CANON EOS300D EXPOSURE PROBLEMS

[TERRY WADE]

I use my 300D for aviation photography. I tend to use the TV mode for all my shooting, setting the speed to 500th of a second and letting the camera set
its own aperture. I've noticed that on bright sunny days on white colour schemed aircraft for landing/departing shots, that the images turn out over exposed, (too bright).I have used the exposure compensation decreasing the F STOP by a 1/3, but sometimes the images then turn out too dark! The camera is set to the factory processing parameters.

Is this a common problem with the 300D, and can anyone suggest a better setting to allow my images to turn out better??

Thanks

Terry

[cfcRebel]

IMHO, it is not the 300D's problem, but what do i know. :)
If u haven't already done this, use a CP when shooting. That would darken the sky and give u more saturated picture.

[TERRY WADE]

Thanks for the reply, I actually use a UV Filter on all my Canon lenses
Terry:)

[jfrancho]

Use a Circular Polarizer, not a UV to darken the sky is what I think he meant. Use RAW mode so you can expose to the right and dial in the exposure when processing.

[cfcRebel]

I have both type of filters too but the UV filter won't give you the same effect that a CP filter provides. I could be wrong.

EDIT: Thanks jf.

[TERRY WADE]

Thanks JF

The only problem with RAW images is doesn't shooting in RAW take up too much CF memory space?

On a trip taking photos of aircraft I can take up to 200 images!

I usually shot in large JPEG mode, I then get aprox 78 images per 256MB CF Cards.

This problem I encounter only tends to happen with white aircraft colour schemes, the aircraft
appears washed out in it's colour, the sky appears OK?

Ta

Terry

[jfrancho]

I use both, at once. I have one CP that fits my largest lens, then step up rings for the rest. Looks a little goofy, but step up ring is $9.95 compared to a good CP at $100+; works better for my budget. The only drawback is in the need to remove the CP/ring combo to replace the lens cap. Maybe that is where a step down ring comes in? I also wonder if using an oversized CP would reduce vignetting?

[cfcRebel]

Terry, you are correct. RAW files are normally bigger than the highest quality jpeg in your camera setting. If u shoot RAW, you should get a bigger capacity Compactflash. Good news is, CF is getting cheaper nowadays. Shop around u should be able to find some slick deals.

[jfrancho]

Thanks JF

The only problem with RAW images is doesn't shooting in RAW take up too much CF memory space?

On a trip taking photos of aircraft I can take up to 200 images!

I usually shot in large JPEG mode, I then get aprox 78 images per 256MB CF Cards.

This problem I encounter only tends to happen with white aircraft colour schemes, the aircraft
appears washed out in it's colour, the sky appears OK?

Ta

TerryYes they take up more space, but I have four 512 cards. I get about 70-75 raw files per card. I was taking almost 300 shots per shoot (for live bands). After a while, I found that I was not only gettign more keepers, but actually getting 3-4 shots of the same keepers. This has allowed me to get more out my CF cards by focusing on quality instead of quantity. Don't get me wrong - I still fill those cards up, and I'm by no means done learning, but prctice only makes you better. I see 512 cards for <$60 all the time; grab some now.

[robertwgross]

It's a little difficult to say here, since we don't know how large the white subject is within the overall sky. However, if the subject is white, then you want to change the Exposure Compensation to +1, not -1.

To some users, this seems counterintuitive, and especially so in this case, since you report the subject being "washed out."

It might also be a white balance problem. Hard to say.

---Bob Gross---

[jfrancho]

It's a little difficult to say here, since we don't know how large the white subject is within the overall sky. However, if the subject is white, then you want to change the Exposure Compensation to +1, not -1.

To some users, this seems counterintuitive, and especially so in this case, since you report the subject being "washed out."

It might also be a white balance problem. Hard to say.

---Bob Gross---You make a great point here. If I'm getting you right, the goal is to under expose the sky by a stop or two, and properly expose the subject. This would give a sharp subject and nice blue sky, correct?

[TERRY WADE]

Thanks firstly for the replies.

Regarding Exposure Compensation, according to the EOS 300D manual,
page 75, you have to decrease the exposure to make it darker, this is
what I'm doing by a 1/3 of an F STOP to try and make the too lighter
aircraft darker, and to try and bring out the subject colour more?

Regards

Terry

[cfcRebel]

Thanks firstly for the replies.

Regarding Exposure Compensation, according to the EOS 300D manual,
page 75, you have to decrease the exposure to make it darker, this is
what I'm doing by a 1/3 of an F STOP to try and make the too lighter
aircraft darker, and to try and bring out the subject colour more?

Regards

Terry
I think that is quite opposite of what Bob said (please correct me if i'm wrong, Bob). It's just like shooting in snow or white sand beach. You want to increase (+) the Exposure Compensation because the bg is too bright.
Anywayz, try the circular polarizer if u have one, and/or increasing your Exposure Compensation. Good luck.

[PhotosGuy]

Terry, my solution to the problems you're having is to shoot on M & let the latitude in RAW files allow me to adjust for the small differences in exposure. Adjust this, compensate for that, it's more than I want to fool around with when I'm shooting. Good luck, whatever you decide. ;-)

[robertwgross]

First of all, let's review Exposure Compensation, just to make sure we are in agreement.

The meter does not know colors or anything. It thinks everything is 18% gray, and it meters accordingly to produce a standard exposure. If you shoot at a white subject (let's ignore background for a moment), then the meter is going to give a solution to make that subject look kind of light gray, and that is not exactly what you had in mind. So, you dial in +1 or +2 Exposure Compensation. That cranks up the exposure solution so that the white subject actually looks white. Similarly, for a black subject. The meter is going to make it look kind of a gray color. So, you dial in -1 or -2 Exposure Compensation. That cranks down the exposure solution so that the black subject looks black. All that is basic.

Now, it gets more complex when you have a contrasty background (e.g. dark blue sky and white aircraft). The camera's metering can only go so far in assuming that the subject is roughly in the center. There are about twenty ways that this can fool the camera and you get a junky result. There aren't many ways that you can set it up and expect it to be perfect. I would suggest to shoot a few test shots, zoom in on the rear display to see what you think, study the histogram, shoot a few more tests...

I'm not an aircraft guy. The nearest I come to this is shooting a Blue Heron in flight.

---Bob Gross---

[TERRY WADE]

Bob

Many thanks for the interesting reply.

I think perhaps I'm becoming far too fussy with my images....

Thanks

Terry

[PhotosGuy]

It thinks everything is 18% gray, and it meters accordingly to produce a standard exposure. That's what I thought too, Bob, but it only works for film if you're using the meter in the camera! I was going to illustrate the "It thinks everything is 18% gray" thing for a class, & found that digital meters measure the brightest highlight! :o
When you "expose to the right", the best way for me to get the right reading is if I use a matte, or not shiny white subject. See my test with reflective subjects & what I learned from that.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=54281
OTOH, an incident meter (currently gathering dust) would solve the problem, but it's a PITA to carry, so instead I just carry a sheet of white paper which I can also use for WB.

[slin100]

Terry,

I'm guessing that the aircraft is not taking up a large part of the scene because normally a large, dominant white object would cause the camera to underexpose. The camera may be metering off something else in the scene. If this is, in fact, the case you can try taking a reading off of the aircraft and dialing in +2 stop exposure compensation to render it white. This will guarantee that the highlights will not be blown.

My other suggestion is to switch to RAW. RAW images have at least 1 stop more dynamic range than JPG. This will give you more headroom to preserve highlights.

RAW images are much larger but in this situation the tradeoff will be worth it. Memory is cheap. You can get 1 GB for $50-70 and that can hold 160+ shots. You can also invest in a portable, self-powered hard drive with a CF interface. These are around $200 or less for 40 GB!

[robertwgross]

Steven, that is exactly the same thought that crept into my mind as I slept on this problem.

Fill up the frame with more subject, which should cause the metering or compensation or anything else to be more accurate on the subject.

---Bob Gross---

[BrianEE93]

I use both, at once. I have one CP that fits my largest lens, then step up rings for the rest. Looks a little goofy, but step up ring is $9.95 compared to a good CP at $100+; works better for my budget. The only drawback is in the need to remove the CP/ring combo to replace the lens cap. Maybe that is where a step down ring comes in? I also wonder if using an oversized CP would reduce vignetting?

You could just buy a spare cap in the size of your CP.

[jfrancho]

Yes I could, and I would probably buy Tamron caps, since I like them better, but I'd need four or five caps, and now we're talking 512 card money. I'll take the card first.

[Titus213]

Steven, that is exactly the same thought that crept into my mind as I slept on this problem.

Fill up the frame with more subject, which should cause the metering or compensation or anything else to be more accurate on the subject.

---Bob Gross---

I really like this solution. It's not an exposure problem, his lens isn't long enough...:lol:

[jfrancho]

You could just buy a spare cap in the size of your CP.Jeez, it was late...sorry for my boneheaded response....
Yes one cap since I have one CP. Thank you Brian.
No more posts after midnite, I promise.