Understanding particular exposure

I was shooting with a 60d. I had it set to manual mode and auto iso. The lights caused the underexposure, not the camera meter. Case closed.

People just don't seem to understand the value of shooting in manual mode with auto iso I guess.

Can a moderator lock this thread please.

runninmann wrote in post #11464044
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?

Pictures were taken with a 60D which has auto ISO in manual mode.

oldvultureface wrote in post #11464067
Pictures were taken with a 60D which has auto ISO in manual mode.

Ah, thanks. For some reason I thought I saw 50D in the link to OP's gear list.

Hardcore wrote in post #11464052
The change in aperture value caused the underexposure, not the camera meter. Case closed.

fixed that for ya.

Hardcore wrote in post #11464052
Can a moderator lock this thread please.

agree on this.

HoosierJoe wrote in post #11464717
The answer remains that you did not adjust for the circumstances. But go ahead and blame away. Go ahead and be afraid of what people think of you using a flash unit. You will reap what you sew and continue to have sub par results.

A little bit harsh I think but basically correct. The first post says that everything was the same in the correctly and badly exposed pictures and only the badly exposed shot was posted. The earlier posts, mine included, were giving advice on the data presented. The histogram clearly shows the ISO, shutter and aperture the OP stated but the better exposed version we saw later has a wider aperture which potentially explains the entire problem.

Anyway, problem solved now. It was the lighting

I'm not so sure that it's as simple as some posts suggest.

If the OP was, in fact, using autoISO and the first, better exposed, photo was at f/2.5, 1/100 and ISO 320, then if the OP changed his aperture to f/4, why didn't autoISO move to 800?

Thanks runninmann for noticing the auto-iso. Others seem to be ignoring it. Anyways, that example I posted was really confusing but I didn't notice it until afterwards.

That being said next time I'm taking my alien bee setup with umbrella and lightstand to capture the perfect shot to make hosierjoe happy

Hardcore wrote in post #11464052
I was shooting with a 60d. I had it set to manual mode and auto iso. The lights caused the underexposure, not the camera meter. Case closed.

People just don't seem to understand the value of shooting in manual mode with auto iso I guess.

Can a moderator lock this thread please.

People on this forum are trying to help you. You don't seem to be able to take suggestions or criticism very easily.

I'm a him, but that's okay. I've been called worse. Thanks for the continuing comments on my "sub-par" results.

P.S. Can we please let this thread die for better or worse?

Well, for what itz worth... I did learn a few bitz in this thread. Flourescent lighting does have that "flicker" and now I can now use this info for future improvements.

SkipD wrote in post #11458546
If you are photographing something which is lit by fluorescent lights that operate at the power line frequency (60Hz in the U.S.), you CANNOT use any shutter speed faster than half the time for one power line cycle.

In the U.S., this means that the fastest shutter speed you can use is 1/120 second and get reliable exposures or colors. In fact, there are very few shutter speeds that will give you proper exposure and color. Those would be 1/120, 1/60, 1/30, 1/15, and so forth. Any other shutter speeds outside of this series will capture light during uneven portions of the power line cycle and that could easily give you poor exposures and/or bad color.

Say I used the wrong shutter speed and had a bulb of CRI 90+, would that help keep the colors intact more than cheap bulbs? I'm not yet sure what my shutter speeds will be as I need to buy a few more bulbs; they're expensive and was hoping they'd be worth it.

As for the OP, there is no way you can get a bright exposure there with those settings. You messed up and don't want to fess up after probably realizing it too late but don't be rude to people just trying to help you figure out how you messed up. Besides the obvious aperture mistake there is no way the meter could've messed up because of the table if you were shooting a kid. Why would you shoot the table if you want to keep the focus on the kids? That's just an excuse for your mistake. You could always go back and shoot the same place with same aperture if you want to prove us wrong. Then again, I'm used to Nikon's system and know I doubt I'll ever bump into this issue.

SuperHuman21 wrote in post #11467968
Say I used the wrong shutter speed and had a bulb of CRI 90+, would that help keep the colors intact more than cheap bulbs? I'm not yet sure what my shutter speeds will be as I need to buy a few more bulbs; they're expensive and was hoping they'd be worth it.

The critical factor is what frequency the lamps are driven at. The problem that has been described is only with fluorescent lamps having ballasts that power the tube at power-line frequency (60Hz in the U.S.).

Compact fluorescent lamps (the ones that replace ordinary incandescent bulbs), for example, typically have electronic ballasts which power the tube at frequencies as high as 40,000 Hz instead of the 60Hz power line frequency. These would definitely not have any effect on what shutter speeds you need to use with a camera.

runninmann wrote in post #11465230
I'm not so sure that it's as simple as some posts suggest.

If the OP was, in fact, using autoISO and the first, better exposed, photo was at f/2.5, 1/100 and ISO 320, then if the OP changed his aperture to f/4, why didn't autoISO move to 800?

You can't compare the two pictures. They are framed differently, and therefore the camera metered from different light.

It's all about metering if you ask me. The OP is using the camera's built in meter, which is by all accounts very good. However, one of the advantages of using manual controls is obviously to expose the picture how you think it should be exposed, rather than how the camera thinks it should be exposed.

SkipD wrote in post #11458546
If you are photographing something which is lit by fluorescent lights that operate at the power line frequency (60Hz in the U.S.), you CANNOT use any shutter speed faster than half the time for one power line cycle.

In the U.S., this means that the fastest shutter speed you can use is 1/120 second and get reliable exposures or colors. In fact, there are very few shutter speeds that will give you proper exposure and color. Those would be 1/120, 1/60, 1/30, 1/15, and so forth. Any other shutter speeds outside of this series will capture light during uneven portions of the power line cycle and that could easily give you poor exposures and/or bad color.

Interesting. That's good to know!

Does setting the WB to "Flourescent lighting" affect shutter speed to compensate for this? I know that's a rookie question: just wondering what the camera does, if anything, to compensate for this phenomenon.