I am getting frustrated, need the experts help.

[theshape]

Ok, the image on the left is straight out of camera. The image on the right is after it has been adjusted in Lightroom. I know you cannot make the image in the camera come out looking like the image on the right, but seriously? The image on the left looks like crap to me. (and before I get critiqued on the right side image, its a little blown out, but I didn't feel like going back and redoing it right now) What can I do to improve how they come out of the camera? I don't want to have to PP all my images. Here are the specs:

Canon Rebel XTi (400d)
Canon 18-55 Non IS (kit lens)
1/80
f6.3
ISO 100
55mm
Partial metering mode.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l147/the_shape_666/Grr.jpg

[Todd Lambert]

Hard to say, but to get it right in the camera, means you have to get the exposure right, in the camera.

Do all of your shots come out like this?

[theshape]

No, not always. And this was set on P mode since they were running around and I didn't have time to keep changing the exposure. The camera picked it.

[Todd Lambert]

Ah, well that's the problem. Using P mode makes the camera do the thinking and it often "thinks" wrong, getting fooled by the lighting and under or over exposing.

I guess I would say to put the camera into one of the manual/semi manual modes and then check your histograms to see if it's exposed correctly.

[theshape]

I do that when I have a little bit of time, but I was trying to get the shots quickly. But if the camera made the decision to shoot 1/80, f6.3 automatically, or I put it in manual and the meter told me a "proper" exposure with the meter in the center was the same, how do I benefit?

Here is my histo "as shot"

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l147/the_shape_666/histo.jpg

[theshape]

Should I have spot metered? If so, off of what part?

[kortag]

What does your Histo look like after you edit it? Are you just upping your exposure in post?

I was having a similar issue on my 30D. I've recently started playing around with setting my exposure compensation 1/3 to 2/3 of stop high if I am shooting on AV. Or if I am shooting on M I just purposefully push the exposure a little bit.

I started trying this after reading some stuff about "expose to the right" on the forums here. I'd recommend doing a search.

[theshape]

What does your Histo look like after you edit it? Are you just upping your exposure in post?

I was having a similar issue on my 30D. I've recently started playing around with setting my exposure compensation 1/3 to 2/3 of stop high if I am shooting on AV. Or if I am shooting on M I just purposefully push the exposure a little bit.

I started trying this after reading some stuff about "expose to the right" on the forums here. I'd recommend doing a search.

Thanks, will do.

[Mikeroscope]

You can get it to come out of the camera looking like you did PP? I think thats a lofty goal. My 50D before and afters look just like yours. Even when I get the exposure right It can still be improved. Even when the meter cant screw up like shooting a Gray cat on gray concrete on an overcast day i can still improve it by playing with the curves and colors.

Your histogram does have a nice bell curve shape, but like Kortag says, there is plenty of room on the right before you risk blowing out your highlights.

If you do find a way to make them come out like that let me know, because I have been spending a lot of time in the Lightroom.

[theshape]

You can get it to come out of the camera looking like you did PP? I think thats a lofty goal.....

If you do find a way to make them come out like that let me know, because I have been spending a lot of time in the Lightroom.

I don't expect it to come out like it was fully processed, just a little better. I got some great feedback and will try them all. I don't get a lot of practice time so when I do get to shoot, I forget to utilize the stuff I have learned.

[xububba]

I also have my xti set to +2/3 of a stop when shooting in Av or TV modes, it seems to get me closer more consistently...YMMV

[joedlh]

My first impression is that the SOOC image is overexposed and has flat tonality. The histogram backs this up. It also looks desaturated and a little blue. I adjusted levels, did some shadow highlight refinements to reduce the highlights, and warmed it.

As to why you're not getting a good image out of the camera, was the shot taken in raw mode or jpeg mode? If raw, then the assumption is that you are going to post process them in the manner that I did. If jpeg, your picture style may be at the wrong setting. I'm not familiar with your camera. Check your manual. My 20D, for example, does not have picture styles, but it does have contrast, sharpness, and saturation controls. My 40D has picture styles. Three of them -- standard, portrait, and landscape -- should give you good SOOC images. However, neutral and faithful will give you images that are meant to be post-processed. They will look dull and lifeless before post processing.

[poloman]

The first thing I notice is that your white balance is way off. You can set a custom white balance very easily. A quick search on this site will give you directions. To adjust this shot I had to lower blue (raise yellow) and increase red (lower cyan). This was done in curves. Shooting kids outside without some fill flash is cheating yourself. We need contact with the eyes, so they need to be a bit brighter. Fill flash would have helped. I used a dodge and burn layer created by making a layer in photoshop and setting blend to soft light and checking the box to fill with 50% gray. A small amount of work in levels gave me exposure and contrast that I found appealing. 1/80th is a pretty slow speed to shoot kids. Fill flash would have helped here too. Upping the ISO to 200 would also have been beneficial. The shot is a little soft as a result. I used a high pass sharpening technique to sharpen it a little. The other thing I did was work under her eyes a little using the patch tool set on source and immediately following with edit/fade patch editing.
Your exposure straight out of the camera was pretty good. In fact just a bit hot. It runs up the right side of the histogram. The light was just a bit flat... back to fill flash again.
So biggest problems... white balance... flatness... too slow shutter speed.
If you address these things, you will get better shots out of camera. Unfortunately, the metering system in the camera is reflective (and must be) and you will have some minor problems due to that. You may find this link very helpful http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=89123
I usually shoot RAW and use a gray card in scene and set the white balance later.
To get what you really want, you will need a magic camera. One thing you might try with kids is to position yourself strategically in terms of light and background. Get your settings right and wait for them to pass within your ideal field. You could also throw a ball or suggest a game that puts them where you want them. If you are really clever, you can use the white side of a house as a reflector.
The little girl has a great expression and it really is a nice shot. Worth a little PP... I think so. :)
I will send you the tiff if you like.

[Benji]

If you are serious about getting it right in the camera (which is a good idea) get an 18% gray card and a hand held meter. AWB sux and histograms are notorious liars. Shoot in Raw and shoot in manual.

Most shooters find a "good background" first, then pose and shoot the subject with no regard to the natural lighting as to whether it is good or bad. If you must use a particular background you will need to have the ability to create good lighting with an off camera flash and/or a reflector(s.) The correct way is find where the lighting is good (or can be made good) and then pose and shoot the subject. If the background is absolutely terrible (which seldom happens) PS to the rescue. It is a lot easier to fix a bad background than it is to attempt to fix bad lighting on a person.

In your image the light is overhead daylight which illuminates the hair, the forehead, the tops of the cheeks, the tip of the nose and the chin. It also leaves the eyes in shadow making them appear dull dark and lifeless. This is not portrait lighting.

Benji

[theshape]

If you address these things, you will get better shots out of camera. Unfortunately, the metering system in the camera is reflective (and must be) and you will have some minor problems due to that. You may find this link very helpful http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...ad.php?t=89123
I usually shoot RAW and use a gray card in scene and set the white balance later.

Whoo! Thats a whole lot of reading. I need to re read it again tonight and practice a bit.

Thanks to everyone else who put in some knowledge, now I just need to go out an implement them.

[poloman]

Take your time. If they are your kids, you will have a lot of opportunities. Plan your shots as well as you can. When you open the shutter do your best to have all things to your advantage. You'll have a lot more keepers that require less PP.
Keep shooting!

[Ichiban]

the thing with exposing to the right, you can blow out details that can't be recovered. While shooting a little underexposed can always be corrected.

[poloman]

the thing with exposing to the right, you can blow out details that can't be recovered. While shooting a little underexposed can always be corrected.

I agree with this... If you have shadows that are really dark, fill flash is the way to deal with them. Make sure you have good highlights.