooting inthe incredible brightness of
a
> > snowy day! :)  The opposite problem will happen when you're shooting a
> > picture of a, for example, guy in a black suit. --The camera will
assume
> > it
> > needs needs to brighten the scene (because the camera doesn't know it's
> > supposed to be primarily black), which means that a light-skinned guy
> > would
> > have their face way over-exposed, and certainly any small areas of
> > white/bright shirt that may be partially visible.
> >
> > Once you get used to spotting subject tones which can easily fool your
> > camera's metering system, you'll get a feel for when you need to lock
> > exposure (or flash exposure) and recompose...OR...simply learn how much
to
> > use exposure compensation (either over or under) using the back dial
> > adjustment (which only becomes active after half-pressing the shutter).
> > This will move the indicator on the top LCD (and in the viewfinder)
either
> > left of, or right of zero...indicating exposure compensation under...or
> > over
> > what the camera thinks it's supposed to expose at.
> >
> > It could also be that in your "newness"...you inadvertantly turned that
> > back
> > dial counter clock-wise so that your camera things it is supposed to
> > under-expose. --For that, check the top LCD display, and make sure the
> > little square indicater on the scale is set to "0", and not below (to
the
> > left of "0").
> >
> > You may find that you consistently like to shoot with your camera set to
> > 1/2
> > or 1/3 stop over-exposure (exposure compensation), but this will never
> > always be right. You'll have to learn to identify these things.
> >
> > The best news... You're shooting digital, so you can experiment all you
> > want with this, and immediately see what's working...what's not.
> >
> > Last tip:
> > Go into the menu and set your camera's image review setting to: "info"
> > Then...learn to read the histogram which will now be displayed with each
> > image after you shoot it.
> > You can also view the histogram during regular playback of images by
> > simply
> > hitting the "info" button while viewing an image on the screen of your
> > camera. This will tell you all the information about how the image was
> > exposed, and what your settings were, including the exposure
compensation
> > scale.
> >
> > You'll get better at it in short order.
> >
> > Bottom line here is... It's not your lens.
> > Your camera is working just fine.
> > It just assumes that you are in control...
> > ...It may take a while before that is actually true.
> > :) 
> > -Mark
> >
> >
>
> Mark, and everyone else who has responded to this post. I would like to
> thank you all for your kindness and your time in answering my questions
> better than I could have imagined.
>
> I am reading and doing a lot of the suggestions you have given me and yes
> it's not the lens it's the guy behind the viewfinder. I will however get
> better with practice and reading. Also my son-n-law says he will help me
> with things also.
>
> Anyway I just wanted to thank you all for your words of wisdom and
> consideration for a new person going from fixed lens to SLR.
>
> God Bless
> Tim

We appreciate people who...appreciate...the help. :) 
Many here ask a question...get significant help, and then we never hear back
from them again.
-Glad things are working a bit better.
This stuff will take some time, but you're going to love your 20D.
It's a great camera that is capable of keeping up with you as you grow and
learn new skills along the way.
Truly a quality, capable piece of equipment.
-Mark
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 8:46:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tim S. wrote:
> Ok, please be gentle I'm a newbie to SLR Photography but have a few
> questions?
>
> I just received my 20D a few days ago and because of money constraints opted
> to get the kit with the EFS 18-55mm lens. A few observations I have noticed.
>
> 1.) This lens seems a little dark when shooting indoors (even with flash on)
> I'm using a Kalimar UV filter on it, but it doesn't make a difference with
> it on or off as far as the darkness goes.
>
> 2.) Under florescent lights it's even darker, even when setting the white
> balance to florescent.
>
> Now for some questions. Because it looks like I need to purchase a few new
> lenses when I get the money. What would be a good indoor lens that's
> brighter than the one I have? And because I look to shoot wildlife outdoors,
> what's a good zoom lens that will give me good results at say 150 Yards
> without breaking the bank?
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Tim in Phoenix
>
All your pictures with 10% or so brightness outside the contrast range
of this camera will look dark if you use the camera's defaults. It's
caused by the multi point exposure measurement which in true Pro
photographers fashion, meters for the highlights, presuming you can find
detail in shadows. It's not a bad method if you can alter the images in
Photoshop or the Canon editor afterwards but for new users it's not as
intuitive as it could be.

You can get correctly looking exposed by setting the custom function to
use (I think it's called) area average metering or centre weighted.
Can't remember off hand but you'll find it if you look. The same reason
for under exposure with flash which a lot of people are reporting as a
"fault". Basically it's just a feature, not a fault.

Incidently, that lens you have might be a plastic light weight thing but
it can take some pretty decent pictures if you keep it in the range of
20mm to 50mm at about f8 or so. Don't be worried about cranking up the
ISO either. This camera loves 800 ISO and does a very good job at 1600
ISO too so the lens at f5.6 is really not the problem if would be with film.


JD
January 17, 2005 8:46:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

James Douglas wrote:
> All your pictures with 10% or so brightness outside the contrast
range
> of this camera will look dark if you use the camera's defaults. It's
> caused by the multi point exposure measurement
<snip>
> You can get correctly looking exposed by setting the custom function
to
> use (I think it's called) area average metering or centre weighted.

Hi James - if you look at the posted Exif info, you'll see that the
photo was actually taken using center-weighted metering.

Vandit
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 10:59:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tim S." <hjk@cox.com> wrote in message
news:NixGd.8149$ru.4656@fed1read07...

> 1.) This lens seems a little dark when shooting indoors (even with flash
> on) I'm using a Kalimar UV filter on it, but it doesn't make a difference
> with it on or off as far as the darkness goes.
>
With flash you should be fine, even with the pop-up--unless you're shooting
from across the room (say, a gym). Then it's no wonder your photos are too
dark.

Try getting a hot-shoe full-sized flash, or turning up the ISO values
(remember to return back to 100 for brighter-lit situations).

> 2.) Under florescent lights it's even darker, even when setting the white
> balance to florescent.

White balance should make no difference with respect to darkness, only color
balance.

> Now for some questions. Because it looks like I need to purchase a few new
> lenses when I get the money. What would be a good indoor lens that's
> brighter than the one I have?

50mm f/1.8 Mark II. Should cost $75 or so. It's a fixed-focal length lens
(or, as they call it nowadays, a "prime" lens) so you can't zoom in or out.
But if you're willing to do "shoe-leather" zoom, it would be great.
Otherwise, go for 17-40 f/2.8 L lens (I THINK that's what it is), although
that's apt to be very expensive.

> And because I look to shoot wildlife outdoors, what's a good zoom lens
> that will give me good results at say 150 Yards without breaking the bank?

I'd say a Sigma APO Super Macro II, 70-300 f/4-5.6. Will cost $175-200.

> Tim in Phoenix
>
By the way, I live in Tucson.
!