5D and overexposed shots - DPChallenge Forums

04/17/2006 04:10:44 PM · #1

Hello, just wondering if anyone knows why my 5D overexposes shots even when the meter says they are properly exposed?

If I meter on say, the skin of my subject, when I get it home it is atleast 1 if not two stops overexposed. I am having to compensate by deliberately underexposing shots. I have my LCD set on Midrange. The camera just lets in a whole lotta light. Is anyone else seeing this in their 5D?

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/17/2006 04:13:08 PM · #2

Try doing a few shots using a grey card. Try shooting a full frame of the grey card and see if it is really over-exposing or perhaps you may be metering wrong.

ragamuffingirl

Sony Alpha NEX-5N

04/17/2006 04:14:11 PM · #3

What is a grey card?

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for Canon

04/17/2006 04:17:18 PM · #4

Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:

What is a grey card?

it's a solid grey card made of cardboard. The grey is 18% grey, which is how camera metering system meter a scene.

They can be picked up a most camera stores for less than $5. Very handy for manual exposure.

They can also be used for color-calibration in post-process.

UNTITLED

Canon EOS-20D

04/17/2006 04:34:55 PM · #5

Being a bonehead these are the kick myself in ass things I often do.

1. Forget to make proper exposure compensation adjustments.
2. Forget to set exposure compensation back to zero.
3. Forget to restore override settings(i.e. shutter speed, apeture, etc), and the camera can only overexpose(or under) because of settings.
4. Forget to restore software parameters.

These are probably not your problem, but I thought I'd throw them out there just in case.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/17/2006 05:32:59 PM · #6

Originally posted by CalliopeKel:

The histogram is better suited to examine luminance than the LCD.
When you say, you meter on the skin of your subject I imagine different light conditions on different areas of the skin. Partial metering, in this case, may or may not be adequate depending how much of the skin is reflecting the same light. Spot-metering is more precise.

I would start by experimenting under fairly radical conditions to start (to get a rough sense) and then proceed to finer tuning the subtleties - just to see what's going on.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

04/17/2006 06:03:38 PM · #7

A few things to remember:
- When testing exposure, use spot metering, so you know what the camera is metering on.
- Set the histogram option to display the RGB histogram*.
- Use a gray card to test whether mid-gray is really being reproduced as mid-gray.

*It may be that one channel is predominating in certain situations, e.g. red channel under tungsten lighting, and the camera is reducing exposure to avoid clipping it. It will look like the shot is underexposed, but increasing exposure would yield poor results.

I find that the LCD is a very unreliable gauge of exposure, and I always set the camera to display the RGB histogram on review. It's easy, at a glance, to see whether exposure is correct. I find that the metering on my 5D is quite accurate, and have a high level of trust in the results when using the RGB histogram as a gauge. FWIW, I am a great proponent of "expose to the right," that is, exposing so that the histogram pushes close to the right-hand side of the graph. I shoot RAW, so it is very easy to "correct" the exposure in conversion to generate the desired look, and the result is better shadow detail and smoother tonality.

04/18/2006 10:43:15 AM · #8

What I am doing is metering on the skin of my subject(face)since that is the most important facet of portraiture and it seems to still be overexposing the skin, but I am going to try the histogram like you suggested from now on. Thanks everyone for the tips.

blazingmoonlight

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

04/18/2006 10:47:56 AM · #9

something else to take into consideration is the person's skintone you're focusing on...if they have darker skin, your camera is going to overexpose in order to bring that tone up to a "middle grey"

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

04/18/2006 10:51:23 AM · #10

with skin color varying so much between subjects, spot metering the skin isn't very reliable. Sometime center-weighted or matrix metering is better for portraits.

The best way is to have your subject hold a grey card in front of his/her face get the exposure and then shoot.

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

04/18/2006 11:33:19 AM · #11

What metering mode are you using? If it's evaluative, then the camera will take into account the rest of the scene. You probably know this already.

kosmikkreeper

Nikon D300s

04/18/2006 12:19:08 PM · #12

Man you guys make taking photos complicated! Just always shoot RAW in full AUTO mode and corect as needed in PP.

/jk ;-)

04/18/2006 11:56:17 PM · #13

I guess I'll be getting a gray card soon.
I took some more pics today, and they were overexposed, so I had to bump down a stop or two on my shutterspeed for the skin to be properly exposed.

I metered on her cheek on this one. 2 stops underexposed in my viewfinder to get her skin like this.

Message edited by author 2006-04-18 23:57:25.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

04/18/2006 11:58:52 PM · #14

Originally posted by CalliopeKel:

Consequently that shot looks about 1 stop under-exposed to me.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

04/19/2006 10:20:41 AM · #15

I was going to say the same thing FF, albeit with less precision than 'one stop'.

It seems to me that many portrait shooters do like things to be a bit hotter in the exposure range because they like to even out the skin's features. This particular picture looks like you are deliberately trying to underexpose to retain a lot of her youthful, freckly skin. This makes me think that the picture is in fact a stylized picture rather than a typical portrait.

Shooting this as a typical portrait will probably end up with it being a fair bit brighter and a lot of those freckles becoming slightly less distinct.

You may or may not like that effect. If that girl was 20 years older, she probably would.

A lot of stuff that is 'typically' done to portraits does not specifically apply to the young. See Neat Image.

Incidentally, which cheek did you meter on? the close one?

Great colors btw!

Prof_Fate

04/19/2006 10:39:44 AM · #16

Several thoughts...
what mode are you shooting in? HAve you tried other modes?
In A, T and P the rear dial adjusts exposure compensation. I have the 30D and have accidently moved the dial...and not noticed until is was too late. (done the same with ISO...) The ON/Off/--- button on the back - the line (----) option turns on the dial and then you can adjust compensation. if you have the switch in ON then the dial is off and does not adjsut anything.

metering modes - it has several and they all do something slightly differently. check them and try a different mode.
While skin is supposedly 18% grey and a valid metering spot, it's still reflective metering and subject to user error.

Left is evaluative metering, middle is spot metered on her cheek (left of pic) and the last is spot metered on her other cheek (camera right). A fair amount of exposure difference.

have you access to a lightmeter? you can then see if the camera is seeing what you think you see.

WB - auto or ?? setting this way off base can affect exposure.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

04/19/2006 05:53:24 PM · #17

I am shooting in full manual mode. Auto WB. I will try those other modes, thank you.

I am metering on her fairest cheek, the close one I believe. If you will notice she has very fair skin, and just one stop can make the difference for blowouts on her skin. If you look at her shoulder, it is close to a blowout now.

Message edited by author 2006-04-19 17:53:49.

Prof_Fate

04/19/2006 06:05:09 PM · #18

There is nothing close to a blowout on her skin. the white in her shirt is close, but after adjusting the color and levels to something more reasonable i got this

Nothing is blown out.
The shirt is way underexposed though...I took the sampler tool in PS and checked around - the dress is 0,0,0 - all black, no detail at all. The white on teh dress was in the 250s, so close to blown out but not quite.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

04/19/2006 06:10:58 PM · #19

I much prefer Kelly's original exposure. It is true, it's underexposed, "by the book", but it is a more attractive result, IMO. Now, I'd want to pull it back in post, not shoot it that way. I'd personally shoot it more the way that Prof_Fate shows it, with the histogram pushed right, and then pull it back in RAW conversion.

04/19/2006 06:16:52 PM · #20

Ok, I think i got it figured out. I am probably trying to preserve her skin pinkness and texture. I have noticed that with other subjects with more olive skin I am not having this issue, she is just super fair.

I do appreciate all the comments though, its helping me learn and see things differently to sort this out, and learn what I might need to do with other skin types.

This shot was zero meter compensationed. According the the camera, this was properly exposed. Just seems a little light to me...??

Message edited by author 2006-04-19 18:24:45.

Prof_Fate

04/19/2006 06:41:44 PM · #21

That looks better. Much better.
The question is - Did she look like that to you? If the camera is capturing what you see what more can you ask? If she looks like my edit of your pic (in person) and the camera gives you the image you posted then there is an issue.

I got a light meter a few weeks back. I have only played a bit, but if i shoot at what it tells me, i get a proper exposure - and that may or may not agree with the camera's recomended exposure.

problem is the camera measures reflected light. the measurement if affected by what is refelcting the light - white, black, shiny, dull. If you meter off a gray card you'd get it right, or use an incident meter. Another issue is the spot meter - on the 5D/30D it's listed as 3.5degrees. But that changes based on focal length of the lens. I like in camer spot meters myself - even if the i don't get the 'right' exposure.

I prefer the one on the right. it's what i saw. technically it's not the right exposure.

for more info...
//www.sekonic.com/BenefitsOfIncident.html
and
//www.sekonic.com/IncidentVsReflect.html

hankk