Help! Why do my pictures come out Underexposed?

I frequently have been ended up with underexposed pictures. I am using Av mode, autofocus, center focus point, and no flash attached. I use either spot or evaluative metering.

Please help...here are some example pictures. Shot in Raw. Original and exposure-adjusted version of each.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

its your metering. when you use evaluative it takes a reading of the whole scene and makes it 18%... so what you should use in these situations is spot or center weighted, or even partial.

Your camera's meter tries to calculate and exposure of 18% grey for the metering mode you're shooting.

This takes some time and practice, but you'll need to learn and read the situation you're shooting in and adjust the exposure value compensation. A good book on understanding exposure (a digital one will also focus on how the modern meters work) will go a long way.

In many (if not most) cases, exposure is about compromise - especially when you have shadows and highlights in the image - you need to expose for the most important element in the shot. (where you want to retain the best detail and least noise)

BTW - I tend to find my Canon's always need to have some positive EV set most of the time. If I'm shooting a bird in a bright sky (with matrix metering) it's not uncommon for me to have +1.5 (or more) exposure compensation!

Hope this helps,
Mark

Spot on my 40D, Partial on my 20D. Got it. Any other tips?

In the situation pictured you'd be best of using a flash to fill the shadows - that way you should get the correct exposure for the background and your kids.

Those pictures look like you used Evaluative and it exposed for the background. If you'd used spot and exposed for your subject in the shade, the background probably would have been completely blown out (look at the backgrounds/highlights in your adjusted versions).

Photos like that are tough because they push the limits of the dynamic range your sensor can capture, regardless of how you meter it. Your best chance is to expose for the background, then use fill flash to light your subject in the shade, as 5Dmaniac said.

As everyone has been saying,the camera is looking at the whole scene. Also, I will echo the fill flash suggestion. Look at the house in the background of the first two pictures, and the cake and tops of the t-shirts in the third. Notice how, even on the "underexposed" versions they are quite bright? That means you're taking picturs on a very bright day, but with shadowed subjects. That's not a bad thing, but you need to bring the foreground up to balance with the background, so you need to use some sort of fill flash. The problem is, the "adjusted" versions aren't right either. In those versions, the areas I mentioned are overexposed (the cake is glowing) and take away from the picture as a whole. Again, adding some fill flash to bring up the subjects in those shots would go a long way to get the nice balanced pictures you want.

When using flash, should I use Evaluative/CWA instead of spot to expose for the background?

BTW, not my kids; I don't have any yet...

You can't win!

Then when you use the fill flash, be prepared to have people tell you to get it off the camera! LOL!

Here is a great shot I took but the commentary was that I should NOT have used the flash. I had no other options at the time.

Optiq wrote in post #9800801
You can't win!

Then when you use the fill flash, be prepared to have people tell you to get it off the camera! LOL!

Here is a great shot I took but the commentary was that I should NOT have used the flash. I had no other options at the time.

Sometimes you have to go with what you have. Better to get the shot than to miss it because you're worried about what somebody else might say about it artistically.

Optiq wrote in post #9800801
You can't win!

Then when you use the fill flash, be prepared to have people tell you to get it off the camera! LOL!

Here is a great shot I took but the commentary was that I should NOT have used the flash. I had no other options at the time.

Well, you need to use fill flash when the subject requires it (ie. the subject is darker than other parts of the picture and will be underexposed like the first pictures) and you don't need it when the subject is not surrounded by highlights (like this one)that will cause underexposure.

Your meter is not as smart as you are, so you need to quit letting it make all your choices.

The lighting was terrible for that shot. Fill flash was needed. I was able to improve it with PP but this is the shot straight from the Rebel XT.

Optiq wrote in post #9801296
The lighting was terrible for that shot. Fill flash was needed. I was able to improve it with PP but this is the shot straight from the Rebel XT.

I think your shot needed flash.

I also concur that the OP's shots, both of which had strong rear-lighting, needed fill flash. I use manual, meter for the scene, then adjust FEC according to my distance from the subject.

Also, use the histogram for checking exposure. The LCD tells horrible lies.

Fill lighting of some description was definately needed here. Note I didnt say flash, it can be as simple as a white board used as a reflector OR flash (either on board, hotshoe or off camera).

Metering mode doesnt make a difference here because no matter where the camera meters, something will either be overexposed or underexposed.

A good way of correcting these would be to make a selection of the underexpossed sections and use curves to increase the exposure. With time and care, it should work out ok.