Strange Lighting Problem
|
New member Username: CodewizePost Number: 5 Registered: May-06 | Ok I shot some pics at a show with my D70, Nikkor 18-70 ED Lens. These were shot at 1/90 F4.8 and 1/30 F4.5 respectively. No flash Another photographer who was shooting there ended up with great pics shooting at 1/125 F5.6 - 7. I'm trying to understand why my camera thinks it needs more light and he's shooting fine with higher shutter speeds and smaller apertures? Why do these pictures look flat and washed out. I've shot under these conditions many times and never had this problem before. Thanks http://webspundesigns.com/uploads/Nikon/ |
|
Platinum Member Username: Project6Post Number: 12736 Registered: Dec-03 | EXIF Data for both cameras? What about the settings for your cameras, are they the same? It is impossible to get an evaluation without proper data. You may have the same exact gear, but the settings in-camera are different. You the ISO settings, Metering, Exposure Comp, etc. How long have you been doing photography? |
|
New member Username: CodewizePost Number: 6 Registered: May-06 | Well I think he was using Canon gear. EXIF data for both, yes. We talked about ISO and we were both set to 1000. I'm definitely an armature but an experienced one. I've been doing photography as a serious hobby for 20 years. Since high school. I took photography classes in school and have been shooting with the D70 for 3 years now. My wife is a dancer so as I said I've shot under very similar conditions hundreds of times. I have almost 15k shots on the D70. Most of the setting like that on my camera are set on auto. Metering is set to Color Matrix. I don't know what the setting are on his camera but I'm just looking at the fact that when I'm shooting at ISO 1000 1/90 at F4.2 or so my camera is still saying the photo is way under exposed. But yet he's shooting easily at 1/125 and F7 without a hitch. I'm just feeling like the camera should have had plenty of light. |
|
Silver Member Username: ClaudermilkPost Number: 415 Registered: Sep-04 | I'm not aware of any Canon that shoots at an even ISO 1000. AFAIK, the 30D, 5D, and 1D-series have 1250 available. My 20D jumps from 800 to 1600, and AFAIK the Rebels and older bodies (30D, 10D, D60) all do the same. Metering can make a huge difference. I typically shoot center-weighted; all I care about exposing correctly is the performer--background doesn't matter & if it falls to black all the better. So I have two suspicions: a) he was really shooting ISO 1600, and b) he was using center-weighted or spot metering. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Project6Post Number: 12742 Registered: Dec-03 | Another thing you may want to avoid is using the D70's histogram to tell you the type of exposure you are getting. It is not very accurate, I believe it is biased towards one spectrum of light. I do not use it. Use your eyes and calibrate your monitor. If you are using most of the auto features on your camera, set it to Program Auto-Mode and fiddle with the exposure compensation. |
|
New member Username: CodewizePost Number: 7 Registered: May-06 | Hmm Interesting. He said he shot at ISO 1000. I don't know. I talked to him right after the show because I could tell I was having a problem. So Chris, you feel that in a situation like that I should shoot with center weighted? I'll try that next time with a 10mm setting? Berny, I didn't really look at the histogram. It's not a feature that I'm fluent with using so I don't. I know that's probably a bad thing, but... Thanks guys. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Project6Post Number: 12748 Registered: Dec-03 | You stated that your "camera is still saying the photo is way under exposed"...this is the reason why I made a statement against using the histogram. So how does the camera tell you that you are under exposed? A lowlight situation usually calls for spot or center weighted metering so that you can set for the exposure properly. Matrix metering accounts for all available light. |
|
New member Username: CodewizePost Number: 8 Registered: May-06 | Ohh ok I see what you're saying. I'm looking at the light meeter in the view finder. When I took those shots that light meter was 1 line from being all the way to the negative side. It was like no mater what I set the camera too, it wasn't happy. If I took the shutter down to 1/3 or 1/6 it was satisfied but you can't shoot that type of subject at those speeds I thought you were actually talking about bringing up the histogram on a particular photo. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Project6Post Number: 12752 Registered: Dec-03 | Time to experiment Learn about white balance and boosting your ISO to max and use a noise filter. And as Chris suggested, use spot or center-weighted metering. Have you thought about using a faster lens? |
|
New member Username: CodewizePost Number: 9 Registered: May-06 | LOL White balance is one of the first things I played with after switching from film to digital. Totally different world, as you know. I guess a noise filter? will take out the grain that's results with the very high sensitivity settings. I'd love to get a new lens or two but they're not in the budget this year. I really want the new 80-200 Nikkor. I hear it's pretty sweet. I do have to say I'm not thrilled with the 70-300 ED lens I got last year. The focus is very slow and at full zoom it's very easy to get ghosting in the image. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Project6Post Number: 12756 Registered: Dec-03 | Oh yeah, the good ol' 80-200 workhorse. Very nice lens. Wait till you get hold of the 18-200 VR. A noise filter is a great tool as part of your work flow. Check out Noise Ninja. Yup, the 70-300 is a great lens for bright days out on the field, otherwise, it is best left in the bag. The chromatic aberration is horrible on that one. |
|
New member Username: CodewizePost Number: 10 Registered: May-06 | Noise Ninja is a software product. Can't i do that in PS. Yeah I was disappointed with that lens. I guess for the $300 it's worth it but not the best lens in the world. The 18-200 is like $700 or something. Obviously a much better lens but again not in the budget right now. What's the VR version? I guess a better question is, is that a recommended lens for general indoor/outdoor use? I love the versatility of the kit 18-70 but obviously need something with more zoom. |
|
Silver Member Username: ClaudermilkPost Number: 416 Registered: Sep-04 | Only 1/3 stop under? That's close enough. I've had to shoot 1-1 2/3 stops under at times to get the shot; of course I shoot RAW and bring the exposure back up in conversion. I currently have Noiseware as my stand-alone noise filter and the basic NN now built in to Bibble Pro--I will add a full NN license later this year. It is that good. If you can't get a fast enough shutter speed and you lens is wide open at f4.5, then I see two choices--boost the ISO setting higher ( if available, and that starts getting ugly fast with Nikon), or get faster glass. The second option has two paths: the expensive one with very fast zooms (f2.8 being all you can get, but $$$$), or fast primes which have the advantages of lower cost, sharper images, and faster speeds (up to f1.0 in a few cases), but a fixed framing. VR is Vibration Reduction, same thing as Canon's Image Stabilization. While it's a very nice feature, it is limited usefulness with stopping a moving subject. |
|
Bronze Member Username: CodewizePost Number: 11 Registered: May-06 | So my final question is, do you think that the under exposure is what caused that weird color problem. The red overtones and the flatness? It just seemed to weird to me that way those photos turned out. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Project6Post Number: 12796 Registered: Dec-03 | I don't think it is the under exposure. It is your lighting. |
|
Silver Member Username: ClaudermilkPost Number: 417 Registered: Sep-04 | I agree. I'm always fighting red cast in theater lighting. Partly because of the tungsten lights they use (I combat that with setting WB to 3200K), and partly the fact that lighting techs have a thing about red-gelling everything. |
|
Silver Member Username: ClaudermilkPost Number: 418 Registered: Sep-04 | Ah, I finally noticed the link to your samples. Yup, that red cast is the same thing I'm always fighting as I just mentioned. Looks like the slow shutter speeds are causing issues too--the softness is probably motion blur. Exposure seems ok--you have some highlights bordering on blown, so plenty of light; since the guy shooting Canon there is getting about 2 stops less light, I'm betting his ISO was much higher than 1000 and he was using center-weighted or spot metering, not evaluative. |
|
Silver Member Username: LeonskiPost Number: 124 Registered: Jan-07 | ISO1000 IS 1/3 STOP FASTER THAN ISO800 AND IS A 'LEGITIMATE' ISO#. WHOLE STOPS ARE 12.5 / 25 / 50 / 100 / 200 / 400 / 800 / 1600 / 3200 / 6400 ETC. THE LOWEST, 12.5 I HAVE NEVER ACTUALLY SEEN, BUT ISO25 IS WHAT KODACHROME AND *VERY* EARLY KODACOLOR WERE AVAILBLE IN. AS A 'HISTORICAL' NOTE, WHEN KODACOLOR WHEN TO 64, LATER 80 AND FINALLY 100 (GASP!) EVERYONE WAS AMAZED AND PLEASED. |