Understanding particular exposure

Bounce it off the ceiling and it won't look any worse than the ambient...

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11459277
Bounce it off the ceiling and it won't look any worse than the ambient...

Right, thanks for the comments although I wasn't looking for information on how to make the shot better, I was looking for information on to why it was underexposed. (technical vs artistic)

Perhaps I needed to clarify more on my original post what I was seeking in this thread.

Fluorescent lighting can play havoc with exposure and white balance.

^nice example. It was really odd. Overexposed to underexposed. Couldn't chase it down, so it makes a lot of sense!

Thanks!

Hardcore wrote in post #11459268
Thanks for the comments on the flash, but that wasn't the issue. I have a flash, but I didn't want to use it mainly for the fact that I didn't want to look like the paparazzi at my kid's library program. Onboard flash just doesn't cast very flattering light imo.

Here is one of the properly exposured shots and iso was only 320 so more than enough light in the room. Btw, both shots are untouched raw lightroom defaults.

I was shooting at 1/100th which would explain the problem with fluorescent lighting.

OK, sounds like you are concerned about how you will look taking pictures. Something I guess I can't relate to. My only suggestion then would be to up the ISO and adjust your exposure comp a little.

Hardcore wrote in post #11459284
Right, thanks for the comments although I wasn't looking for information on how to make the shot better...

In effect you were.
Wouldn't a proper exposure make the shot better?

Hardcore wrote in post #11459284
I was looking for information on to why it was underexposed. (technical vs artistic)...

The short answer to this is that you were using manual and used the wrong settings - simple

HoosierJoe wrote in post #11461436
OK, sounds like you are concerned about how you will look taking pictures. Something I guess I can't relate to. My only suggestion then would be to up the ISO and adjust your exposure comp a little.

Please re-read the original post.

philwillmedia wrote in post #11461452
In effect you were.
Wouldn't a proper exposure make the shot better?

Really? Did you even read the original question and the most probably result of why the picture was underexposed? Please read the thread again.

The short answer to this is that you were using manual and used the wrong settings - simple

I was using a very good technique imo. Actually it has become one of my favorite techniques and results in very even exposures.... except when shooting under fluorescent lights i guess.

I was shooting in manual mode. I lock in my aperture and my shutter at what I want and I let the camera meter with the auto iso.

Hardcore wrote in post #11462361
I was shooting in manual mode. I lock in my aperture and my shutter at what I want and I let the camera meter with the auto iso.

That is NOT manual mode. It's still letting the camera do what it wants to about setting the exposure level based on its own analysis of what its meter sees.

SkipD wrote in post #11462586
That is NOT manual mode. It's still letting the camera do what it wants to about setting the exposure level based on its own analysis of what its meter sees.

Right, and that is what I was asking about people. Why the meter was underexposing the shot. Now I know that there was no problem with my meter, but it was the fluorescent lights that were causing the underexposure.

Does nobody ever use the meter on their cameras?

Hardcore wrote in post #11459268
Thanks for the comments on the flash, but that wasn't the issue. I have a flash, but I didn't want to use it mainly for the fact that I didn't want to look like the paparazzi at my kid's library program. Onboard flash just doesn't cast very flattering light imo.

Here is one of the properly exposured shots and iso was only 320 so more than enough light in the room. Btw, both shots are untouched raw lightroom defaults.

I was shooting at 1/100th which would explain the problem with fluorescent lighting.

1st picture EXIF:
Focal Length: 30mm
Aperture: f/2.5
Exposure Time: 0.010 s (1/100)
ISO equiv: 320

2nd picture EXIF:
Focal Length: 30mm
Aperture: f/4.0
Exposure Time: 0.010 s (1/100)
ISO equiv: 320

Hardcore wrote in post #11462361
Please re-read the original post.

You might want to review post #15 where you said " I have a flash, but I didn't want to use it mainly for the fact that I didn't want to look like the paparazzi at my kid's library program. " I can't relate to that. It simply doesn't matter to me what people think about my photography equipment. If it does to you then more power to you. I use whatever equipment I think meets the need for the situation.

The short answer to your question is that you used the wrong settings. Probably nothing wrong with the camera if that is what you are worried about. Wrong settings happens to us all.

You might want to review some basic exposure information which is widely available for free on the internet. This site has an abundance of information on achieving correct exposure. Visit your local library and check out a copy of Understanding Exposure as well as many other books on digital photography and lighting.

We are all friends here, trying to assist you at your request.

I understand exposure and there was absolutely nothing wrong with my settings. You just don't understand what my original question was and I'm sorry for that because all of these posts are a waste of time.

For the last time. I was asking why my meter underexposed the shot. I was trying to understand why in that particular case the camera's meter in evaluative mode underexposed the shot. Do you not get that? The correct answer to this has already been concluded and that is when shooting under fluorescent lights, if you do not use the proper shutter speed that sync's with the lights, the odd time you will get an underexposed shot.

I understand you are just trying to be helpful but I really don't need exposure help. I know how to use a camera. Have been using an XXD camera for 7 years.

I have to go with the fora on this one, your settings (shutter speed and lens aperture opening) were not correct in obtaining the best exposure - the pic taken in the camera is showing you it was not correct when you shot at 4.0. Look at 2.8, that's not underexposed at all, at least on my screen it looks properly exposed.

If you're in "M" then you're controlling the exposure, not the meter. All the meter does is guide you in what the camera thinks is the proper exposure. Did the meter indicator show you if it was to the left, right or dead center and did you use the indicator to set your lens aperture opening? Which did you use based upon the meter's recommendation? Did you use the settings the meter suggested or did you just set it at f/4 w/100 shutter because you thought that would be good setting?

You have provide more details to support your concerns if you want the answers you're seeking. Just saying "well, I exposed it correctly" doesn't say any thing.

Just trying to help.

the in-camera meter gets used more than it doesn't, i would guess in general. i know i use it all the time, as i mostly shoot in av. but as long as you only set shutter and aperture it is not full manual, because the meter makes the decision for the iso setting for you. neither my nor skip's post are meant to sound condescening or anything, this is just important to keep in mind when discussing exposures.

as pointed out by citro the images were taken with different exposures, one at f/2.5, one at f/4, while shutter and iso are the same. that's 1 1/3rd stops of underexposure for the second image, which looks like a match to me.

if both pictures are actually shot with auto iso (the exif doesn't tell us this, could it be found in the full exif data?), then i don't understand why the meter didn't choose a higher iso value for the second image. also in this case it wouldn't be a problem with the lighting i think, since the image looks like it is underexposed by the earlier mentioned 1 1/3rd stops. if ac cycling came on top it would be even darker.

Here's an excerpt from a review of the 50D from The-Digital-Picture.com, " As it is, the 50D's Auto ISO sets the ISO to 400 if manual mode is selected - and to 100 if Portrait mode is selected." (Bolding is mine)

If this is true, and if you were in autoISO and if the EXIF data are correct, how was either shot made at ISO 320? Is it possible that you thought you were in autoISO, but actually were not?