# Camera is uderexposing when it thinks its "properly exposed"?



## RebeccaAPhotography (Jul 16, 2012)

Hey guys! 

So I did a photoshoot for a friend yesterday. We are going to do a series of sessions starting with maternity. I had noticed this issue the other day when I was working on some flower closed ups also. I can't remember if I had the ISO set to AUTO i think I might have by accident but when I look up the properties of the photo I can't find if it was or not. Any ideas on how I can find out if it was or not to figure out whats going o?

So my problem is I'm going thru all my photos of our maternity shoot and everything is underexposed by almost a whole degree. Any ideas how to fix this? I have been shooting in manual, tv, and av and have noticed all the photos are equally underexposed. I'm editing on a non calibrate laptop but I have not had these issues before. Yes i understand its a laptop and its a non calibrated monitor but this is clearly UE in the camera. Any ideas on how to fix in camera? I have a Canon T2i.

Thanks guys!
~Becky~


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 16, 2012)

Post examples, and what metering mode you used.
Also, have you changed the exposure compensation?


----------



## tirediron (Jul 16, 2012)

A whole degree, as in 0.017 radians, or do you mean a whole stop?  In either case, as Bitter suggested, please post examples with EXIF data.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 16, 2012)

Like Bitter said.. check your EV! That is about the only thing I can think of that would consistently cause underexposure if you are shooting Ambient light, assuming the rest of the settings are correct per your meter.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 16, 2012)

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it's pretty typical for an entry level dSLR body's sensor to under or over expose out of the box. Actually, now that I think about it, I think my camera has a tendency to underexpose?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 16, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it's pretty typical for an entry level dSLR body's sensor to under or over expose out of the box. Actually, now that I think about it, I think my camera has a tendency to underexpose?



Becky has had the body for a while... without this issue. It is a recent thing, I believe!


----------



## Dao (Jul 16, 2012)

Are the photos also look underexposed in  your camera display?   Are the histograms agree with the darker look of the photos?

Yes, an example will be helpful.


----------



## RebeccaAPhotography (Jul 16, 2012)

Sorry tirediron....i've got preggo brain now lol I mean't to say a whole stop. I knew it didn't sound right but I wrote this inbetween not feeling well. I had used evaluative metering. Honestly, preggo brain and didn't even think to play around with with the different metering modes  and I have not changed the exposure compensation, I'm wondering if that might be an idea.

So here are a few photos from the shoot. These are just of her son. But these show how poorly exposed they are... 



IMG_0804 by Rebecca Andresen Photography, on Flickr
AV mode, 1/1600, f 4.5, iso 800

Am I poorly exposing these? Because of the higher iso. Should I have lowered it to say 400? I really dot think my traingle work is wrong. Nothing was showing me that these were poorly exposed as far as my meter goes.




IMG_0820 by Rebecca Andresen Photography, on Flickr
1/1600, f5, iso 800




IMG_0911 by Rebecca Andresen Photography, on Flickr
1/1600, f5, iso 800




IMG_1070 by Rebecca Andresen Photography, on Flickr
1/800, f5, iso 640
Seeig the iso of 640 I can tell this one was def on auto iso.


----------



## RebeccaAPhotography (Jul 16, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> AaronLLockhart said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it's pretty typical for an entry level dSLR body's sensor to under or over expose out of the box. Actually, now that I think about it, I think my camera has a tendency to underexpose?
> ...



Yea Charlie you are right. Ive had this camera for almost 2 years now and haven't had this issue. This is def new, very new.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 16, 2012)

Well, a camera is dumb. If you let the camera decide the exposure for you, it is bound to happen.  If you are on Av, Tv, or manual, it requires the photographer's input (Exposure compensation for Av and Tv depending on the subject, background, and metering mode).


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 16, 2012)

PS, it is probably not auto ISO.  If it was, it would have picked the lowest ISO with shutter about 1/focal length unless you can set the threshold on the camera.


----------



## RebeccaAPhotography (Jul 16, 2012)

LOL! Just when I think I'm understanding this stuff I feel like I'm set back again  Honestly I played with my settings for everything BUT the metering mode. I'm feeling pretty dumb right now  but I def was not in auto the only thing I could've let it choose was the iso and shutter speed bc I was shooting in primarily av mode. Grrrrr just when i think I'm getting it!


----------



## tirediron (Jul 16, 2012)

First of all, on my (admitedly crappy work) monitor, these don't seem to be too badly under-exposed; more like 1/3 stop, however looking at these scenes, they should have metered very close to perfect; nice range of tones, no strong back-lighting...  

I'm inclined to agree that it really does look like an EC issue.  I don't speak Canon at all, but have you double-checked to ensure that you didn't get 1/3 or 1/2 stop EC dialed on somehow?  

Do you get the same results when shooting fully manual?  Do you have a second camera or hand-held meter you can use to compare?  

The EXIF data has been stripped from these images; could you re-post one with full EXIF data intact?


----------



## Terenas1986 (Jul 16, 2012)

Hello Becky!

I actually think there is nothing wrong with your camera.

To rule out an uncallibrated monitor/LCD brightness...etc (so overally display) issues: check your histogram! If it shows about -1stop, then you really are underexposed. If not, then you need to do some brightness, gamma...etc. correction on your monitor!

If you wish to make certain that your shutter speed is OK, take a stopwatch, take a 1sec shot, and it should measure around 1sec (give or take your reaction time).. if it's 2secs or half... it COULD be a shutter timer problem. ==> Service!

On the other hand, you could be facing the typical problem of "ETTL is dumb". If you were photographing people in a white dress, or birght in any way, then your ETTL is probably fooled, taking down exposure a stop, as it sees a LOT OF WHITE. It just thinks its a lot of LIGHT... but it's not!! Therefore: ALWAYS take your Exposure Compensation up 1-1,5-or even 2 stops, when photographing people in white dresses.. 

Same for black... in reverse! Take your e.c. DOWN 1-2 stops.  

P.s.: one little advice if it doesn't offend you: do not auto-iso.. ever! You should know what environment you're photographing in. If you're using a flash, you won't need higher than 200. If you're indoors but it's daylight, 400 should be enough. Outdoors, use 100 almost always (Exept for sunrise, sunset, open shade maybe and nighttime.) If you're indoors and it's dim light or darker, use 800 and 1600. But mostly, if you need to go above your acceptable ISO level, use a Flash or increase ambient light if you can (ceiling-lights, wall-lights...etc.).

To sum it up: go to ISO100, take a picture of a white wall and a black wall (or bag or anything) and you'll see that TTL is going to make the shots almost equally middle-gray... but they were white and black before!! use exposure compensation to turn these "colors" back to normal.


----------



## RebeccaAPhotography (Jul 16, 2012)

tirediron said:


> First of all, on my (admitedly crappy work) monitor, these don't seem to be too badly under-exposed; more like 1/3 stop, however looking at these scenes, they should have metered very close to perfect; nice range of tones, no strong back-lighting...
> 
> I'm inclined to agree that it really does look like an EC issue.  I don't speak Canon at all, but have you double-checked to ensure that you didn't get 1/3 or 1/2 stop EC dialed on somehow?
> 
> ...



I didn't know i did strip it, does flicker do that? How do I post it without it stripped?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 16, 2012)

Look at the last image for example, she is wearing white and the sky is white...  You probably need to do at least +1 exposure compensation on almost any mode of metering except spot.  So yeah, if you just keep the exposure bar in the middle, you will underexpose it.


----------



## KmH (Jul 16, 2012)

You don't. That's one of the reasons I dislike Flickr. One has to click on the photo and go to Flickr to see the photo's EXIF data. A really underhanded way for Flickr to get extra web site hits.

I also hate the SPAM (on Flickr) they add as a caption to each posted photo.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 16, 2012)

The images look fine. Possibly what you're reacting to is the overcast lighting, which makes things look flat and dreary. They'll have a "feeling" of underexposure, but it's really just flatness. "dull" not "dark" if you see what I mean?

The camera was doing its best, and not bad at that, with the light at hand.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 16, 2012)

There is no significant data until 80%. They are slightly under exposed.

My advice in these would be to meter off the brightest portion of the woman's dress and stop up increase exposure by about two and one third exposure value, either manually or using exposure compensation within AE. Use the over/under warning on your preview to ensure that nothing is clipped.

It doesn't matter where you reference the exposure, provided that you adequately compensate.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 16, 2012)

Becky, like has been said... the shots are not that underexposed. You may need to brighten up your monitor a bit! These are close enough to bring up in post without a problem.

I really like to use spot metering most of the time... once you learn how to use it, it will give you more accurate exposures, especially if you know how to use your EC controls to modify the exposure. But others like other ways... do what is best for you!


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 16, 2012)

Agreed about the exposure issue; nothing that isn't easily corrected in these but they are a bit noisy.
You have the room, I would shoot at as low ISO as possible.

Lew


----------



## RebeccaAPhotography (Jul 16, 2012)

Thanks Guys!

I will def try to re create this and shoot it with some more time of just her and I or even another friend just so I can work on these things! Yes I also agree they are a bit noisy but like others have said its nothing alittle post processing could do. Thanks for all the great input! Made me feel like yea i'm getting it just not quite there. There is SO much to control lol!


----------



## Tony S (Jul 17, 2012)

Looks to me like the camera meered them properly for the settings you may have used.  When shooting in any auto-exposure mode the camera is going to try and make everything a neutral gray.  Well, it appears it did it's job, all the tones look pretty neutral.

 You missed out on doing your part by not compensating for the different  tonal ranges within in the images.  Sometimes with darker scenes you need to underexpose since the auto metering wants to make those areas brighter and gray, and with brighter scenes you need to over expose to make the areas brighter/whiter that the camera wants to under expose to make them gray.


----------



## KmH (Jul 17, 2012)

RebeccaAPhotography said:


>


I measure the under exposure of the white dress at minus 0.7 EV, and again using the white dress have corrected a white balance issue. I wonder if you use a gray card and/or color card.


----------



## BlueMeanieTSi (Jul 17, 2012)

I seem to have this issue with any newer lenses and my older Fuji S5.  I have to pretty much shoot everything +1 EV or they are significantly underexposed.  The on camera LCD shows them to be where I would expect them but the histogram says otherwise. 

I didn't seem to have the issue with the Tamron lens I had used at one point but all my Nikkor lenses have this problem.  Camera was purchased last year so it's possible it needs some work done to it however it had 400 shutter actuations when I bought it so I really have a hard time thinking that's the case.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 17, 2012)

Those are some crazy settings 1/1600 they must move fast, and it is not the camera under exposing arn't you in control of the camera ?


----------



## Tony S (Jul 17, 2012)

Blue Meanie,

  Your LCD is the sorst way to check your exposure, learn to trust the histogram.


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 17, 2012)

Here is the histogram of this shot. As you can see, it's a bit underexposed. That curve furthest left is the dark woods behind the lady. You also have a bit of room to the right. However, I doubt there is anything wrong with your camera. There's any number of things that could have caused this. You've lost some detail in the woods, but if you shot RAW, you should be able to bring back at least some of the detail in this shot. Looking at the histograms of most of your other shots shows that they are right about where they should be, but no more than about 1/3 stop underexposed.


----------



## GerryDavid (Jul 18, 2012)

Are you shooting on full auto?

Why are you shooting a girl sitting down at 1/1600 @ iso 800?  If you switch the camera off of auto iso then select the lowest iso you need to get the job done, the image quality will improve.  If you are shooting on a priority mode and you find the picture is still underexposed, then adjust the exposure up a stop, then try again.  Worst case shoot on full manual?  

Ive noticed a similiar thing with my Canon T2i, it seems to want to underexpose pictures, even when its set to a full stop +1.  When that happens I just switch to manual and check the histogram.


----------

