Not satisfied with my Canon 20D

toxic wrote in post #8313067
No. Achieving the proper exposure requires knowing how to meter. Just using "M" and centering the exposure arrow doesn't tell anyone anything. Not centering the arrow is the same thing as using any other mode with exposure compensation.

Agree.

Using partial metering with the 20D is a good option as long as the OP understands that you have to point the camera at something 18% grey, dial in the exposure, then take the shot. It's just as easy to leave the camera in auto and use AE Lock (* button) though.

egordon99 wrote in post #8310664
http://www.amazon.com …oks&qid=1248089​617&sr=8-1

Good book by Mr. Peterson. I have 2 of his books on my bookshelf. The other is the better People Portraits one.. the name of it escapes me at the moment.

toxic wrote in post #8313067
No. Achieving the proper exposure requires knowing how to meter. Just using "M" and centering the exposure arrow doesn't tell anyone anything. Not centering the arrow is the same thing as using any other mode with exposure compensation.

Sure, which is why I mentioned using his histogram. I do not rely on my cameras meter because it measures reflective light and is often confused.

"Knowing how to meter" means nothing if all your doing is listening to your cameras light meter.

It does not matter which metering method you use if you learn to read the information the camera gives you and adjust accordingly.
Once you do that you can rely less on the cameras inconsistent meter and more on the changing conditions.

mikeassk wrote in post #8328224
Sure, which is why I mentioned using his histogram. I do not rely on my cameras meter because it measures reflective light and is often confused.

"Knowing how to meter" means nothing if all your doing is listening to your cameras light meter.

It does not matter which metering method you use if you learn to read the information the camera gives you and adjust accordingly.
Once you do that you can rely less on the cameras inconsistent meter and more on the changing conditions.

I agree with this Mike but there is more than just reading your histogram.. One needs to read the scene and visualise where your histogram will lie..

Historgrams can even fool the experienced photohrapher.. For example a lowkey image histogram will lie the the left, a highkey to the right.. If your histogram lies in the middle with these images you are overexposing for a lowkey image and underexposing for a highkey image..

yogestee wrote in post #8328276
I agree with this Mike but there is more than just reading your histogram.. One needs to read the scene and visualise where your histogram will lie..

Historgrams can even fool the experienced photohrapher.. For example a lowkey image histogram will lie the the left, a highkey to the right.. If your histogram lies in the middle with these images you are overexposing for a lowkey image and underexposing for a highkey image..

Good points for sure.

I am not really throwing any disagreement anybody's way on this thread, rather trying to help the OP on the right track.

I think the bane of my existence is the missed shot because of a user error.

In "MY HONEST OPINION", which last time I checked is not debatable, when you rely on semi automatic modes you and your camera will be will be fooled at some point. It happens to the best of us. I would rather miss shots because of shade/laziness/moving clouds and quickly changing light then because of a spike of highlight off in the distance. Obviously learning to shoot AV ect is key and convenient but not where you should start.

I think the first step in photography is learning how to shoot in manual exposure regardless of what anything tells you what to expose for.

Why: because like I teach all my students (I teach surfing) you have to learn to walk before you learn to run. Once you learn that exposure change because of light and how you let the light in then you can move up the ladder faster.

Yes most of us know why the photo was underexposed for his intended subjects. But that is why keeping things simple and shooting manual is a good starting point for him to understand it.

Just saying your camera was fooled by the background and using advance techniques like exposure lock is running before you can walk if you ask me.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

All,

Thank you for all the valuable inputs. Let me list out what I am hearing..

1. Need to learn metering and using manual mode is the best way to do it.

2. Read Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure. I have that book and have read parts of it. Need to do it more thoroughly.

3. Read up on histogram. I read the below two links. Very informative. I have seriously under used the histogram so far.
http://www.nikonians.o​rg …es/digital/hist​ogram_101/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com …standing-histograms.shtml

4. The people are underexposed because I was metering the background. It is hard for me to believe that I stupidly metered the background, but I don't recollect. I thought I was metering the people only. Anyway, let me take a few shots where I meter the subject and see if I get the underexposed image I seem to be getting.

5. Be aware of the brightness range of the picture being composed. This a good input. I wasn't consciously aware of looking for this, until you all told me.

Thanks.
MultiDim

The silver aluminum foil pans fooled the ETTL flash metering system due to their high reflectivity. You need to increase FEC in those situations.

HMetal wrote in post #8310309
The 20D is a great camera if you knnow how to use it properly, like any other camera.

However, not only is that scene underexposed due to your unfamliarity with the camera, it is also a hard scene for the camera to meter (or guess what you want the exposure to be) and the contrast range is very high. You're either going to have to add exposure compensation (+Ev) to blow out the skies to get the people lit properly, or underexpose the people (-Ev) to keep the sky from blowing out. If you shot in RAW mode, you may be able to rescue the highlights by a couple of stops and maybe add fill light to make the people's skin more "lit".

HEre is how I would make a scene like this work and have the scene better exposed:

1. omit the sky from your composition, then the "brightest" area would be something at ground level and not the blown out sky, allowing the camera to meter the scene better.

OR

2. Shoot 3 bracketed exposures (one with the sky exposed perfectly, one somewhere in the middle and the last with the people exposed perfectly with the sky blown out) then use HDR techniques (or software like Photomatix) to blend the 3 images into one perfectly exposed image. You would have to make sure the people don't move though, or be really good with photoshop and blend them manually.

#2 is A lot for a new user to learn, dontcha think? I do agree that the simplest solution would indeed be #1 but he's going to run into situations where that isn't possible.

I really also have to disagree with the "use manual metering" cries. You're still just using the camera's metering system which is what was fooled by this scene to begin with. Unless the photographer knows WHAT to meter and just fiddles with the exposure until the match needle is centered he's going to get the same results. Learning how the camera's meter works and why scenes like this fool the heck out of it is really the correct answer. Once he or she knows that, using the camera in Auto Exposure will work just fine.

Another thing you can do is look up exposure clutching somewhere on these forums. It should get everyone very close to the right exposure but then the background would be blown out. Or just use flash like someone else suggested if you prefer to have the background looking like it does now.

Would it make sense to use a flash in the original shooting scenario?

barno wrote in post #8343223
Would it make sense to use a flash in the original shooting scenario?

I just noticed the tread and thought I might make a comment about FLASH. If the subject you were interested in was the people, then I believe a flash (with a diffuser) would have helped considerably. The background is what is fooling your meter in the camera. If you used a flash you would have correctly exposed the people, provided you were focusing on them. I don't think I noticed in the thread what you were focusing on? Regards, 110yd

in the picture you let us look - you need a fill flash to get everything exposed,
as pointed out earlier.

Why are you shooting at f14?

if you go grab 'understanding exposure' (book) - mentioned earlier too....
you would see that this an 'who cares' shot.
It can easily be shot at f5.6 to f8. thus bring down the ISO to 800 or so.
Who cares mean that you don't want to make the background out of focus......
and at the same time, you are not shooting a landscape shot requiring everything in focus.

Let me ask a question: your friends - when they shoot - does there camera's flash pop up and go off?

Later,
_Mark

DennisW1 wrote in post #8340784
#2 is A lot for a new user to learn, dontcha think? I do agree that the simplest solution would indeed be #1 but he's going to run into situations where that isn't possible.

I really also have to disagree with the "use manual metering" cries. You're still just using the camera's metering system which is what was fooled by this scene to begin with. Unless the photographer knows WHAT to meter and just fiddles with the exposure until the match needle is centered he's going to get the same results. Learning how the camera's meter works and why scenes like this fool the heck out of it is really the correct answer. Once he or she knows that, using the camera in Auto Exposure will work just fine.

Maybe #2 is more effort for a new user but I hope, being on these forums, that he is willing to learn. How else will he do so if he doesn't hear all of the available options or techniques?

To elaborate on #2 even further..

What I would do is twofold. I would meter the light where the people are with a handheld meter (like my Sekonic L-358 ) and then bracket three exposures manually (sorry Dennis, but I did at least take the camera's auto exposure out of the equation by using a handheld meter). One as much as +2 EV over and the other -2EV under, and then blend the 3 into a perfect HDR of the scene.

It is definitely more complex and requires that you either work quickly in manual or set your camera up to bracket automatically, but it would guarantee that the center exposure is spot on for the people. And with software like Photomatix or even Photoshop's own HDR merging feature, it isn't all that difficult. YouTube has some good HDR tutorials that will help noobs gain ground quickly.

HMetal wrote in post #8360306
What I would do is twofold. I would meter the light where the people are with a handheld meter (like my Sekonic L-358 ) and then bracket three exposures manually (sorry Dennis, but I did at least take the camera's auto exposure out of the equation by using a handheld meter). One as much as +2 EV over and the other -2EV under, and then blend the 3 into a perfect HDR of the scene.

It is definitely more complex and requires that you either work quickly in manual or set your camera up to bracket automatically, but it would guarantee that the center exposure is spot on for the people. And with software like Photomatix or even Photoshop's own HDR merging feature, it isn't all that difficult. YouTube has some good HDR tutorials that will help noobs gain ground quickly.

HDR is only useful with static subjects,,people as in the OP's image aren't static subjects.. The slightest movement of a person (or persons) between exposures will result in ghosting or unsharp image..