300D metering issue - PLEASE HELP!!

[hking_jkk]

I've had my 300D for over a year now and mostly shoot in AV or TV mode. I do a few test shots and check the histogram before continuing, and this always seems to satisfy me while in the field. However, when I get back to my pc to touch up, all my shots seem underexposed. Especially when viewing/editing in Photoshop Elements 3.0. I have upgraded my monitor recently and noticed some improvement, but not enough. That leads me to believe the problem is either with the camera or with the software I use for editing.

My question: Do I need to get a version of Photoshop CS? Is there a problem with Elements? Or is this a 300D issue? Has anyone had a similar problem? Most importantly, can anyone help me? I do mostly portrait photography and am getting tired of having to spend more time correcting the exposure and color tones than shooting the pictures.

Thank you to anyone who can help!!!!

[MCB]

Have you calibrated your monitor lately? That can make a big difference. Working on my desktop and laptop I see two noticeably different images. Both are LCDs, but are calibrated a bit differently. I guess I need to buy the hardware to actually measure the light and do a real calibration. But since you saw a difference with a new monitor, maybe it is a calibration issue.

I'm not familiar with PE, so I'm not sure if there's a problem there. I kind of doubt it, but can't say for sure.

Do you ever shoot in RAW? If so, you can adjust the exposure once you get back to your PC. That is so helpful that I can't imagine shooting a JPG anymore. RAW is a huge file size, but worth it.

[robertwgross]

You stated that you check the histogram before continuing. What do you see in the histogram and also in the image?

Then, when you get the image on the computer, what do you see there?

You are shooting RAW, aren't you?

---Bob Gross---

[condyk]

I have upgraded my monitor recently and noticed some improvement, but not enough. That leads me to believe the problem is either with the camera or with the software I use for editing.


Leads me to think the problem has been your monitor ... why would a poor image improve when you replace the monitor? Because the monitor was letting you down. Maybe your new monitor is not much of an improvement, or you have the viewing angle wrongly set, esp. with an LCD screen, or the room is too bright. Cheaper LCD's can be poor. Calibrating may help, as suggested.

RAW images can look a bit uninspiring out the camera and you have to work in post processing. It's part of the digital work flow. Suddenly they start to come alive :D Same can apply to Jpg too ... for me, depends a lot on the lens. Early on I got some dull images but then as my lenses all improved I found images almost worked right out the camera and needed minimal post processing. Now I have a standard process that takes seconds per image and seems to work well for all my lenses.

I wouldn't spend cash on software as it's not going to be the problem.

[thor67]

I was having a similr problem upgraded from a sony cybershot to a 300D and everything looked the same on the monitor but printing was underexposed, I just needed to discard the embedded color profile and use the printer drivers... then I was fine...

I dont know if this helps in the slightest but it could help you narrow it down !!!

[BrandonSi]

I accidentally set my EC to like -2 and didn't realize it after a whole day of shooting.. everything came out underexposed.. luckily it was all in RAW though.

[JJDiG]

I agree with the above posts-it is most likely that your monitor needs to be calibrated.

[David1943]

What sort of results do you get when you print out any of your pictures?

If your prints look different to the pictures on your monitor, then it seems that your monitor is the cause of your diofficulty.

Regards, David :)

[Curtis N]

Does the histogram in photoshop look anything like the histogram on the camera?
Maybe post an example?

[hking_jkk]

Have you calibrated your monitor lately?....
Do you ever shoot in RAW? If so, you can adjust the exposure once you get back to your PC. That is so helpful that I can't imagine shooting a JPG anymore. RAW is a huge file size, but worth it.

Yes, I keep my monitor calibrated to the specs that were sent to me from a photo lab back East so that my prints look the same on paper as they do on my screen. I don't believe it to be the monitor, as the same image will look much more clear in a generic software such as Picture & Fax Viewer.

I am beginning to force myself to shoot more RAW. The problem is, the photo lab that I use does not accept RAW, so I have to convert to jpeg. Would this be a problem as far as image quality loss?

[hking_jkk]

You stated that you check the histogram before continuing. What do you see in the histogram and also in the image?

Then, when you get the image on the computer, what do you see there?

You are shooting RAW, aren't you?

---Bob Gross---

In the histogram, I try to keep the data within it's boundaries. Spikes are kept to a minimum unless the image really does have, say, a lot of blues or whites in it. Histogram stays the same when looking at it on my pc. Maybe I need to learn more about the histogram and how to read it?

I am beginning to force myself to shoot RAW. However, I can't touch up my images (IE: teeth whitening, acne removal, etc) in RAW. It has to be converted to jpeg. Is this a problem?

[hking_jkk]

Leads me to think the problem has been your monitor ... why would a poor image improve when you replace the monitor? Because the monitor was letting you down. Maybe your new monitor is not much of an improvement, or you have the viewing angle wrongly set, esp. with an LCD screen, or the room is too bright. Cheaper LCD's can be poor. Calibrating may help, as suggested.

RAW images can look a bit uninspiring out the camera and you have to work in post processing. It's part of the digital work flow. Suddenly they start to come alive :D Same can apply to Jpg too ... for me, depends a lot on the lens. Early on I got some dull images but then as my lenses all improved I found images almost worked right out the camera and needed minimal post processing. Now I have a standard process that takes seconds per image and seems to work well for all my lenses.

I wouldn't spend cash on software as it's not going to be the problem.

Thanks for the input. I just upgraded my monitor to the LaCie Electron 19" Blue IV as recommended on this site. The lens that I use is the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L.....not a cheap lens by any means. I do see some improvement, but still have a dullness to the images in PS Elements. Any more suggestions are GREATLY appreciated!!

[hking_jkk]

I was having a similr problem upgraded from a sony cybershot to a 300D and everything looked the same on the monitor but printing was underexposed, I just needed to discard the embedded color profile and use the printer drivers... then I was fine...

I dont know if this helps in the slightest but it could help you narrow it down !!!

Thank you for your input! Any advice or leads are a help to me.

[hking_jkk]

What sort of results do you get when you print out any of your pictures?

If your prints look different to the pictures on your monitor, then it seems that your monitor is the cause of your diofficulty.

Regards, David :)

The prints that I get are great..... The problem is that I have to do MAJOR work on them before sending them off for printing. (I do off site printing). Maybe I should send an untouched photo in for printing to narrow it down to a PS Elements problem. As mentioned before, PS Elements is the only software that seems to dull down the images.

[hking_jkk]

Does the histogram in photoshop look anything like the histogram on the camera?
Maybe post an example?

Thank you in advance for your help. I will post some examples sometime tomorrow. Please check back!!

[tim]

You shouldn't be judging the expousure by eye on an uncalibrated monitor. Instead trust the instruments, the levels histogram, or the RGB histogram in camera raw.

[lostdoggy]

I haven't heard of any lab that will take RAW unless you are having them do the post processing. RAW file is a Lostless compression and after you post process you can save it in JPEG (lossy compression) so long as the JPEG is not going to be open and resave. Open and closing the file will not change the file. I think there might be some misunderstanding about calibrating the monitor. The lab can only provide you with an ICC profile for their printer not for your monitor. In order to calibrate the monitor you would have to physically change the parameter of the monitor. There are Tools such as Spyder/2 or EyeOne/2 that uses hardware and software to calibrate your monitor. Although it is not impossible to do it by eye, but it needs to have optimum condition to do it. Currently my monitor is done by eye.

[lostdoggy]

I have also read that if you use parameter 1 in the DRebel the picture will come out under expose. I also read that the DRebel was by design underexpose. It has to do with maintaining highlights and sacrificing shadows.

[robertwgross]

I am beginning to force myself to shoot RAW. However, I can't touch up my images (IE: teeth whitening, acne removal, etc) in RAW. It has to be converted to jpeg. Is this a problem?

Go from RAW to TIF to JPEG.

Convert the RAW file, along with your exposure tweaks, to a TIF file. Do your Photoshop editing there, since TIF is not compressed, and saving does not degrade it. Once you are done finally, then convert it to JPEG if you need to transmit it anywhere. Or, a variation on that is to save for the web. Saving a full-res JPEG in the highest quality degrades the image virtually zero.

---Bob Gross---

[hking_jkk]

Lostdoggy & RobertWGross.....thank you for your tips and information. Learning something new every day!!! Thanks again!

[Mark_48]

Does the histogram in photoshop look anything like the histogram on the camera?
Maybe post an example?
This leads me to question I've had on my mind for a while. Is it possible for the histogram in the camera to display differently than for example in Photoshop or other programs ? There have been times I've thought that even though I had the histogram where it should be in the camera, I've opened it on the computer and had to do some minor tweaking because it seemed shifted from where I thought it was. It usually errs to the side of underexposure on the computer. I would presume there are industry standards on histogram data and how it is read and interpreted between devices. Not sure if it could be a camera calibration issue(?)