View Full Version : Some EOS 350D questions
Just got back off holiday and my photos have turned out a bit of a mixed bag and in general I am disappointed with them. Some are fantastic, but some are frankly crap :(
I've been blighted with dust on the sensor and mirror which is gutting to get home to find on most of my pictures. I managed to get rid of most of it but not completely, so question number one is what's the best way to clean the mirror and sensor? Any tips on keeping dust out? I only have the kit lens at the moment so it actually hasn't been off much other than to have a look inside.
I'm having problems under mixed light conditions. It's way over exposing the light parts of the picture and leaving the shadier parts very dark, whereas if I use the snappy digi camera to take the same picture the lighting is a lot more consistent across the picture. So basically I'm losing all my detail I wanted to capture. I have tried using a number of ISO settings which has helped the pictures from looking too dark overall (which I noticed the camera has a habit of doing, I'll use ISO 200 where I would normally use 100 with film etc) but the contrasting is still way too high. What can I do about it?
It works absolutely fantastically under low light and I've taken some fab pictures at night but the day ones are over exposing the highlights something chronic.
leowyatt
21-10-2007, 10:04
what mode were you using the camera on? what lens were you using?
Kit lens (18-55mm) and a mixture between P which is semi automatic (you can alter the aperture and shutter on the fly) and manual depending what I was shooting. Just can't seem to get it to do what I want.
i used to have that trouble....sometimes still do.
easiest way to deal with it is to shoot RAW then at least you can't go wrong - you can even make multiple outcomes of the same image depending on how you process it :D (you just need a big memory card and a copy of Photoshop!)
Has that camera got the featur eto take 3 shots of the same thing, two of which are either +1/3 or -1/3 exposure of the original? You could try that and see if you can pin it down.
leowyatt
22-10-2007, 14:30
Can you stick up some examples of the photos and we can try and figure it out there?
Has that camera got the featur eto take 3 shots of the same thing, two of which are either +1/3 or -1/3 exposure of the original? You could try that and see if you can pin it down.
It does.
Can you stick up some examples of the photos and we can try and figure it out there?
Was just about to post the same thing. Hard to really diagnose any problems without samples.
Has that camera got the featur eto take 3 shots of the same thing, two of which are either +1/3 or -1/3 exposure of the original? You could try that and see if you can pin it down.
Yes but it actually shoots 3 pictures so not great for snapping. Someone on OcUK mentioned the Jpeg image processing which apparently is alterable. I'm wondering if that's what the problem is. Good start on the compensation though, cheers.
Can you stick up some examples of the photos and we can try and figure it out there?
Yes I'm going to put a few up when I can :)
You should have no issues with JPG's tbh. You should be able to get good quality photos from it. I don't think thats the problem.
What metering mode is it/was it in?
If it was in spot/centre weighted that might have caused some exposure's to go awry depending where it was pointed when you half pressed the shutter.
Also, did you check to see if any exposure compensation had been accidently turned on?
I know i've had some badly exposed pictures because I forgot to reset the exposure compensation.
No exposure compensation from what I could tell but I have changed it from spot metering to a broader area because it wasn't picking the light I wanted. I'm going to run along and choose some pictures to put up...
350D doesn't have spot metering, so I doubt its that :)
lol, was probably centre weighted then.
Put it on Matrix or whatever the Canon equivalent is and see if that makes things any better.
Here are a couple of examples. Interestingly they look different on a different monitor. Now they look overexposed more than anything so perhaps my TFT is partly to blame. Bah. Anyway, please tell me where I went wrong on these.
Way over exposed:
http://www.dropfiles.net//files/319/Cyprus2007/cyp%20%2804%29.jpg
This wasn't that dark but the sunny side is completely washed out:
http://www.dropfiles.net//files/319/Cyprus2007/cyp%20%2805%29.jpg
Again the sun has washed all the detail out of this. I know the sun is in a funny position here but the scene wasn't that shadowed in real life:
http://www.dropfiles.net//files/319/Cyprus2007/cyp%20%2807%29.jpg
Possibly one of the worst this one, again the sun has killed it:
http://www.dropfiles.net//files/319/Cyprus2007/cyp%20%2808%29.jpg
And more so in this one:
http://www.dropfiles.net//files/319/Cyprus2007/cyp%20%2809%29.jpg
It's annoying because here they just look overexposed so I'm wondering if it's actually my crap monitor at home and it's just because I'm trying to shoot dark things in the middle of bright surroundings and the camera can't meter that sort of lighting easily.
leowyatt
23-10-2007, 08:50
My suggestion would the apeture is too low (that the right way round? :o) as in it's letting too much light in which is why you're getting the over exposure? Could the white balance have anything to do with it? What was the white balance set to? Auto?
I'd say it's almost dead cert you've got it on centre-weighted metering.
If you drew a circle in the middle of all those pictures, the exposure inside is pretty much spot on.
Change the metering mode to matrix or evaluative. I don't know what Canon call it, it's Matrix on Nikon.
Shame that you've managed to strip the EXIF from those.
If you posted a screenshot of the EXIF of one of those it would help a lot.
Can be found by going to the picture in Explorer > Right Click > Properties > Summary > Advanced
I'd say it's almost dead cert you've got it on centre-weighted metering.
If you drew a circle in the middle of all those pictures, the exposure inside is pretty much spot on.
Change the metering mode to matrix or evaluative. I don't know what Canon call it, it's Matrix on Nikon.
Shame that you've managed to strip the EXIF from those.
If you posted a screenshot of the EXIF of one of those it would help a lot.
Can be found by going to the picture in Explorer > Right Click > Properties > Summary > Advanced
I think you might be right. Looks like I might have misinterpreted the symbol on the lcd which is annoying because it's only one button press away from probably getting a good shot. Some people on OcUK said that by shooting in RAW I might have been able to save the shots. How could that be so if it's overexposed it?
Looks like XP image resizer powertoy strips out the data.
Because RAW shots hold a lot more data than JPG so you can adjust exposures and save details if you get it wrong.
You can do it with JPG too, but nowhere near as well, and you will never reclaim as much data.
for example:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/richyj/jonny69.jpg
With RAW, it would maybe have been possible to rescue the really overexposed part on the steps too.
If you look at the original images (please tell me you didn't resize all your originals? :p) they'll still have EXIF data in them...
No I've still got all the originals :p
These still have EXIF info. Metering Mode: Partial.
This mode meters a larger area than spot metering (around 10-15% of the entire frame), and is generally used when very bright or very dark areas on the edges of the frame would otherwise influence the metering unduly. Like spot metering, some cameras can use variable points to take readings from, (in general autofocus points), or have a fixed point in the centre of the viewfinder.
Going from that, and the pictures it seems that you've pointed your camera at a scene with a high contrast. Your cameras gone "Oof thats a bit dark in there" and adjusted the settings so the really dark part is clear. If you had shot RAW you would have been able to rescue them to some extent. RAW images contain a lot more data than a JPG. A RAW contains information so that you can reprocess your shot 2 stops either way, +/-. So if the image was under-exposed by 2 stops you could fix that.
These still have EXIF info.
O RLY?
*wanders off looking for an update to FxIF*
Blimey you lot are geniuseses. Thanks for the help :)
Its what I do :) RAW is a vastly superior format and everyone should be using it. Get Adobe Lightroom and its easy to process your photos. It makes no distinction between RAW and JPG. With RAW you can rescue dark shadows, blown highlights, and fix white balance issues.
MarcLister
24-10-2007, 14:31
Hi petemc. Mind if I ask some related questions. Got a 400D and haven't really looked at any of the pics yet as I don't have any decent software to sort them out. Should I get:
1: Adobe Photoshop
2: Adobe Lightroom
3: Both?
I'm a student so I could get the student versions of Photoshop and Lightroom. I *think* that Lightroom would suit me better at the moment as I'm not anywhere near good enough to start shopping my pics.
I've been using Photoshop for about 8 years now. Its a brilliant program. One, if not the most amazing pieces of software I've seen. However, since Lightroom came out I've found I can do a large portion of my work and produce images I'm happy with in that. Its a great program. Photoshop is quite complex to use, Lightroom isn't really. So I'd say, for now get Lightroom. You could also look at Photoshop Elements. A basic version of PS.
MarcLister
24-10-2007, 15:29
Yeah I think Lightroom is what I need now. Just to do some touching up and organising of my photos. Then as I get better at taking pics and get some better kit I can get Photoshop in due time.
MarcLister
24-10-2007, 15:37
Can get Lightroom for £81.08 from Adobe UK education store. I think the whole process of proving I am a student is a bit of a bitch unless they've simplified the process since I last looked.
Tysonator
08-11-2007, 00:04
Has any one used Paint Shop Pro ?
Not in a looooooong time. Maybe PSP5.
Tysonator
08-11-2007, 21:54
I think there is PSP 12 now !
I liked PSP up to version 7, and I got to be very good with psp7, but to be honest I think its gone down hill drastically since then in an aid to be some kind of photographers friend. The UI has become less intuitive and the focus has become heavily on wizards rather than the level of manual control I prefer :)
Tysonator
10-11-2007, 17:33
I think PSP is easyer to use than Adboe Photoshop !
It is, but theres good reason why Photoshop is the industry standard image editor. Its just incredible!
Tysonator
12-11-2007, 22:25
I agree a very powerful tool, though damn hard to learn,..so if you do not know it, it is all but useless !
I've got PSP9 and get on with it OK (no wizards to speak of there). It's the last one before Corel took over and it doesn't surprise me if it went downhill after that.
I'd used PSP since about version 3 though (and bought several versions), so I'm used to it. I got a trial version of Photoshop CS2 and to be honest I didn't get on with it particularly well, but did manage some stuff with it so would probably have been OK had a perservered. I use PSP at work so a dodgy copy of CS3 isn't an option (not that it would be anyway as I try to keep my systems with at least some semblance of legality :)).
Tysonator
14-11-2007, 21:04
have the adobe at the moment, though it is so hard to use.
For an easier option I might get PSP11
PS is harder but its the industry standard for a reason. Its nothing short of amazing. Plenty of good guides (http://www.chromasia.com/tutorials/online/curves/) too.
Tysonator
15-11-2007, 15:57
Totally agree, PS it is an amazing piece of kit.
I just can not get started yet, even on the basics. Thats why I was interested in perhaps buying PSP, as I think that is easier to use.
Bump from the vaults :D
Argh, this is SO frustrating. My pictures have been blighted by this contrast problem for years and I thought there was nothing I could do about it. I was searching through the menus looking for the black and white mode and found a setting called 'Parameters'. Here you can set a custom contrast and sharpness and the camera has been set on a high contrast. GRRRRRRRRR!
At least I found it at last.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.