-=Rebel T1i / 500D Users Stand UP!

In extreme lighting conditions, either bright or dark, try using Spot metering, and in Av mode, you could use Exposure Compensation to trick the camera into getting some faster shutter speed. But RAW does not give you anything, you have to rip it out of the file, kicking and screaming, in your processing. The RAW editor just allows you to edit the lighting up or down a bit without adding noise that you would get when editing a jpg.

I think I have to work within my limitations. For now, working with RAW and post processing will be something I will learn on non-essential days. I was thinking that "oh I photographed the show yesterday, today I can experiment with RAW." But then I missed so many great pictures because I used raw that now I am mad at myself for doing it. I won't do it again until I know a lot more about what I am doing. I have been very satisfied with the results I get using JPEG.

Well, jpg is a lot less work and takes up less storage space. I use RAW because it is a lssless format. Goodfor storage, and who knows what software will come along in the future to use them with? They are working on software to fix an out of focus shot, so having a RAW ten years from now when there is such a thing, might save a lot of on the border shots.

I just still have a lot to learn. Thank you to everyone for your help.

I dont really like the clarity of it, crank that back upppp!

shot with a 17-40 2.8 and one flash with a diffuser

adamg5 wrote in post #11951296
Well went back to walmart to reprint, and apparently there machine has a auto-correct feature that was turned on that darkened the photo before printing. They turned off the auto-correct and it printed perfectly. 20x30 print for $20, not bad. Now I only wish I could somehow delete the cars headlights on the bottom left.

Do you have a Costco nearby? I got some 20x30 prints for less than $10 each there.

this is another pic I took back ni January - with Canon 500D as usual and the Canon 18-55mm kit lens.

Out in the Cold

trythis wrote in post #11966459
I am so frustrated. I have invested in the best glass, worked to learn to educate myself, and in a dark theater I get a crappy picture with my $1600 lens and my friend gets a beautiful shot with her f/4 lens and everything on auto...

Mine is on the left and hers is on the right. We took these at the same time in the same theater. I got hers from facebook, so I can't share her settings. But I did blow out my ISO (12000) because the theater was so dark. And I shot in RAW for the first time. I feel like all I have learned is that I do not want to shoot in RAW anymore.

Well, you did "better" expose your shot. Yours has more detail and hers loses a lot in the shadows areas. If you wanted to have the same exposure as hers, you could have dropped your ISO a few notches. That would have definitely helped with noise.

As someone else mentioned, you might want to consider using spot metering as well. I've found it works well in dark or bright areas. Especially like when trying to take shots of people in the snow. All the light reflecting off the snow causes the camera to darken the overall image when you use evaluative metering. As in your image, all the black caused your camera to think it needed to lighten the image. Spot metering can help with this, but it does take some getting used to.

trythis wrote in post #11967750
Here is where I messed up ISO = 12800 (I know I know...please don't laugh!) The theater was SO dark I couldn't get anything at a lower ISO.
f/2.8 and shutter speed 1/500

This is what I was getting in the dress rehearsal and I thought it was too dark. Then someone told me that in RAW you get two more f/stops. So I shot in raw.

This one is ISO 3200, f/2.8, s=1/500

Same number, same lighting, just different days.

well try this, throw your camera in AV mode and shoot at 3200 iso, and 2.8. Have it set so you one stop under exposed. Then, go in lightroom or photoshop, bring the exposure up +1.5 stops, and do a little noise reduction. You dont necessarily need the 500 shutter speed. 320 or even 250 could work just as well.

trythis wrote in post #11968486
I think I have to work within my limitations. For now, working with RAW and post processing will be something I will learn on non-essential days. I was thinking that "oh I photographed the show yesterday, today I can experiment with RAW." But then I missed so many great pictures because I used raw that now I am mad at myself for doing it. I won't do it again until I know a lot more about what I am doing. I have been very satisfied with the results I get using JPEG.

Just take those RAw files and open them in DPP. They will look exactly like they would have if you took them as JPEG. DPP sets your incamera settings as defaults to the RAW files.

As for RAW giving you more stops that just strange. If gives you the ability to recover more detail in post if thats what you mean. Also no one should laugh at someone using ISO 12800. If thats what i needed to get the right shutter speed then that is what i would use as well. get the exposure right and 12800 is usable.

trythis wrote in post #11968486
I...." But then I missed so many great pictures because I used raw that now I am mad at myself for doing it. I won't do it again until I know a lot more about what I am doing. I have been very satisfied with the results I get using JPEG.

Jen,
you didnt miss anything! Its just because you had your iso very high you have more light and therefore more noise. You can adjust the brightness and noise from your raw editor. You have more details in your photos than your friend! You can do better.

Guys, I am saying this right!?

The difference between RAW and jpg is, the RAW has all the information the lens saw at the time the shutter clicked. A jpg is like a little Chihuahua whos doctors hand slipped when he went in for a vasectomy. OK, the dog is still there, but he's not ALL there.

Chad Ochocinco gets a friendly lift from Roddy White and Anquan Boldin.

I was pretty happy that I was able to decently capture this. I had to shoot wide and blind over people's heads, and I probably locked focus on the Tower of Terror (this was cropped quite a bit from the top, and a little on the right).

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/scottrsmith/5​505833205/