A question for you experts out there....

[Blue_In_AK]

What am I doing wrong when I shoot outside in the sun and the picture turns out kind of "smoggy" looking, dark and brownish, even though there's no smog? I seem to run into this quite a bit. PSP fixes it up fine, but I don't like it when they turn out that way.

[regnaD kciN]

1. Are you shooting RAW or JPEG?

:shrug:

[Blue_In_AK]

3. JPEG.

[F.Gordon]

2. There are experts that hang here?

Wish I'd known that earlier. Now I feel really stupid.

Ummmm... underexposed?
:shrug:

Do ya have an example? Include your EXIF infopoop.

[Blue_In_AK]

4. This is very huge, but I didn't feel like messing with resizing it

It's 85 mm, ISO 200, 1/500 exposure and F/13 ... obviously underexposed. (I'm always just dialing to random numbers on these things when I'm taking the picture, just pushing buttons and spinning dials :silly:.) I'm guessing I should have had a longer exposure, and more like F/7 or something? I'll be SO glad when I understand this stuff.

[RagingInMiami]

7. In this photo

You obviously had the camera's light meter exposing for the sky, which is why the foreground came out underexposed. Next time, try to expose for the foreground but focus on whatever is out there in the distance.

I'm not saying that will solve the problem but it would give you a different effect. There is a button on the back of the camera where you press while pointing the camera at whatever you want to expose. That locks the exposure and allows you to focus on a different subject.

EDIT: Or better yet, expose for the sky and focus on the foreground.

Look in the manuel under "exposure lock" or something like that.

Another thing to do is experiment with the light meter, using average-weight, partial and spot metering and see what photos you get.

And finally, remember the old photography rule: "F/8 and be there."

[Blue_In_AK]

8. Thanks, Raging....

I remember reading about that exposure lock thing. There's just so much to remember -- my head spins. About the F stops, they have to do with light AND with depth of field? Is that the way it works? So if I wanted to focus in tight on something that's fairly close up, I would set a high F number, but if I wanted to spread it out, it would be low? And how does a bigger or smaller number affect the light? (God, I feel stupid.)

[RagingInMiami]

11. To make things even more confusing

The smaller you make the aperature, the higher the number it is.

So an aperature of f/22 means you're closing the light hole as small as possible, whereas an aperature of f/1.4 (and this could only happen with an f 1/4 lens), you are opening the light hole as wide as possible. This, of course, allows all the available light to pour in instead of trickle in as would happen on f/22. So f/1.4 is usually used in low-light situations.

If you want depth-of-field, meaning to keep the foreground and background as sharp as possible in the same photo, you need to close the aperature as much as possible without slowing the speed down to the point of camera shake. To close the aperature, you need to increase the number (it has something to do with fractions, which I won't even get into here).

I would recommend shooting in the "P" mode until you get more comfortable.

[F.Gordon]

5. Without seeing an example........

I'm guessing your "problem" is being underexposed and the fact that you use auto white balance. Take one shot at a few different in-camera color temperatures. Too brown? Dial the color temperature UP.

You have friggin' amazing light there.... but I can also see where this time of year when you have like 5 minutes of sunshine ;-) that you would also face a daunting task of working with the limited light you have.

...until an expert shows up....
:shrug:

Don't know. For sure.

[Blue_In_AK]

6. Oh, you didn't see my example?

See my post above.

[F.Gordon]

14. I'm slow. Didn't see it

What everyone else said....

If you're intimidated by E compensation... settings... all that dial stuff... on a shot like that you can turn the AUTO dial all the way over and shoot "No Flash" on a low light shot like that. It won't be perfect but it's a no-brainer for getting a low light and night shot exposure. Think it maxes out at 8 seconds.... but that's pretty good for most stuff.

Oh... and I have some bad news for you. :( Your sensor is really getting dirty. I know you don't want to learn RAW right now but you're going to have to learn cloning and/or how to perform "open heart surgery" on your sensor.

Sorry. Didn't know a "good way" to tell you this.

[Blue_In_AK]

15. That wasn't the sensor - it was on the filter.

I've taken care of it. You're referring to the spots in the sky, I assume?

[F.Gordon]

16. Yes. In the sky

Sure looks like a dirty sensor... but if it was the filter.... kewl. Here's how you check to be sure ..... set the camera to aperture priority on a sunny day to like f/15 or higher (like your shot). Shoot nothing but blue sky. Load it in the computer and take a peek......

[Blue_In_AK]

17. I stand corrected

There was indeed a little fleck of something on the inside but I was able to remove it easily without any major heart surgery. The reason I thought it was the filter was because there were some little specks on it, too, which I had previously cleaned up and thought had taken care of the problem.

Anyway, it should be okay now. The little mirror thingy looks completely pristine. I'll try your little trick the next time the sun comes out -- which could be a while because the clouds are b-a-a-a-c-k.

[Blue_In_AK]

19. Why'd you have to tell me that, F...

I just tested it using a white background and I'm seeing all kinds of little dots. Maybe the paper was dirty? And, oh, by the way, I'm feeling really stupid again because I didn't actually go INSIDE the camera to get rid of that speck. It was just on the little mirror. That doesn't count, does it?

x(

[RagingInMiami]

20. Before you continue probing in your camera, read this

http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorcleaning/

[F.Gordon]

22. Don't be scarin' Blue now

That author is a bit of an over-reactionary IMO. Probably a hardcore filmsie spreading rumors on the internets.
:rofl:

I have not read ONE tidbit on the web of someone who destroyed their camera if they cleaned the sensor properly. People do go in with hammer and chisel... yes.. break.camera.

Besides.. I'm trying to break all this stuff to Blue' gently. I still haven't told her about the 20D problem where the lens spins off by itself in temperatures below 32F.
:rofl: :rofl:

[RagingInMiami]

23. He is actually very cool

He is always posting on www.photo.net and is always writing informative articles.

[F.Gordon]

25. I'm sure he is

I just felt bad about laying this crap on Blue'. You hang at photo.net? Looks pretty cool. I've decided to stay away from other photog forums. If I'm searching to resolve a specific problem or issue (which is quite often) I'll read different stuff I find through google...

I like pickin' up different magazines. For info.... mags are one on one and usually have tips and pointers that are more up to date than the web.

[RagingInMiami]

26. The good thing about photo.net

Is that every time I have a specific question about Canon or software, I post the question there and hundreds of professional and serious amateur photographers from around the world read it, and I get good answers.

Before I buy a lens, I always do a search through the Canon forum or just post a question and I always get a bunch of good answers.

[RagingInMiami]

27. And another thing about Bob Atkins, the who wrote that article

Is that he hates GW Bush with a passion. I remember about a year ago I was on the Canon forum and somebody said something negative about Bush, which offended some right-winger, who automatically called the first guy anti-American or something.

Within minutes, the whole forum had broken out into an argument over politics, with about four or five of us bashing Bush, and two or three of them supporting him. And I remember Atkins just tore into Bush with a lengthy post. It was so funny.

Of course, the whole damn thing got deleted because it is a photography forum after all, not a political forum.

[Blue_In_AK]

30. I did read that real carefully

when you posted it the other day, and again tonight after I received F. Gordon's bombshell that I might actually have to DO this. Ack...

[RagingInMiami]

31. I don't think you need to bother with it right now

There are always going to be spots, but they are rarely noticeable unless you shoot directly into the sun. But if there are only a couple of visible spots, you can remove them in Paintshop.

Think of them like germs, you will never get rid of germs but unless they're making you sick, you shouldn't obsess over them.

Even if you clean the spots, they will be back quicker than you would expect. That's one of the downfalls of digital.

[F.Gordon]

21. Sorry

:(

Yes. It's the thingy behind the mirror thingy.

Actually... it's not the end of the world. And you probably won't even notice those nasty little spots at lower f stops.

When I first discovered the joy :eyes: of having a dirty sensor I was really bummed. I've been just doing the simple not-so-effective method of opening it up and using a blower. And I just clone out the nasty little bits when they show up. Everyone seems to have a cleaning method they prefer... I just ordered a kit so I can do a serious cleaning. I'll let you know how it goes.

Don't feel stupid.... I'm the King of Stupid. When I saw my first dirty sensor spot I thought the camera was ruined. Everytime I go out I usually manage to fruck up something. If there is something stupid you can do with a camera I've done it.... the trick is not to keep doing it.
:dunce:

[Blue_In_AK]

28. I think it must have happened

when I was changing lenses up on that windy hillside taking all those cool shots of Anchorage. I tried to be very protective, but I'm sure there were little bits of things blowing around. ... Aside from that, the clone tool is my friend, and I DO know how to use it.

[RagingInMiami]

24. Forget the spots for now

And just learn how to remove them in Paintshop.

[Blue_In_AK]

29. Gotcha...

I'm sure the sensor cleaning is something I could handle on my own, but we've got so much cat hair floating around this place, I'd probably just make matters worse. :(

[regnaD kciN]

32. Which is why I asked about RAW versus JPEG...

Just as the camera's metering system tries to average out the image to medium gray, the camera's AWB will look at all the colors in the image and shift them so the overall tone is neutral. If you shoot an image with a lot of blue light (like a clear sky), the camera will shift the entire image away from blue (toward reddish-brown) to compensate.

Some cameras do this a lot more than others, which have more latitude in what they consider "acceptable" white balance.

If you shoot in RAW, the camera is just recording the direct measurements off each sensor instead of "interpreting" them into a final image, as happens in JPEG. That means that, if you open the image in something like Photoshop's Adobe Camera RAW (Paint Shop Pro X probably has something similar; if not, there's likely a stand-alone utility in the software that came with your 20D), you can choose the image's white balance in post, either from a series of presets (daylight, shade, flash, tungsten, etc.) or by setting the color temperature directly with a slider until you get a balance that looks good and/or reflects what you saw at the time of the shoot. You get far more control over it than you can when tweaking a JPEG, which has already been processed and compressed.

[Blue_In_AK]

33. Thanks for the info...

I don't know why I'm so paranoid about the whole RAW thing. Maybe I should just dive in and give it a shot, especially since I can record RAW and JPEG at the same time, and I'm not worried about conserving space on my memory card now when I'm at home and can clear it out after every shoot. Hopefully by this summer when we go out on our longer trips I won't be screwing up so many shots and wasting so much space.

Speaking of which, I saw in one of the photo magazines an advertisement for some kind of device that you can load your pictures into when you're away from your computer so you can clear your memory card. Do you know anything about such a gadget? It seems like it might be a nice thing to have when away from home. (I don't have a laptop.)

[CC]

34. Just dive on into the RAW

Once it is set on RAW the buttons work the same, I swear they do. Might take a second or two longer to process but that's all. It is once you put it on the computer, or go to print it that the RAW makes the difference, and only for the better.

On the storage thing, haven't seen the one for Cannon but do know Nikon has a 40 gig storage/viewer device. Haven't seen one yet, just online. But looks interesting.

BTW Paintshop X does open RAW files. Checking it out for Terry since I can't get him Photoshop for the prince I can get it for me.

[RagingInMiami]

39. I want to get one of those devices

But I want to get one where you can see the image on a small screen. They have one that sells for about $500 but I was talking to a photographer in DC during the protest who had one and he said they're going to start dropping in price.

[lakemonster11]

9. Yeah, I think you're probably exposing for the sky.

I would try exposing for the ground/foreground (though then the sky might get blasted out).

There also might be an exposure-meter setting you could tweak. My camera lets me choose whether the exposure is based on a tight area right where I focus, a larger area around where I'm focused, or the whole area I can see through the lens. Sometimes changing it can make a big difference.

You could also bracket your shots, which is recommended by pros. When you take a shot at the recommended setting, also take one or two that are more exposed and one or two less exposed (in 1/2 or full stop intervals). You can probably set your camera to automatically bracket (you just have to hit the shutter the right number of times), but it's usually a little bit hard to figure out.

Or, you could shoot in RAW and adjust the exposure in post-processing (+/- 4 full stops!).

The color is probably a white balance issue. Rather than leaving the camera set on "auto," you could take a few shots with different probable white balance settings.

Again, if you shoot in RAW, you can adjust that manually in post-processing.

(If you can't tell, I'm not going to give up until I have you shooting in RAW! ;))

[Blue_In_AK]

10. Oh, please....

Can't I just learn what all the buttons and dials are for FIRST?? I'm completely intimidated by that whole RAW thing. :scared:

[CC]

35. Nope, no can

do.:pals: See post above on RAW and buttons. As far as learning them all, take it a step at a time. You know how to meter, so play with different f stops and shutter speeds in manual for a while, specially on your landscape shots (since the land normally doesn't move.)Or your stuck in the house want to take pics shots. I'll also add in that since you have the beautiful sky, and water it might not hurt to bracket your shots for a while until you know what the camera will do. If it says use f8 at 250, do an f8, but also an f10 and f7 at 250. I'm not sure where or how the dials work on the Canons but with my Nikon I can dial the shutter speed and aperture without moving the camera to look because I know where those dials are and they are easy to change. I'm still struggling with white balance but that is because I keep forgetting the technical part how to set it. :rofl: Auto white balance was working for me so never made myself learn it. But the most important advice would be, relax, play with the camera and enjoy it. Don't let all the bells and whistles overwhelm you.

[priller]

12. "Exposure Lock" is the key

As others have pointed out. Once I discovered it on my camera, I started using it all the time. I have my exposure set to "center weighted". I point to a "balanced" area of the scene, then hit exposure lock. Then I compose and focus. It may sound like a bother at first, but I've done it so much now it's second nature.

BTW, first post in this group. I've been on DU for years, had no idea it was here!

[lakemonster11]

13. Welcome!

When are we going to get to see some pictures? :hi:

[intheflow]

18. Welcome, priller!

I've been wondering about that "Exposure Lock" feature on my camera. It's nice to hear that as bothersome as it seems (because it does sound like a hassle in the manual), it's worth it.

Nice to have ya visit, can't wait until you post some shots! :hi:

[CC]

36. I found a cheat sheet

for shutter speed and f stops. It does a better job of explaining too. But then about everyone can explain better.
http://www.uscoles.com/exposures.pdf It was at this site http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm

[Blue_In_AK]

37. I like the site,

but I can't seem to open that pdf file. What am I doing wrong. I did print out the page that the link was on though, so I'm sure it will help quite a bit. Thanks.

[CC]

38. Do you have acrobat

reader? You would need it, and the reader is free. http://www.freedownloadhq.com/Acrobat.html
It has a need card thing, if you still can't get it I can try capturing it for you.

[Blue_In_AK]

40. Thanks again, CC...

I just had to download Acrobat Reader for some work I'm doing and I remembered you had posted this, so I FINALLY got it printed out. I kind of like these little dials. Looks like something to laminate and keep in my backpack. The explanation makes a lot of sense too.