Exposure Question.
Jun 3, 2023 16:25:14 #
I just was with my daughter to attend my grandson’s graduation. I didn’t take many photos, but my daughter did. Not a great camera, but good enough for snapshots. While reviewing her photos, she asked me a question I not only couldn’t answer, but would love to have answered for myself: Why, when taking the same photo, seconds or less apart, is one photo more underexposed than the next? No change in settings, no change in light, yet the two photos are noticeably different. She’s using an old Canon, I’m using a Z9, and it happens to both of us. Would love to hear anyone’s thoughts.
Thanks,
Mike
Thanks,
Mike
Jun 3, 2023 16:28:23 #
Jun 3, 2023 16:32:47 #
capmike wrote:
I just was with my daughter to attend my grandson’... (show quote)
Often its light sources within the frame, being repositioned, or falling outside the frame entirely.
If its flash you both could be outrunning the recycling time. If ambient light shot at about 1/60 you could be catching the pulsing of 60 cycle lighting at varying different levels within the cycle.
Its quite unlikely that both cameras are accidentally set for exposure bracketing, but hey, this is Planet UHH !
Jun 3, 2023 16:36:24 #
Jun 3, 2023 16:37:09 #
Jun 3, 2023 16:37:38 #
Jun 3, 2023 16:46:16 #
Similar to light sources being repositioned within the frame, at a graduation you also have black robes in varying positions. Im not asking about your meter pattern cuz it wouldnt really tell us very much.
Jun 3, 2023 16:49:11 #
Actually green robes, but that is just what brought me to ask the question. It has happened to me regularly, and I don’t have a clue why it does. One photo perfectly exposed, next under, next perfect.
Thanks
Thanks
Jun 3, 2023 16:49:58 #
This case you need to look at the EXIF data to see what kind of settings on the shots? Are they the same or changed in some way.
Yes so if you can post those pictures with EXIF data then perhaps we can figure it out.
This is about the only time when the EXIF data is useful.
Yes so if you can post those pictures with EXIF data then perhaps we can figure it out.
This is about the only time when the EXIF data is useful.
Jun 3, 2023 16:54:18 #
Actually that is always the first place I look. Everything is identical from frame to frame. Huge ?
Thanks
Thanks
Jun 3, 2023 16:55:21 #
capmike wrote:
Actually that is always the first place I look. Everything is identical from frame to frame. Huge ?
Thanks
Thanks
So you meant the EXIF shows exactly the same aperture, shutter speed and ISO?
Jun 3, 2023 16:55:32 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
capmike wrote:
Matrix
And that's your answer. Hers is probably set to Evaluative which is Canon's version of Matrix. Both exposure calculation methods are algorithm driven. They basically divide up the image area into smaller discreet sections and apply variable weight to each given their position and then further compare each section with overall averages and the other sections. It doesn't take a big change in a bright highlight position or intensity or dark shadow to cause the metering to react.
Jun 3, 2023 16:57:38 #
Jun 3, 2023 17:04:20 #
Yes, EXACTLY the same. The underexposed is not the better photo. Of course we have the better photo, the underexposed could be corrected in processing, but not necessary as we have the good one. The question is why? ?
Jun 3, 2023 17:09:53 #
If you wanted something other than a random guess game, post and store two examples with the original EXIF. Otherwise, enjoy those who find the snake, or can't climb over the wall, or the one blind guess of the unfortunate UHH community member who sticks a hand down a warm hole.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.