mobeyone Posted March 8, 2011 Share #1 Posted March 8, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Again, apologies if I sound like a newbie who does not know what he is talking about.... but today I was out and nearly all of my shots look as if they were underexposed. Now, I was shooting 2/2.8 had the exposure dropped by 1 and shot at 160, on the camera it looked great.. got home and the images were very dark. I did a search and found this thread and shot my M8 against a white wall and found a similar result in the histogram where there is a sharp drop as seen in post 26 of the thread below: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/125227-m9-constantly-underexposes.html So, added a photo as below and would appreciate any thoughts etc. DNG file is simply saved to Jpeg and the other has been processed as auto. L1005342 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! DNG | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Is it simply me? Thanks in advance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 8, 2011 Posted March 8, 2011 Hi mobeyone, Take a look here M8 Underexposure?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Want-a-leica Posted March 8, 2011 Share #2 Posted March 8, 2011 I think that sometimes the notion of under or overexposure is, to a degree, a personal choice. I've taken shots on my M8 which the histogram describes as a more or less perfect bell curve, but to my eyes they look a little too light, so I bump up the shutter speed (or the F-stop) a bit and take the shot again. To my eyes, the first picture is a bit too light and the second a bit too dark, but that's only how I perceive it. If you have doubts about what the monitor shows, you could bracket (i.e. take 3 shots at different exposure settings, one either side of the "correct" exposure as indicated by the meter). I don't know if the M8 has this option - I've never tried - but even if it doesn't, you can easily do it with a quick change of shutter speed or aperture. Then you have more chance of at least one of them looking "correct" on your PC monitor. Plus there is also sometimes a noticeable difference in how a picture looks on the camera's review screen and how it looks on a computer monitor: have you tried changing the brightness settings on one, the other, or both? I've had this experience as well, where a shot that looks right on the camera screen looks weird on the PC. Might be something you can do about it in PP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobeyone Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share #3 Posted March 8, 2011 Thanks and thats how I am looking at it too. They are both from the raw file and the light one has been converted by pressing auto in PS and the other has been saved to jpeg. Camera is on low brightness and my laptop too. Both are set to sRGB and I have also viewed them on my iphone. I too would want something between the two but the file titled DNG is pretty much what I was getting regardless of me opening up the lens or increasing exposure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted March 8, 2011 Share #4 Posted March 8, 2011 When you say you had "the exposure dropped by 1" do you mean that you had 1 stop of negative exposure compensation dialed in? If so, it's little wonder that your shots are underexposed because that's what you've instructed the camera to do. Checking the exposure of photos on the LCD is very unreliable unless you're using the histogram. You might find that you've increased the brightness of the monitor so that it's easier to see in bright light, which will make the photos on the camera seem brighter than they actually are. There are 3 rules to checking exposure of photos on the M8: 1. Use the histogram 2. Use the histogram 3. Use the histogram Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobeyone Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share #5 Posted March 8, 2011 Sorry, I meant by a third of a stop from zero? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 8, 2011 Share #6 Posted March 8, 2011 Or, use and incident meter, use an incident meter and use an incident meter. Then shoot manual. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobeyone Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share #7 Posted March 9, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Still not having much joy.. Do these images look over saturated? or too glossy? I have calibrated my laptop to sRGB virtual device, is this correct? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted March 9, 2011 Share #8 Posted March 9, 2011 Do these images look over saturated? or too glossy? If you mean the pictures in your earlier Flickr links then, no. I'm not sure what you mean by glossy in this context because that's an attribute I associate with paper not a photo. I have calibrated my laptop to sRGB virtual device, is this correct? This won't appreciably affect the exposure but you're using the colour space with the smallest gamut (range of colours). I'd recommend changing the colour space in the camera and in Photoshop on your laptop from sRGB to AdobeRGB. sRGB was designed for fewer colours to make it compatible with webpages and if you capture in AdobeRGB you can always translate (compress) down to sRGB but going the other way can cause problems because you won't have captures the full range of colours so PS might need to guess. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted March 10, 2011 Share #9 Posted March 10, 2011 Have you actually calibrated your laptop screen, or just chosen a working color space in your software? When you say the DNG "has been processed as auto," what do you mean? The picture on the back of every camera will always look good, so don't make judgments from it except composition and whether you caught what you wanted. Do you see something wrong with the DNG? A DNG is a "digital negative," per Adobe's definition. It's a starting point. It contains more information than the JPG. What you say comes from the DNG looks to me as if everything the JPG shows and more can be got out of it. That's what a DNG is for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 10, 2011 Share #10 Posted March 10, 2011 And you cannot see a DNG. What you see is a small JPG generated by the camera software from the raw data that is embedded in the DNG. If you want to see what raw output looks like you need special software and you would not recognise the image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted March 10, 2011 Share #11 Posted March 10, 2011 ....I did a search and found this thread and shot my M8 against a white wall and found a similar result in the histogram where there is a sharp drop as seen in post 26 of the thread below: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/125227-m9-constantly-underexposes.html...... Against a white wall? Of course you will get under-exposure because the meter is calibrated for 18% grey, not white. Shoot a normal daylight scene with no corrections and check the histogram. Then switch to manual exposure and make any necessary adjustments to give you your desired exposure. Easy! Alternatively, make minor EV adjustments. I found that in summer I needed a correction of -1/3 EV and set up a profile to allow for that. (Low ISO + EV correction plus other key settings). If I needed to change on going indoors, I could do so and easily reset my profile for outdoor shooting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobeyone Posted March 10, 2011 Author Share #12 Posted March 10, 2011 This won't appreciably affect the exposure but you're using the colour space with the smallest gamut (range of colours). I'd recommend changing the colour space in the camera and in Photoshop on your laptop from sRGB to AdobeRGB. sRGB was designed for fewer colours to make it compatible with webpages and if you capture in AdobeRGB you can always translate (compress) down to sRGB but going the other way can cause problems because you won't have captures the full range of colours so PS might need to guess. Pete. Done, but when saving to jpeg, the file seems to lose a lot of detail? and PS is set to save at max? Have you actually calibrated your laptop screen, or just chosen a working color space in your software? When you say the DNG "has been processed as auto," what do you mean? The picture on the back of every camera will always look good, so don't make judgments from it except composition and whether you caught what you wanted. Do you see something wrong with the DNG? A DNG is a "digital negative," per Adobe's definition. It's a starting point. It contains more information than the JPG. What you say comes from the DNG looks to me as if everything the JPG shows and more can be got out of it. That's what a DNG is for. In PS, there is a default,and auto correction and to save time I am simply checking auto to see how PS corrects the file. What I have done today ( and will post later) is overexposed slightly but then corrected in PS which looks a lot better, is overexposing slightly a good thing to do? or is this to the detriment of the file? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobeyone Posted March 10, 2011 Author Share #13 Posted March 10, 2011 Against a white wall? Of course you will get under-exposure because the meter is calibrated for 18% grey, not white. I usually do (with a gray card) but again I am in full test mode at the moment so trying lots of different ways to see how the camera behaves. I have been using auto and having exp +1.3 but then corrected in PS to zero as when the camera is at zero it tends to under expose? I am finding that this works a lot better? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 10, 2011 Share #14 Posted March 10, 2011 That does not work at all. A shot with incorrect exposure corrected in PS is still an incorrectly exposed shot. And please, please, stay away from AE and EV unless you know exactly what you are doing. Go to manual and read up on exposure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted March 10, 2011 Share #15 Posted March 10, 2011 ... In PS, there is a default,and auto correction and to save time I am simply checking auto to see how PS corrects the file... Thanks. I think you're saying that in the "Basic" panel of ACR, you click the "Auto" function. Is that right? ACR has changed several times. What version of Photoshop are you using? Camera Raw is a Raw Converter. It's there for you to make the pictures look as good as possible. Sometimes, "Auto" works fine. Sometimes "Default" is better. Often, you'll find that the only way to get what you want is to adjust the controls yourself. What you're saying is equivalent to: I made this picture. I asked the processing software to use its presets on the picture. I don't like the results. It must be the camera. Perhaps your M8 is underexposing. But what you've shown us so far doesn't indicate that. In fact, the fact that the JPG looks good proves exactly the opposite, since the camera derives its JPGs from the same RAW output it uses to generate the DNG. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobeyone Posted March 10, 2011 Author Share #16 Posted March 10, 2011 Thanks. I think you're saying that in the "Basic" panel of ACR, you click the "Auto" function. Is that right? ACR has changed several times. What version of Photoshop are you using? Camera Raw is a Raw Converter. It's there for you to make the pictures look as good as possible. Sometimes, "Auto" works fine. Sometimes "Default" is better. Often, you'll find that the only way to get what you want is to adjust the controls yourself. What you're saying is equivalent to: I made this picture. I asked the processing software to use its presets on the picture. I don't like the results. It must be the camera. Perhaps your M8 is underexposing. But what you've shown us so far doesn't indicate that. In fact, the fact that the JPG looks good proves exactly the opposite, since the camera derives its JPGs from the same RAW output it uses to generate the DNG. CS4 extended. I dont like the auto function to be honest but use it just to see what the correction is and yes I agree, sometimes it works.. most times does not. I do not want to automate anything and I will be carrying out my own processing once I get to grips with what I think I am doing right/wrong when taking photos. I hope it is me as I can learn! but I am someone who asks without fear of ridicule and wants to learn what the camera can and cannot do and what I am expected to do. I have took on all advice given to date and am simply trying to make this work for me... I will get there! Now, I have uploaded some more photos all of which have had some minor PP and have then been saved to JPG. Untitled | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Untitled | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Untitled | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Untitled | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Untitled | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Untitled | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Untitled | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Look forward to your comments/feedback! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbet Posted March 10, 2011 Share #17 Posted March 10, 2011 interesting, the exposure on your samples looks bang on on my monitor which I keep regularly calibrated. my M8 tends to over expose (even after it was re-calibrated by Leica NJ) so I always have -2/3 compensation dialled in. Herbet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted March 11, 2011 Share #18 Posted March 11, 2011 They look good to me as well. And you've got a cute kid! Apropos, I visited the Heinrich Kühn exhibit today at the Museum of Fine Arts Houston. He made wonderful pictures, using primarily his wife and children as models. The kids grew up seeing their role as sitting still for their photographer father. Many of the pictures were autochromes, made with color-sensitized potato protein (as I understand it). He even had his models dress in colors specifically for the effect he was trying to create, sometimes bright primaries, sometimes shades of gray. It's good to see the tradition of shooting the family continuing, but with shorter exposure times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted March 11, 2011 Share #19 Posted March 11, 2011 The outside shots are mostly taken in dull lighting which often calls for a little compensation in my experience. The same applies to available light indoors; I always check the camera histogram and make adjustments according to my interpretation or needs. Good to see you still shoot with your Digilux 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_panko Posted March 11, 2011 Share #20 Posted March 11, 2011 The pictures look OK on my screen as well. I look for the brightest spot in each picture to be white and the darkest to be black then the rest must be OK. For effect you can dodge and burn certain areas which is where the artistic merit comes in. Your eyes are naturally is attracted to lighter areas in a picture so you can direct the viewer to the subject matter in the picture that you want to emphasize. Only the overcast outdoor picture could use a little more brightness, in my opinion. I leave my M8 set at -1/3 EV and then lighten the picture to suit my tastes and purpose. Having detail to work with is better than having an over exposed section of the picture. A final thought is that my 40 year old Leica lenses produce much less contrast than today's more modern lenses and to be honest I like it that way. If you want more contrast try a different lens, would be my suggestion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.