300D and kitlens

[tommykjensen]

Yesterday when shooting the containership I had to use the kitlens for the indoor shots and some outdoor shots as I did not had time to switch lens all the time.

The outdoor shots in cloudy but not dark conditions was very disappointing.

The indoor shots with flash was ok.

I am not sure but I think the quality of the kitlens deteriates when bumping ISO? I shot alot of the photos in ISO 800.

All photos was shot in raw.

Following is the most disappointing shot, taken outdoors cloudy but it was not dark at all.

Shutter: 1/400
F-stop: f/14
Focal length: 55
ISO: 800

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photo.php?n=kitlens1.jpg

Exposure +1
http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photo.php?n=kitlens2.jpg

Exposure +2
http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photo.php?n=kitlens3.jpg

I will definately get a 17-40 mm f/4 L as soon as possible !

[robertwgross]

I am not sure but I think the quality of the kitlens deteriates when bumping ISO?


That is kind of silly. The lens has no idea what ISO the camera body is set for, nor does it know about shutter speed either. The only thing it cares about is the aperture setting.

---Bob Gross---

[Jon]

Which one of the three looks closest to what you thought it should?

I have to say that ISO 800, 1/400, f/14 seems a little underexposed for Cloudy-Bright, maybe 2/3 stop from the rule of thumb 1/800 & f/8 (1/400 & f/11) if that's what the conditions were.

[tommykjensen]

I am not sure but I think the quality of the kitlens deteriates when bumping ISO?


That is kind of silly. The lens has no idea what ISO the camera body is set for, nor does it know about shutter speed either. The only thing it cares about is the aperture setting.


I know it sounds silly :?

I just know that this photo is bad for some reason. Other shots taken with the kitlens indoors, ISO 800 and using flash came out ok. Different lens later outside (darker), same ISO better photos?

Maybe the photo can be rescued? It was shot in raw.

In any case I will be replacing the kitlens as soon as I can, the other photos are ok but not really that great. And yes I have probably been spoiled by my 70-200 mm f4L :D

[tommykjensen]

Which one of the three looks closest to what you thought it should?

I have to say that ISO 800, 1/400, f/14 seems a little underexposed for Cloudy-Bright, maybe 2/3 stop from the rule of thumb 1/800 & f/8 (1/400 & f/11) if that's what the conditions were.

Sky would probably be like #2 exposure +1

Buildings like #3 exposure +2

I know I can combine those 2 photos in one but it would still miss something. It looks "flat".

[robertwgross]

I just know that this photo is bad for some reason.

I don't think much of this has to do with the lens. I think you have some metering problems. First of all, what metering mode was used? The camera seems to be reading the bright part of the sky, so that left the dark foreground underexposed. Pure and simple.

How should you fix it?

Go shoot it again with some experimentation. Drop the aim down so that the meter reads the dark foreground, meter off that, and see what you get. I will guess that the foreground will turn out correctly, but now the sky is overexposed.

Now, drop a graduated neutral density filter on the front. Put the dark half of the rectangular filter on the top and leave the bottom clear. Shoot again. It should be better. You can refine that technique more by trying to meter through only the dark half or only through the clear half.

---Bob Gross---

[tommykjensen]

Go shoot it again with some experimentation. Drop the aim down so that the meter reads the dark foreground, meter off that, and see what you get. I will guess that the foreground will turn out correctly, but now the sky is overexposed.

I usually do that, probably missed it this time. Can't do the same shot again as it was shot onboard a containership I visited yesterday. Its not an important photo.

But thanks for the advice. Any specific recommendations on a graduated neutral density filter ? I don't have one currently.

[roanjohn]

Hmmm.............

This is not a lens problem I don't think. At f14, the kit lens should be just as sharp as your L.

As somebody had mentioned, I think its more metering........the buildings are underexposed etc. etc.

Ro1

[robertwgross]

Any specific recommendations on a graduated neutral density filter ?

I don't think that a circular graduated neutral density filter makes any sense, and a rectangular one is the only way to go, e.g. the Cokin system. There is a filter holder that screws onto the front of your lens, and then the actual rectangular filter plate can be pushed up or down so that you can place the dark/clear transition exactly where you want in your scene.

The Cokin system comes in about three sizes, small, medium, and large (I think called A, P, and X). The size is relative to the front filter size of your lens. All of my lenses now take the P size.

I have one gray graduated neutral density filter, and another one that is the same, except it is blue.

---Bob Gross---

[timmyquest]

Hmmm.............

This is not a lens problem I don't think. At f14, the kit lens should be just as sharp as your L.

As somebody had mentioned, I think its more metering........the buildings are underexposed etc. etc.

Ro1

I disagree. Alot of my outdoor shots with this lens look like toms, washed out...ugly.

It was something i had grown use to, then when i got a hold of some flourite, the problem all but vanished.

My boss just bought the 17-40L i'm gonna give it a go and see if the problem is in my head.

[BDM]

I think this a classic example of a backlighted scene. The brightness range from the sky to the foreground was very high as witnessed by the improvement seen in the +2 compensation. However, that did not cure the low local contrastin the foreground. My guess is that the backlight yielded low contrast on the foreground and was probably made worse by probable lens flare. You were shooting into the light and many multi-element zoom lenses don't like that.

That being said, I bet the scene can be helped by suitable photoshop treatment. And it probably could have been helped at the time of shooting by a proper lens shade and a split neutral density filter to bring the sky down to a more manageable light level.

Bruce

[blackviolet]

i was looking for the kittens? where are the kittens? ooohhh kitlens...

grey diffused cloudy skies just suck for ruining otherwise lovely landscapes. as was suggested, try exposing for the foreground and then either bracket and combine elements of the photos, or use a graduated nd filter. you could even be creative and combine a graduated nd with a graduated orange (just don't use too much or you'll get that csi miami look...)

good luck!

[Chazs]

Hmmm. Can't see the pictures to comment. Seems there is an "Illegal Direct Linking to Copyrighted Photo not Allowed." :cry:

[defordphoto]

Hmmm. Can't see the pictures to comment. Seems there is an "Illegal Direct Linking to Copyrighted Photo not Allowed." :cry:

I see them just fine...

[Big_B]

You weren't shooting through tinted glass... were you? :wink:


Seriously though, I agree with the others that it seems to be a meetering problem.

[SENster7]

I hardly ever use the kit lens anymore. Although the kit lens is the only lens I have that currently covers 18-28, the quality of the pictures especially the colors that the kit lens produces from me doesn't match the other lenses I currently have. I suppose a little PS could help with regards to the color, hmmm perhaps I'll try shooting some shots with my kit lens to test this over the weekend, I'll try it and see now since you got me interested hehe.