Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

20D Grey Highlights At ISO 1600

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 2:26:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Hi. I have just been viewing some photos I shot indoors, but have noticed
that the highlights seem to be grey! Anyone else experienced this?

The photos were shot on a 20D. All the shots at ISO 800 and lower seem OK.
April 27, 2005 2:26:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Giulia" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:LeidnSMzLpCYx_LfRVnyvQ@pipex.net...
> Hi. I have just been viewing some photos I shot indoors, but have noticed
> that the highlights seem to be grey! Anyone else experienced this?
>
> The photos were shot on a 20D. All the shots at ISO 800 and lower seem
> OK.
>


The contrast range of 20D at the running man idiot setting of 3200 ISO is
about 60% of the range at 100 ISO. I can only presume the range at 800 ISO
is somewhere less than 80% . Add this to shooting JPG and you'll lose the
highlights and the shadow detail and get exactly what you have.

Douglas
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 3:21:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

You have underexposed. Use photoshop, go to levels, and adjust the grey so
that it becomes white. You will lose some tonality doing this, so next time
you should correctly expose the photo when you take it by using the partial
metering on the white, and increasing exposure by 1 or 2 stops.

Duncan.

"Giulia" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:LeidnSMzLpCYx_LfRVnyvQ@pipex.net...
> Hi. I have just been viewing some photos I shot indoors, but have noticed
> that the highlights seem to be grey! Anyone else experienced this?
>
> The photos were shot on a 20D. All the shots at ISO 800 and lower seem
> OK.
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 11:30:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Thank you Duncan (and Douglas) for your posts.

You are right. I increased the exposure by 0.2 and the grey highlights
disappeared.

Unfortunately, in this situation I was shooting in low light, with a long
focal length and a fast moving subject (my nephew!), so increasing exposure
by 1 or 2 stops would have caused motion blur.

Thank you for your advise, it is greatly appreciated.

Please excuse my ignorance, but it there a way to detect this when shooting?
The histogram looked OK (although little detail at the high end). Also, the
photo looked fine on LCD, it was only when viewed on computer that it was
visible. Maybe spot metering (although 20D doesn't really have spot
metering)?




"Duncan J Murray"
<duncan.murray@remove.this.bit.medical-school.and.this.bit.oxford.ac.uk>
wrote in message news:D 4np3d$qu4$1@news.ox.ac.uk...
> You have underexposed. Use photoshop, go to levels, and adjust the grey
so
> that it becomes white. You will lose some tonality doing this, so next
time
> you should correctly expose the photo when you take it by using the
partial
> metering on the white, and increasing exposure by 1 or 2 stops.
>
> Duncan.



> "Giulia" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:LeidnSMzLpCYx_LfRVnyvQ@pipex.net...
> > Hi. I have just been viewing some photos I shot indoors, but have
noticed
> > that the highlights seem to be grey! Anyone else experienced this?
> >
> > The photos were shot on a 20D. All the shots at ISO 800 and lower seem
> > OK.
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 12:22:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Hi,
Questions specific to the 20D and what its sensor can do don't belong
in this group.
Thanks!
April 28, 2005 12:49:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Giulia" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ZN-dnVOmXtXRRPLfRVnysg@pipex.net...
> Thank you Duncan (and Douglas) for your posts.
>
> You are right. I increased the exposure by 0.2 and the grey highlights
> disappeared.
>
> Unfortunately, in this situation I was shooting in low light, with a long
> focal length and a fast moving subject (my nephew!), so increasing
> exposure
> by 1 or 2 stops would have caused motion blur.
>
> Thank you for your advise, it is greatly appreciated.
>
> Please excuse my ignorance, but it there a way to detect this when
> shooting?
> The histogram looked OK (although little detail at the high end). Also,
> the
> photo looked fine on LCD, it was only when viewed on computer that it was
> visible. Maybe spot metering (although 20D doesn't really have spot
> metering)?
> ---------------
Spot metering... Hmmm. Canon's metering on a 20D is a little strange for
many people. The way it focuses (out of the box) is odd too. Those little
squares in the viewfinder are all active for focus and exposure at Canon's
default settings and this is detrimental to good photography.

How it works (focus wise) is which ever square finds the closest part of the
subject becomes the active square so your pictures may or may not be focused
properly. It will however always focus on the closest object it detects.
Focus on a face with f2.8 and the nose will be in focus but the eyes out of
focus.

With exposure, all the squares are read and averaged so that the whole
picture is exposed at a reading which will result in incorrect exposure with
all but flash. Personally I've never found any use for this ridicilous
method of metering. I set the metering to the single centre point and use
the toggle to change it if this doesn't pickup what it is I'm metering on.

My experience is that although many people here report the 20D as a fine
camera, the two I bought were not actually as convienient to use and produce
as well exposed and focused results as my earlier 10D did and (shock horror)
as sharp a shot as my trusty old SD9 Sigma does!

Douglas
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 12:49:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Douglas wrote:
> "Giulia" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ZN-dnVOmXtXRRPLfRVnysg@pipex.net...
>
>>Thank you Duncan (and Douglas) for your posts.
>>
>>You are right. I increased the exposure by 0.2 and the grey highlights
>>disappeared.
>>
>>Unfortunately, in this situation I was shooting in low light, with a long
>>focal length and a fast moving subject (my nephew!), so increasing
>>exposure
>>by 1 or 2 stops would have caused motion blur.
>>
>>Thank you for your advise, it is greatly appreciated.
>>
>>Please excuse my ignorance, but it there a way to detect this when
>>shooting?
>>The histogram looked OK (although little detail at the high end). Also,
>>the
>>photo looked fine on LCD, it was only when viewed on computer that it was
>>visible. Maybe spot metering (although 20D doesn't really have spot
>>metering)?
>>---------------
>
> Spot metering... Hmmm. Canon's metering on a 20D is a little strange for
> many people. The way it focuses (out of the box) is odd too. Those little
> squares in the viewfinder are all active for focus and exposure at Canon's
> default settings and this is detrimental to good photography.
>
> How it works (focus wise) is which ever square finds the closest part of the
> subject becomes the active square so your pictures may or may not be focused
> properly. It will however always focus on the closest object it detects.
> Focus on a face with f2.8 and the nose will be in focus but the eyes out of
> focus.
>
> With exposure, all the squares are read and averaged so that the whole
> picture is exposed at a reading which will result in incorrect exposure with
> all but flash. Personally I've never found any use for this ridicilous
> method of metering. I set the metering to the single centre point and use
> the toggle to change it if this doesn't pickup what it is I'm metering on.
>
> My experience is that although many people here report the 20D as a fine
> camera, the two I bought were not actually as convienient to use and produce
> as well exposed and focused results as my earlier 10D did and (shock horror)
> as sharp a shot as my trusty old SD9 Sigma does!
>
> Douglas
>

Thought that the 20D does have the spot metering???
As for the AF, it is always set to the center AF point on my 300D.
I never use the remaining AF points.
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 3:03:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Matt Clara wrote:
> Hi,
> Questions specific to the 20D and what its sensor can do don't
> belong
> in this group.
> Thanks!

What group is that?
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 4:05:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

> Please excuse my ignorance, but it there a way to detect this when
> shooting?
> The histogram looked OK (although little detail at the high end). Also,
> the
> photo looked fine on LCD, it was only when viewed on computer that it was
> visible. Maybe spot metering (although 20D doesn't really have spot
> metering)?

We're all ignorant!

From what I have heard, the LCD screen is good for checking sharpness, but
it is often not calibrated correctly for looking at colour/tone.

The 20D has partial metering, which will be fine for this. Basically, and
this is the hardest part of photograph (in my opinion), you need to meter
from a particular area (preferably all the same tone), and then 'select' how
that area will turn out on the image by adjusting the exposure up or down.
For highlights (things that are meant to be white) you need to increase
exposure. For slide film, it's just over 1 stop (i.e. double the time of
exposure), for digital, I think it's about the same.

You could try out some experiments using your partial metering and
bracketing over a 6 stop range, in half stops, using partial metering. That
way you'll find out just about where different compensation values will lie
on the tone curve.

If you don't get any of the above, do say.

Duncan.
April 28, 2005 11:42:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:p sqdncJEupMp4e3fRVn-pA@giganews.com...
> Matt Clara wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Questions specific to the 20D and what its sensor can do don't belong
>> in this group.
>> Thanks!
>
> What group is that? ----------
Any that mentions Canon.
You ought to know that by now Frank
If you don't have a Leica or shoot on that old stuff which needs chemicals
and environmental permissions, don't post in this group!

Douglas
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 1:02:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

The question was about exposure - and who better to know about it than film
users?

Duncan.

"Matt Clara" <mattclara@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114658544.820072.282440@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> Questions specific to the 20D and what its sensor can do don't belong
> in this group.
> Thanks!
>
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 3:21:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Matt Clara wrote:

> Hi,
> Questions specific to the 20D and what its sensor can do don't belong
> in this group.
> Thanks!
>

Perhaps appropriate links such as
news:rec.photo.digital.slr-systems , news:rec.photo.digital and
www.dpreview.com would have been helpful information too.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 4:07:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote

> > Hi,
> > Questions specific to the 20D and what its sensor can do don't
> > belong
> > in this group.
> > Thanks!
>
> What group is that?

I don't want to get into the middle of "right group/wrong group" discussion,
but he might get a better (read more helpful) response in
rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, especially since the OP was about a potential
problem with the 20d. Of course he got good help here too. Just my $.02 :) 

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 2:24:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Matt Clara" <mattclara@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114658544.820072.282440@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> Questions specific to the 20D and what its sensor can do don't belong
> in this group.
> Thanks!

Your quite right. I would like to talk to you about god and how your lack
of faith blah blah blah blah........
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 3:33:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In message <wVSbe.31332$5F3.11503@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Douglas" <decipleofeos@hotmail.com> wrote:

>My experience is that although many people here report the 20D as a fine
>camera, the two I bought were not actually as convienient to use and produce
>as well exposed and focused results as my earlier 10D did

Well, my 20D focuses much better than my 10D did, and faster.

As far as exposure is concerned, the 10D's metering is false. The 10D,
when set to ISO 100, actually meters for about ISO 64, so the exposures
tend to be more saturated, by default. I keep my 10D at +2/3 EC most of
the time, to get the same level of exposure, but I shoot RAW, and I
think the 10D's implicit +2/3 EC is not a good match for it's
sharp-clipping of JPEG highlights.

>and (shock horror)
>as sharp a shot as my trusty old SD9 Sigma does!

The SD9 is "sharp" because it is aliased and therefore pixellated.
Sharpness does not equal detail.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
April 29, 2005 3:33:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> "Douglas" <decipleofeos@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>as sharp a shot as my trusty old SD9 Sigma does!
>
>
> The SD9 is "sharp" because it is aliased and therefore pixellated.
> Sharpness does not equal detail.


That's OK, I've played with dcraw to get a sharper more aliased look out
of the D70. Some shots it's great, some no improvement, some less sharp
looking, I've seen it make awful patterns but not necessarily. Each
alternative has it's strengths that can be harnessed.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 3:35:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In message <d4q5a3$l3q$1@news.ox.ac.uk>,
"Duncan J Murray"
<duncan.murray@remove.this.bit.medical-school.and.this.bit.oxford.ac.uk>
wrote:

>The question was about exposure - and who better to know about it than film
>users?

Digital exposure has different concerns than film exposure, and will
even vary from camera to camera.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 11:19:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In message <HdednRnCAYYYU-zfRVn-2Q@speakeasy.net>,
paul <paul@not.net> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>> "Douglas" <decipleofeos@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>as sharp a shot as my trusty old SD9 Sigma does!
>>
>>
>> The SD9 is "sharp" because it is aliased and therefore pixellated.
>> Sharpness does not equal detail.
>
>
>That's OK, I've played with dcraw to get a sharper more aliased look out
>of the D70. Some shots it's great, some no improvement, some less sharp
>looking, I've seen it make awful patterns but not necessarily. Each
>alternative has it's strengths that can be harnessed.

There is a big difference between the D70 and the SD9; the D70 has
micrtolens and a weak AA filter. The SD9 has no microlenses and no AA
filter, at all.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 9:54:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:30:45 +0100, in
<ZN-dnVOmXtXRRPLfRVnysg@pipex.net>, "Giulia" <nospam@nospam.com> said:

>Thank you Duncan (and Douglas) for your posts.
>
>You are right. I increased the exposure by 0.2 and the grey highlights
>disappeared.
>
>Unfortunately, in this situation I was shooting in low light, with a long
>focal length and a fast moving subject (my nephew!), so increasing exposure
>by 1 or 2 stops would have caused motion blur.

I use fill-flash to deal with subject motion at slow shutter speeds
(typically 1/25th) in low light. My technique is to frame the subject
against a bright background where they would be silhoutted &
motion-blurred, but hit them with a dash (-2/3rd stops or so) of
2nd-curtain flash, which freezes the subject motion while retaining the
natural look of the background.

One other tip, if you're doing a lot of low light photography is to go
shopping for fast (F1.8 -F1.2) prime lenses, rather than trying to use a
standard zoom lens (typically around F3.5-F5.6), because each stop of
aperture you gain from the lens will give you another stop of shutter
speed or ISO quality. For example, I shoot events in night-clubs
(including people dancing) with an wide open F1.8, 50mm prime at ISO
1600, which would be impossible with a F3.5 zoom lens.

>Please excuse my ignorance, but it there a way to detect this when shooting?
>The histogram looked OK (although little detail at the high end). Also, the
>photo looked fine on LCD,

Dunno about the 20D, but I find that my 10D displays shots *way* too
bright to be able to use them to judge exposures. You'll get better
results by checking the histogram. I don't think it's documented
anywhere, but each vertical gridline on the histogram display is
equivalent to 1 EV of brightness or 1 F-stop of exposure. My rule of
thumb is that a shot with nothing (or just blown-out highlights) in the
righmost segment of the histogram is underexposed by a stop. (This is
usable in RAW, BTW, but be ugly in JPEG). Two near-empty rightmost
segments or more means your shot is too underexposed to be usable for
any normal purpose. If you're shooting people, a good rule of thumb is
that you should be seeing lots of pixels in the first half of the
rightmost segment of the histogram.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
!