Can someone help diagnose this?
Discussion
Ok, the camera is a 550d with standard 18-50mm lens with a Hoya UV filter. Simples. I am by no means an expert but lets just say I like to get nice pictures, without much post processing. I just want some shots that I can put into albums on the computer without tirelessly editing each one.
Heres the problem. Far too often, my shots come out 'hazy' with not enough contrast. I am using the standard colour settings on the camera, and this is what its like in sort of semi-auto mode (P). Everything should be completely done for me, but in this mode, I just cant get a decent snap. IN doors its fine, but out doors, not good.
Take the first pic. That car is deep deep shiny red, but It has almost come out looking dull and hazy. The grass is too exposed, and does not look green enough. There is also little contrast within the grass.
In the second pic, the bright blue sky is looking quite dull, not blue enough (which it was). There is also not enough contrast IMO between the sky and the brilliant white clouds. Neither pics were shooting into the sun.
Whats going on? Can anyone help? Is it my technique at fault?![](http://thumbsnap.com/sc/JDpihvB5.jpg[/img]</a> <a href="http://thumbsnap.com/Z5j4yhGu" Target="_blank">[img]http://thumbsnap.com/sc/Z5j4yhGu.jpg)
Heres the problem. Far too often, my shots come out 'hazy' with not enough contrast. I am using the standard colour settings on the camera, and this is what its like in sort of semi-auto mode (P). Everything should be completely done for me, but in this mode, I just cant get a decent snap. IN doors its fine, but out doors, not good.
Take the first pic. That car is deep deep shiny red, but It has almost come out looking dull and hazy. The grass is too exposed, and does not look green enough. There is also little contrast within the grass.
In the second pic, the bright blue sky is looking quite dull, not blue enough (which it was). There is also not enough contrast IMO between the sky and the brilliant white clouds. Neither pics were shooting into the sun.
Whats going on? Can anyone help? Is it my technique at fault?
Edited by Trtj on Friday 30th August 13:05
You're technique is fine I would say - this is just a case of the camera not being clever enough to replicate what the eye can see as it can only do one aperture, shutter speed and iso per shot. Brighter areas are likely to wash out and darker areas are likely to be dull - the camera can only do its best by looking at everything in view and deciding what to do (I assume you are on default metering etc).
There are a few ways around it but if you're mainly into 'point and shoot' style photography then a bit of pp is the best way forward I'm afraid - even if you just load it into Photoshop Elements and click 'auto fix' than would help a bit for a minimum of effort
There are a few ways around it but if you're mainly into 'point and shoot' style photography then a bit of pp is the best way forward I'm afraid - even if you just load it into Photoshop Elements and click 'auto fix' than would help a bit for a minimum of effort
Try upping the contrast, saturation and sharpness settings in the camera.
Default settings for consumer DSLRs tend to produce quite flat images. A bit of in camera tweeking should give you more pleasing results.
Also, they do look a touch over exposed. Worth checking your exposure compensation settings to make sure it isn't set wrong, or to adjust it down a notch by default.
Second picture is shot into the sun so the camera has to adjust exposure to balance between the sky and ground. It's gone for the ground here so blown out the sky. Not a lot you can do about this really.
Default settings for consumer DSLRs tend to produce quite flat images. A bit of in camera tweeking should give you more pleasing results.
Also, they do look a touch over exposed. Worth checking your exposure compensation settings to make sure it isn't set wrong, or to adjust it down a notch by default.
Second picture is shot into the sun so the camera has to adjust exposure to balance between the sky and ground. It's gone for the ground here so blown out the sky. Not a lot you can do about this really.
Edited by MysteryLemon on Friday 30th August 12:50
Basically the camera is semi intelligent as programmed by humans and with standard settings that are broddly based on delivery results that will appeal to the majority of users around the world (who often have different tastes in, say, colour balances and vividness) whilst trying to fit the light levels available into the dynamic range the camera sensor can deal with.
In other words more often than not what the camera offers is the safest compromise available to it.
Your second shot is a prime example with a large expanse of bright light form the sky top left and far less light from the shadowy areas bottom right. It has done what it can with the settings in play.
You have 2 imitial paths to chose from.
You can play with the files in an editor and tweak each as you see fit to provide results you are happier with - but the editor can only work with what you feed it. Most digital images, no matter how well 'taken', benefit from such an approach.
Or you can look at the in camera settings for things like colour vibrance (there are a number of things that can be played with) to tune it more to your satisfaction and set a new default for the camre to use.
You can also adjust the exposure value on the fly be a simple +/- from what the camera selects. Many people feel that their cameras either over or under expose a tad (or more) and set a compensation value that suits their needs better.
Beyond that you may find that taking more control and moving away from P settings will help. Or lose the filter - not really necessary and can be the source of slight image degradation in some situations. On the other hand there may be benefits (at least for the shots posted) of using a (Circular) Polarising filter to better control reflections from shiny paintwork and glass, amongst other things.
Use a lens hood especially in bright light. Choose where to measure the exposure by selecting an appropriate exposure measurement setting in the camera. Picture styles may provide some early guidance by examples but most will move on from them fairly quickly.
It's all much easier if you can work with nice cloudy sky sourced flat light rather than bright sun.
So thats the top level stuff - as this conversation progresses it is likely that things will start to get deeper into the techs - technology and techniques.
Are you ready for the ride?
HTH.
In other words more often than not what the camera offers is the safest compromise available to it.
Your second shot is a prime example with a large expanse of bright light form the sky top left and far less light from the shadowy areas bottom right. It has done what it can with the settings in play.
You have 2 imitial paths to chose from.
You can play with the files in an editor and tweak each as you see fit to provide results you are happier with - but the editor can only work with what you feed it. Most digital images, no matter how well 'taken', benefit from such an approach.
Or you can look at the in camera settings for things like colour vibrance (there are a number of things that can be played with) to tune it more to your satisfaction and set a new default for the camre to use.
You can also adjust the exposure value on the fly be a simple +/- from what the camera selects. Many people feel that their cameras either over or under expose a tad (or more) and set a compensation value that suits their needs better.
Beyond that you may find that taking more control and moving away from P settings will help. Or lose the filter - not really necessary and can be the source of slight image degradation in some situations. On the other hand there may be benefits (at least for the shots posted) of using a (Circular) Polarising filter to better control reflections from shiny paintwork and glass, amongst other things.
Use a lens hood especially in bright light. Choose where to measure the exposure by selecting an appropriate exposure measurement setting in the camera. Picture styles may provide some early guidance by examples but most will move on from them fairly quickly.
It's all much easier if you can work with nice cloudy sky sourced flat light rather than bright sun.
So thats the top level stuff - as this conversation progresses it is likely that things will start to get deeper into the techs - technology and techniques.
Are you ready for the ride?
HTH.
JSS 911 said:
First one I would say is slightly over exposed, try dialling -.5to-1 on exposure comp.
This ^, overexposed. If you use any of the tools in photoshop to adjust this you'll see the saturation come back as the image gets darker. Here I used the curves tool, one mouse-click gives you this;
The second pic is just a case of the sky being much brighter than the ground. If the camera exposed for the sky, the foreground would be too dark. The way to deal with this, if you can't avoid that lighting situation, is to either use a grad filter (like aviator sunglasses for your lens
) or take two shots, one for sky and one for foreground and merge them afterwards. Or shoot in RAW, get the exposure in the middle and then use RAW software to light the darks and darken the lights...Many thanks all, cracking replies.
I should add that I was using a small lens hood that day, and possibly a few clicks - on the EV already. These are crummy shots that won't make the album but they highlight the problem well.
As you say I'd rather get the basics done on camera, rather than fixing a bad shot with the pc. I'm not having much luck with the Hoya filter either, it seems to affect the rate at which the camera will AF. Particularly bad in low light/ indoors.
Cheers
I should add that I was using a small lens hood that day, and possibly a few clicks - on the EV already. These are crummy shots that won't make the album but they highlight the problem well.
As you say I'd rather get the basics done on camera, rather than fixing a bad shot with the pc. I'm not having much luck with the Hoya filter either, it seems to affect the rate at which the camera will AF. Particularly bad in low light/ indoors.
Cheers
Trtj said:
Many thanks all, cracking replies.
I should add that I was using a small lens hood that day, and possibly a few clicks - on the EV already. These are crummy shots that won't make the album but they highlight the problem well.
As you say I'd rather get the basics done on camera, rather than fixing a bad shot with the pc. I'm not having much luck with the Hoya filter either, it seems to affect the rate at which the camera will AF. Particularly bad in low light/ indoors.
Cheers
Just lose the UV filter- absolutely pointless.I should add that I was using a small lens hood that day, and possibly a few clicks - on the EV already. These are crummy shots that won't make the album but they highlight the problem well.
As you say I'd rather get the basics done on camera, rather than fixing a bad shot with the pc. I'm not having much luck with the Hoya filter either, it seems to affect the rate at which the camera will AF. Particularly bad in low light/ indoors.
Cheers
I always used to dial in negative exposure compensation on my 450D, I wonder if your camera is the same.
As others have said a bit of tinkering in PP should do wonders.
Consider using a circular polariser too. In the first picture you could have used it to cut down the reflections & increase contrast on the car bonnet, on the second you could have used it to stop down the sky a bit.
As others have said a bit of tinkering in PP should do wonders.
Consider using a circular polariser too. In the first picture you could have used it to cut down the reflections & increase contrast on the car bonnet, on the second you could have used it to stop down the sky a bit.
Edited by Crafty_ on Friday 30th August 17:59
These UV filters are taking a bashing! From the Hoya blurb..."Absorbs the ultraviolet rays which often makes outdoor photographs hazy and indistinct" - that is exactly what im trying to do.
The sample photos look quite distinct here - click on sample photos http://www.hoyafilter.com/hoya/products/generalfil...
But everyone says they do bugger all?
The sample photos look quite distinct here - click on sample photos http://www.hoyafilter.com/hoya/products/generalfil...
But everyone says they do bugger all?
FurtiveFreddy said:
If you want to protect the lens, use a clear glass filter. As said above, dump the UV filter. Imaging sensors generally have UV and IR filters built-in so you don't need to filter these wavelengths and it could cause the automatic gubbins to get confused.
I find my filter stops a lot of crap getting onto my more expensive glass. But can you suggest an online seller for clear glass filters? Everywhere I search for "clear lens filter" always seems to point to a UV filter.Cracking pointers in this thread BTW. I have been struggling with similar issues since getting my DSLR.
Edit: The Hoya Clear Protector makes my eyes water (figuratively) at £70 each.
Amazon
Edited by Pints on Friday 30th August 18:12
UV filters were more of a film thing I believe. Most people stick them on to 'protect' the lens.
Two things going on here IMHO.
1) 'mid-day' light is almost always horrible, harsh and contrasty. Cameras simply can't handle the dynamic range our eyes can, and shooting jpg means throwing away a lot of the range of the sensor. Typically there's 12-14bits of info per channel (perhaps more) coming off the sensor, yet jpg is (I believe) 8 bits. So the camera has to throw away a bunch of info when it's making the jpg. That info equates to dynamic range - that's why you can haul more out of a raw file. Don't know the camera in question, but my old nikon has a 'active d lighting' mode which tries to do something a bit more intelligent when making the jpg.
2) Understanding the meter is key. However clever it is, the meter is essentially looking to adjust the exposure to 18% grey. Fill the scene with a white wall and you'll see what I mean - Fill the scene with a black wall and it should come out the same shade as the white one. Consequently you need to ride that exposure compensation, and evaluate what you're looking at - is it predominantly bright shades? Compensate + to keep them bright. Predominantly dark, compensate down to hold the darkness. Alternatively get into M mode, establish what the exposure is for a mid-tone object and snap away. Unless the light is changing rapidly, the exposure required changes a lot less than you'd think. Obviously if you point the camera at the sun, you'll need to change a bit vs something dark. On the flipside, I just did a 4 day hike in (overcast) iceland, the camera stayed at iso200, f8, 1/250th for pretty much the entire hike. The main advantage of working in M is you start to understand the light a little more.. It's not the solution to everything, but I do recommend experimenting.
Two things going on here IMHO.
1) 'mid-day' light is almost always horrible, harsh and contrasty. Cameras simply can't handle the dynamic range our eyes can, and shooting jpg means throwing away a lot of the range of the sensor. Typically there's 12-14bits of info per channel (perhaps more) coming off the sensor, yet jpg is (I believe) 8 bits. So the camera has to throw away a bunch of info when it's making the jpg. That info equates to dynamic range - that's why you can haul more out of a raw file. Don't know the camera in question, but my old nikon has a 'active d lighting' mode which tries to do something a bit more intelligent when making the jpg.
2) Understanding the meter is key. However clever it is, the meter is essentially looking to adjust the exposure to 18% grey. Fill the scene with a white wall and you'll see what I mean - Fill the scene with a black wall and it should come out the same shade as the white one. Consequently you need to ride that exposure compensation, and evaluate what you're looking at - is it predominantly bright shades? Compensate + to keep them bright. Predominantly dark, compensate down to hold the darkness. Alternatively get into M mode, establish what the exposure is for a mid-tone object and snap away. Unless the light is changing rapidly, the exposure required changes a lot less than you'd think. Obviously if you point the camera at the sun, you'll need to change a bit vs something dark. On the flipside, I just did a 4 day hike in (overcast) iceland, the camera stayed at iso200, f8, 1/250th for pretty much the entire hike. The main advantage of working in M is you start to understand the light a little more.. It's not the solution to everything, but I do recommend experimenting.
How are you metering the scene?
Try using spot metering or centre weighting, rather than 'best guess' by the camera for the whole image...
Might need to tweak your composition slightly to ensure smaller amount of sky in the second shot, but it's worth a go and see what happens, in addition to the advice posted above. ;-)
Hope that helps
Try using spot metering or centre weighting, rather than 'best guess' by the camera for the whole image...
Might need to tweak your composition slightly to ensure smaller amount of sky in the second shot, but it's worth a go and see what happens, in addition to the advice posted above. ;-)
Hope that helps
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff