- This topic is empty.
Underexposed
-
Hi folks
I have been having trouble with dark images
After I take the shot it looks ok on the small screen but
when I transfer to the pc the shots are very dark
My monitor is calibrated so that is not the problem
I am using d200 and was wondering if anyone else has these problemsCathal
Ah Cathal..it has to be the NIKON…get a Canon
for yourself…life will get better then ??Noel.
brownie wrote:
Ah Cathal..it has to be the NIKON…get a Canon
for yourself…life will get better then ??Noel.
:lol: :D :lol: :D
Are you jealous Noelhave you looked at the raw file in various diff bits of software?
do it look the same in them all
or is it that something like lightroom is applying a preset as default or something
The monitor shows a jpg version; do you use raw or jpg?
The histogram on the camera monitor review will show if the exposure
is correct — the monitor brightness is not reliable.Is the camera monitor brightness too high/low?
Can’t say I’ve noticed. The image will always look better on the camera lcd though
On my d80 you can darken the lcd in the menus as its too bright out of the box and there is something about a relatively low res display that always makes a shot look better than it is realy :)
trust the histogram not the impression the lcd review gives if you want post a link to an example raw file and i will try it in eleements for you?
cathald wrote:
Hi folks
I have been having trouble with dark images
After I take the shot it looks ok on the small screen but
when I transfer to the pc the shots are very dark
My monitor is calibrated so that is not the problem
I am using d200 and was wondering if anyone else has these problemsCathal
Are they really bad mate? because the D200 is famous for underexposing by about half a stop.
Sean.
Here is an example taken on sunday with a light set up left & right of the baby at 45 degrees
light meter used
f8 1/80sec iso 100
This is just straight from the raw file and un touched
Looks like you were concentrating on not blowing the shiny bits (the white silk), and so underexposed, but it doesn’t look too bad, maybe 1/2-2/3 ev. under.
All the Nikons I’ve had needed serious taming for the LCD, with the D70 I couldn’t turn it down low enough so I learned to tilt it at just the right angle to get a truer evaluation of exposure. The D200 that replaced the D70 had a much larger viewing angle so this was not possible but I did turn it down a good bit. I finally gave up when my D300 was still inaccurate and just put all my faith in the histogram.
That’s when it really struck me how easy it is to be misled by the LCD, our eyes don’t lie after all?! Well, most of my stuff around that time was done at night or in low light and the screen would show a superbly exposed shot on the back. That was even after dialling down -2 on the brightness setting. I knew the basic s about histograms but wasn’t really evaluating it in terms of the scene in front of me and the distribution of tones. The histogram always gets it right, when it’s all bunched up at the left side I go against the strong gut instinct to trust the LCD. On bright days well exposed shots look far too dark and at night, very underexposed shots look just fine. It’s just the relative brightness of the LCD compared to the ambient light that lead me astray. Trust the histogram and evaluate whether you want a higher key or lower key image and adjust exposure accordingly.
Just on another note, I’m not sure if it was the D200 or D300 that things got wierd with adobe brige and photoshop. The paramaters set in-camera bore no relation to what adobe saw fit to apply so I made the switch to Capture NX which has been a fantastic move.
I think your white balance is a more immediate problem-
it looks far too red, to me-The D200, now correct me if I’m wrong,
displays histograms based on a jpeg conversion of the file,
so if you’re keeping everything between the ends you’re missing out on maybe a stop of overhead on the bright end.Here, it actually looks well exposed, if you need to capture all the tones within the scene-
including the Gary Glitter outfit,
and the massive mirrored highlights.A levels correction should bring it back, as long as you were shooting at a low iso.
Of course, if the outfit wasn’t so lamé, you might not have had the issue to begin with…
joseph
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
