Dark pictures but in camera it's perfect???????

Colin Glover wrote in post #17232390
I did handhold as it was in a tiny flat with no room to put up a tripod. Would not using live view have been better?

I don't, when doing a macro shot like this, I put the lens into MF, and then just move and snap when the rings are in sharp focus. It allows me fuller control than handholding live view.

The Ah, I see. I thought having the bigger image to look at would allow me to get the best possible sharpness. I guess I was wrong. I won't make that mistake again. I'll take a pic of the image on screen tonight. And would a longer f/l lense zoomed in reduce the risk of blurred rings?

Colin Glover wrote in post #17232478
The Ah, I see. I thought having the bigger image to look at would allow me to get the best possible sharpness. I guess I was wrong. I won't make that mistake again. I'll take a pic of the image on screen tonight. And would a longer f/l lense zoomed in reduce the risk of blurred rings?

No, that would increase the risk. Longer focal length equals smaller DOF (more blur).

I have just found this thread, and I find it interesting because I see quite a lot of the problem that the OP first mentioned...under exposure (or over exposure often enough) from that damned histogram being over-trusted.

I can't add much to the excellent suggestions by a lot of regular contributors, but what I would suggest to anyone wanting to seriously learn how to cope with tricky lighting situations when you may be depending on accurate results that you take a look at Ansel Adams' Zone system, and understand why it works.

I had the good fortune to digest it and understand why it works so well many years ago just before spending a year in Antarctica where my main job was project photographer. And for those who have tried it, photographing in snow can lead to those same under-exposing problems the OP had. Of course that was in the days of film and Kodachrome II has little latitude, so I had to get it right....with no chimping either...Nikon Fs didn't have an LCD screen! Mine did have TTL metering, but I generally used an old Weston Master V with the zone numbers scratched on the dial as a reminder.

Because I understood the zone system I was able to expose that Kodachrome successfully, and could keep a check on my technique as I processed my B&Ws in the lab on base. During the summer I seldom saw the transparencies early than a month after taking the shots, and in the winter it was eight months!

The beauty of understanding the zone system even now is that the histogram takes on a completely new meaning, As has been so adequately pointed out, a perfectly centered histogram of a brides dress will give you a perfect mid (18% or zone 5) grey, which is hard to process. The zone system tells us that whites with textures belong in zone 8, three stops over exposed, and the bride's face, if she is Caucasian, belongs in zone 6. So get used to seeing the histogram leaning well to the right when photographing large light areas.

Of course, in the depths of a dark church you will be allowing the main BG to be dropping into zone 3 and 4....so always be aware of what is actually driving the exposure in your camera. Some folks prefer to spot meter, others to average, but if you practice enough with a system that works for you you'll soon see how it works. It's much easier to do than to describe! I notice that on my 5D3 my thumb has worn the paint off the metal around the top of the EC control!

Well I posted the wrong image before, the next one on the roll is the sharper one, sorry. Here's a pic of the LCD with the image on to show you what I mean. Excuse the moire, but this will give you an idea of the LCD JPEG preview. Focus on this isn't perfect, but on the proper image which I'll post in the next post it's sharp. As you see, it's a different image.

Roll?

Too much backlighting and focus just barely hits back edge.

I believe that a longer FL PLUS longer shooting distance will give smoother bokeh. DOF won't be any different unless you use stop down the aperture. Movement back and forth along the LOS isn't as critical when you aren't in a macro shooting situation.

Well roll is the Filmstrip that runs across the bottom in LR. The above image was a shot of my Canon's LCD to show how it looks on the LCD. As you can see, focus is bang in the middle of the rings on this shot, as the text is sharp there. This is not the final edit.and I did take this handheld.

Personally I would prefer to see the front of the rings in focus, and if they were placed in a suitable place on the page the text might offer a little more as well.

Anyway, to get back to my original question, TeamSpeed asked me to post an image of my cameras screen so you could see whether or not l had a problem with camera or technique. Do you still think it's down to underexposure, or is there another issue. From your comments, I guess it is underexposure, and appreciate your answers. I've learned a lot about exposure. I have another question then. If large white areas meter above 18% gray, why have my outdoor images came out white? Should they not be gray also? Or does the fact that it's not an overall white scene, but a mix of colours and shades, make a difference?

Colin Glover wrote in post #17232944
* * * * I have another question then. If large white areas meter above 18% gray, why have my outdoor images came out white? Should they not be gray also? Or does the fact that it's not an overall white scene, but a mix of colours and shades, make a difference?

When you say outdoor images came out white, are you talking about white objects in the scene showing correctly as white, that the sky looks white, or something else?

Colin Glover wrote in post #17232944
Anyway, to get back to my original question, TeamSpeed asked me to post an image of my cameras screen so you could see whether or not l had a problem with camera or technique. Do you still think it's down to underexposure, or is there another issue. From your comments, I guess it is underexposure, and appreciate your answers. I've learned a lot about exposure. I have another question then. If large white areas meter above 18% gray, why have my outdoor images came out white? Should they not be gray also? Or does the fact that it's not an overall white scene, but a mix of colours and shades, make a difference?

Absolutely, yes. In theory if you photograph a half and half black and white image, your meter will present you with the exposure for a medium grey. (In practice it may not work out that way!) And if the sum total of different tones in the image average out in a mid grey as the camera metering system is programmed to think, then your white dress should definitely still be white, and the dark suit will still have a little detail...it all depends on what effect the surroundings have.

One of the things I learned to do when I was in a hurry and couldn't evaluate the whole scene, specially when photographing people against a snow background, was to take a quick TTL reading off my hand, letting the same amount of light and shadow fall on it as on the subjects faces, then set the exposure a stop over exposed from that reading. This put the flesh tones in zone 6 which is about right, and the snowy background would be correct with just a trace of detail in the whites, and realistic shadows.

If that sounds a bit simplistic, I guess it is, but you'd be amazed at how effective it can be when you've practiced a bit. The big thing to remember is that sometimes your meter isn't all that smart!

Colin Glover wrote in post #17232944
Anyway, to get back to my original question, TeamSpeed asked me to post an image of my cameras screen so you could see whether or not l had a problem with camera or technique. Do you still think it's down to underexposure, or is there another issue. From your comments, I guess it is underexposure, and appreciate your answers. I've learned a lot about exposure. I have another question then. If large white areas meter above 18% gray, why have my outdoor images came out white? Should they not be gray also? Or does the fact that it's not an overall white scene, but a mix of colours and shades, make a difference?

The mix of tones makes a big difference.

If you meter/expose for darker tones, they become grey in your exposure, whereas lighter tones will become brighter than "normal".

If on the other hand you focus on and expose for a bright "target", it will become grey in your image and darker subjects will be underexposed.

Colin in the post above mentioned using his hand as an exposure "target" in a scene with snow, upping the exposure/compensation to +1 EV, and that's a good reliable technique. When folks take pics in the snow, it can be frustrating to come home and see that your snow shots are all grey!

^^^Cheers, Tony...it was me not Colin who put that forward!

If I might add, it works just as well with wedding dresses or any other target, where caucasian skin tones are important. With darker skin tones that extra stop is probably too much.

Ricardo222 wrote in post #17233066
^^^Cheers, Tony...it was me not Colin who put that forward!

If I might add, it works just as well with wedding dresses or any other target, where caucasian skin tones are important. With darker skin tones that extra stop is probably too much.

Ah, well, good to "share"!!

Thank's for the info guys. As I said, I've learnt a lot from this thread. By the way, do I need a light meter?