Washed out pictures -- Dynamic Range?

[jimsolt]

Rebel XT RAW -- Shot lots of images the other day. Many, if not all appear to be washed out. When viewed in DPP RAW converter, the Dynamic Range appears to be very small, mostly in the center range. The box on the lower left of the Dynamic Range display reads 0 (-9.0). The one on the lower right reads 4095 (3.5).
Let me state here that while I understand the concept of dynamic range and my image appears to be very limited in that respect, I have not the vaguest idea what these numbers mean.
When I bring the left and right sliders in toward the image display, the picture improves greatly. The numbers then read left 55 (-2.7) and right 1449 (2.0), and I have a "punchier" picture, but obviously still not a great one.
What is limiting the dynamic range in the original image? Could it be my metering method? The nature of the composition does not lend itself to a great range of tonal value, but is there a technique I could use to help this situation?
BTW, I'm a great believer in trying to solve this myself, but prior to the XT RAW compatability problem with PS, I've not dealt with DPP and I'm not aware of any "manual" that came with it.

Make - Canon
Model - Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT
EF 28-135mm USM IS
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
WhitePoint - 0.31
PrimaryChromaticities - 0.64
YCbCrCoefficients - 0.30
YCbCrPositioning - Co-Sited
ExifOffset - 320
ExposureTime - 1/1000 seconds
FNumber - 5.60
ExposureProgram - Aperture priority
ISOSpeedRatings - 100
ExifVersion - 0221
DateTimeOriginal - 2005:04:23 08:11:35
DateTimeDigitized - 2005:04:23 08:11:35
ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr
ShutterSpeedValue - 1/1000 seconds
ApertureValue - F 5.60
ExposureBiasValue - 0.00
MeteringMode - Average
Flash - Not fired, compulsory flash mode
FocalLength - 135 mm
UserComment -
FlashPixVersion - 0100
ColorSpace - Uncalibrated
ExifImageWidth - 3456
ExifImageHeight - 2304
InteroperabilityOffset - 9366
FocalPlaneXResolution - 3954.23
FocalPlaneYResolution - 3958.76
FocalPlaneResolutionUnit - Inch
CustomRendered - Normal process
ExposureMode - Auto
WhiteBalance - Auto
SceneCaptureType - Standard



Thanks for advice.
Jim

[tim]

Can you attach a picture? Reisze it to about 800 pixels wide then attach it to a post.

[Tom W]

I'd say use the attached JPG as it will be closest to what the camera is giving you.

And you're right, I don't think a DPP manual comes with the camera kit. There is one at Canon's USA site, but you'll have to dig for it. Its in PDF format.

[jimsolt]

Can you attach a picture? Reisze it to about 800 pixels wide then attach it to a post.

Here it is. I deleted my post about which version to send just as I received an answer to use the jpeg, so that's what I used. Photoshop used only to resize.

I would just add, it was NOT an overcast day. I was shooting to West, morning sun behind me.

[booggerg]

I don't see a problem with the Dynamic range here. If it was a dynamic range deficiency, you would see blown highlights and 100% black shadows.

[Bob_A]

Check your contrast setting on your camera. I used auto-contrast for your pic in PS E2 and got the attached result.


Bob

[jimsolt]

I don't see a problem with the Dynamic range here. If it was a dynamic range deficiency, you would see blown highlights and 100% black shadows.
Admitting some ignorance on this subject, I think the results you describe would indicate TOO MUCH dynamic range. The problem as I see it is NOT ENOUGH dynamic range, so that when I move the dark and light sliders in toward the middle where the entire image seems to be, the picture improves.
Maybe this is the answer.
I had hoped for suggestions to improve the original image, but maybe that's what I'm stuck with given the subject.
Jim

[Tom W]

The contrast is very narrow though - and the image isn't real bright. I took a gander at the histogram and it really doesn't use all the available space.

I don't know what is wrong here, but check all your parameters, custom functions, exposure compensation, and such. Did you have a filter on the camera?

Let's see - 1/1000 sec at f/5.6, ISO 100. That's a reasonable exposure for a sunny day.

Check your lens and make sure that the aperture is working, using the DOF preview button.

[jimsolt]

Check your contrast setting on your camera. I used auto-contrast for your pic in PS E2 and got the attached result.


Bob
I'm not aware of a contrast setting on my camera, but your result is about the same as I get when moving the sliders in "Dynamic Range" in DPP RAW and in "Levels" in PE3.
As I said above, maybe this is the answer. I had hoped to improve upon the original -- my theory being that if you start with the maximum amount of information, you get a better result.
Jim

[jimsolt]

The contrast is very narrow though - and the image isn't real bright. I took a gander at the histogram and it really doesn't use all the available space.

I don't know what is wrong here, but check all your parameters, custom functions, exposure compensation, and such. Did you have a filter on the camera?

Let's see - 1/1000 sec at f/5.6, ISO 100. That's a reasonable exposure for a sunny day.

Check your lens and make sure that the aperture is working, using the DOF preview button.

You are referring to the same problem I see. I clearly have not used much of the available space, and I'm looking for suggestions as to how I might make better use of that space.
As to parameters, I think they do not apply to RAW, and while I think my exposure was correct, I may in fact have been exposing with the wrong meter setting -- center weighted.
If I could get my time machine fired up, I'd go back and do some more shots.:)
Jim

[Bob_A]

Hi Jim,

On my 20D, on the camera under parameters, I can change the default contrast for how the pictures are created as jpegs and how the pictures are displayed if they are shot Raw and I open the file up in EOS Viewer Utility. Was just wondering if you have selected a parameter set with the contrast turned down to minimum ...

I tried going in EOS Viewer Utility and minimizing the contrast for a few of my pics and couldn't get them to look quite as washed out as the one you displayed though.

[tim]

Have you turned your exposure compensation down by accident? That picture looks underexposed to me, I don't see any dynamic range problem.

[jimsolt]

Hi Jim,

On my 20D, on the camera under parameters, I can change the default contrast for how the pictures are created as jpegs and how the pictures are displayed if they are shot Raw and I open the file up in EOS Viewer Utility. Was just wondering if you have selected a parameter set with the contrast turned down to minimum ...

I tried going in EOS Viewer Utility and minimizing the contrast for a few of my pics and couldn't get them to look quite as washed out as the one you displayed though.
I don't think the XT has such a control, but even if it did, I imagine that control wouldn't change the arrangement of the pixels from their concentration in only the middle of the hystogram. I have seen an evenly lit gray card that is virtually a spike in the middle of the hystogram and that is an accurate representation of the picture. It is, however, a pretty boring picture to look at.
Again, I come back to maybe I've faithfully reproduced what was in the sky that day and it simply doesn't jump out at you like I feel a good picture should. As several have agreed, working with the contrast/dynamic range sliders help it a lot.
I'd just like to hear some opinions as to whether or not I got all I could with the original capture. If that could be improved, I'd like to know how.
Jim

[J Rabin]

Jim. I'll take a whack at this. Besides the dust on your sensor... and besides the obvious underexposure of the photo (you probably needed 2/3-1 1/3 f/stop more light since meter gets fooled pointing at hazy sky)....
There is an old photography adage worth remembering: "Getting the light right" is different than getting in the RIGHT light. Getting the light right is exposure (your photo is under).
Getting in the RIGHT light is also a problem in your picture. I get narrow histogram (i.e., LOW CONTRAST) pictures when there is atmospoheric haze, humidity, etc. Poor photography light quality. Atmospheric haze effect is worse the farther away the subject (say beyond 5-10 feet). Here you were shooting at infinity. The effect can leave us boring light quality.
The same thing happens with film. My point? On that day you just did not have opportunity to be "in good light." Happens to everyone. You can mess with the photos too long (increasing contrast) trying to improve them, but they'll likely never be memorable keepers. We're not always lucky enough to be "in good light!" Hope that helps. Jack

[jimsolt]

Have you turned your exposure compensation down by accident? That picture looks underexposed to me, I don't see any dynamic range problem.
No, I'm pretty sure I was not using any exposure compensation. It doesn't show up in any of the exif data, but maybe it wouldn't. I've never looked for it before.
Again I hear that you don't see any dynamic range problem. Maybe I'm totally wrong, and there isn't one. I think the range in this picture is very narrow and limited to the center of the range, and thus THAT IS A PROBLEM.
Am I wrong about it being a problem?
I think I was wrong about something else a long time ago, but I can't remember it. :D I don't seem to be suffering any ill effects from being wrong then. I guess it wouldn't hurt if I were wrong again.
Jim

[J Rabin]

Jim. There is no such thing as a right or wrong histogram. They just ARE. They reflect what's in the image. See my post above. Your image suffered low contrast because that's what the scene gave you (in addition to you meter being fooled). Get a good book on EXPOSURE.

[jimsolt]

Jim. I'll take a whack at this. Besides the dust on your sensor... and besides the obvious underexposure of the photo (you probably needed 2/3-1 1/3 f/stop more light since meter gets fooled pointing at hazy sky)....
There is an old photography adage worth remembering: "Getting the light right" is different than getting in the RIGHT light. Getting the light right is exposure (your photo is under).
Getting in the RIGHT light is also a problem in your picture. I get narrow histogram (i.e., LOW CONTRAST) pictures when there is atmospoheric haze, humidity, etc. Poor photography light quality. Atmospheric haze effect is worse the farther away the subject (say beyond 5-10 feet). Here you were shooting at infinity. The effect can leave us boring light quality.
The same thing happens with film. My point? On that day you just did not have opportunity to be "in good light." Happens to everyone. You can mess with the photos too long (increasing contrast) trying to improve them, but they'll likely never be memorable keepers. We're not always lucky enough to be "in good light!" Hope that helps. Jack\

OK, that sounds like what I wanted to hear. I also think it was an exposure problem. Not to make excuses, but it was not a hazy day, though there undoubtedly was some haze between me and those balloons. I know about the meters being fooled. Would I have been better off using the evaluative metering rather than the center weighted method I was using? Would a hand held incident meter have been better? Or is it more a matter of experience in guessing the amount to compensate?
NOW, I WAS GOING TO HOLD OFF FOR ANOTHER POST, but you brought up the sensor dust. I've gone back over these photos and it APPEARS to me that the dust appeared midway through this sequence and I DID NOT change lenses. Is that likely or am I just not seeing it in the other pictures?
Jim

[jimsolt]

Jim. There is no such thing as a right or wrong histogram. They just ARE. They reflect what's in the image. See my post above. Your image suffered low contrast because that's what the scene gave you (in addition to you meter being fooled). Get a good book on EXPOSURE.
Thanks. I have some good books on exposure and it's always a good suggestion to read about something. Unfortunately, having read about all the things being discussed in this thread including the no-such-thing-as-a-bad-histogram, when it comes down to putting it into practice, it doesn't always go as planned. My hope in bringing it up here was to find some suggestions as to why my picture didn't look like what I thought it should when I followed what I thought were the techniques I read about in the books.
Talk about things not going as planned. I showed up at 5:30 AM to get shots of the balloons being inflated in the pre-sunrise light. The wind shifted so the balloons couldn't fly over the populated area the westerly wind would have blown them over. The balloons drove off to an undisclosed location (as we say nowadays) and what I got was shots of balloons coming toward me preparing for a landing instead of balloons inflating and taking off -- what I thought would make for much better pictures.
Jim

[J Rabin]

Well, at least you didn't have drought, smoke from Palm spring brush fires, 10 plagues. It was just crappy light. Count your blessings! Seriously, the bad hair day hazy light effect would have been less had you been much closer. Also, maybe just meter off nice green grass and leave the camera in manual. I find my 20D is in M 80+% of time when shooting outdoor variable contrast scenes. Jack

[tim]

I really don't know what's going on here. I looked at the EXIF and it all looks as expected, no EX, and everything else looks reasonable. The only thing I can think of is the camera's not exposing correctly.

Have you tried a different lens?

btw I think you have a couple of dirt spots on your sensor.

[Movick]

I agree with J Rabin; natural (available light) situations can really be frustrating! Your image was indeed underexposed... I'd estimate by at least a full stop or better.

On a sunny relatively clear or cloudless day; a medium blue sky would fall very close to middle (18% grey). The green grass in this scene would meter similarly. Try metering your exposures on manual next time, using the sky or green grass as a gray card. Select the aperture and shutter speed combo you’d prefer (take into account the movement of your subjects – such as the balloons) to have the sky meter at “normal exposure.” If you don’t have the time to review each shot; use exposure bracketing (+/- 1/3).

If I may suggest; read up on the 5-7 zone exposure system, and learn to determine exposure consistently, and without deferring to your camera's “intuition.” Remember; your camera doesn't know the difference between black and white!

[tim]

Oh, here's my attempt in photoshop.