Ugly Hedgehog - Photography
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Analysis
What happened here?
Page 1 of 7 next> last>>
Jun 4, 2016 09:51:44   #
chase4 Loc: Punta Corona, California
 
Yesterday I took two sequential shots,JPEGs, of a surf shack being rebuilt after last winter's storms and the EXIF data shows the exact same information for both: Nikon D610, 28-300 lens @ 55mm, aperature priority f/8, 1/3000 sec, ISO 800, EV=0 with auto WB. As one can see, the two exposures look quite different, the #1 being much lighter than the #2. The histograms do show a difference also where #1 is more ETTR than the #2. My question is: does anyone have any ideas what may have caused this? Thanks in advance for any help with this.
chase


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Jun 4, 2016 10:28:34   #
oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA
 
chase4 wrote:
Yesterday I took two sequential shots,JPEGs, of a surf shack being rebuilt after last winter's storms and the EXIF data shows the exact same information for both: Nikon D610, 28-300 lens @ 55mm, aperature priority f/8, 1/3000 sec, ISO 800 with auto WB. As one can see, the two exposures look quite different, the #1 being much lighter than the #2. The histograms do show a difference also where #1 is more
ETTR than the #2. My question is: does anyone have any ideas what may have caused this? Thanks in advance for any help with this.
chase
Yesterday I took two sequential shots,JPEGs, of a ... (show quote)

Brackett?

Reply
Jun 4, 2016 10:39:14   #
chase4 Loc: Punta Corona, California
 
oldtigger wrote:
Brackett?


I don't think so oldtigger, the EXIF data shows EV=0 on both shots. Thanks for looking. chase

Reply
 
 
Jun 4, 2016 11:21:22   #
djtravels Loc: Georgia boy now
 
Spot focus? Camera reading different spots to set exposure? Not a Nikon man, but DSLR's aren't that different.

Reply
Jun 4, 2016 11:35:27   #
chase4 Loc: Punta Corona, California
 
djtravels wrote:
Spot focus? Camera reading different spots to set exposure? Not a Nikon man, but DSLR's aren't that different.


Both shots were from a tripod (camera was not moved) and were focused on the shack and taken sequentially on Ch (Nikonese for continous high) which is about a 1/6th of a second apart. Thanks for looking and your suggestion. I still don't have a clue. chase

Reply
Jun 4, 2016 12:00:36   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
Interesting...

No clue.

Reply
Jun 4, 2016 12:35:52   #
twowindsbear
 
Here's my WAG:

Enough time elapsed between the 2 shots so that the cloud cover changed and reduced the amount of light falling on the scene.

After a closer look to the 2 photos. . . this doesn't appear to apply.

So, I'm clueless - as usual.

Reply
 
 
Jun 4, 2016 14:40:19   #
chase4 Loc: Punta Corona, California
 
twowindsbear wrote:
Here's my WAG:

Enough time elapsed between the 2 shots so that the cloud cover changed and reduced the amount of light falling on the scene.

After a closer look to the 2 photos. . . this doesn't appear to apply.

So, I'm clueless - as usual.


As in my reply to dj above, there was only about 1/6th of a second between shots (shot at 6 FPS) so I don't think the lighting had enough time to change that much. Thanks for lookin' anyhow. Perhaps I should ask the Nikon wizzards (i.e. their customer support folks) if they have any clues about this matter. chase

Reply
Jun 4, 2016 15:14:17   #
robertjerl Loc: Corona, California
 
Someone asked if you used spot metering. Did you?
If the spot was on a fairly small object that is much darker or lighter than the surround even on a tripod you can get some movement from wind, tripod leg settling in sand, vibration (even from the mirror slap) etc that could move the spot just enough that it was now reading something darker or lighter than it was.
Or even if the spot was on the water then the waves change and you get an entirely different reading on the spot. In fact if not on spot but metering was of the water then the waves changing and reflecting more or less light could mess with your camera's meter by quiet a bit.

Reply
Jun 4, 2016 15:30:08   #
chase4 Loc: Punta Corona, California
 
robertjerl wrote:
Someone asked if you used spot metering. Did you?
If the spot was on a fairly small object that is much darker or lighter than the surround even on a tripod you can get some movement from wind, tripod leg settling in sand, vibration (even from the mirror slap) etc that could move the spot just enough that it was now reading something darker or lighter than it was.
Or even if the spot was on the water then the waves change and you get an entirely different reading on the spot. In fact if not on spot but metering was of the water then the waves changing and reflecting more or less light could mess with your camera's meter by quiet a bit.
Someone asked if you used spot metering. Did you?... (show quote)


Thanks for your comments Robert, I used center weighted metering (12 mm) and focused on the shack and then reframed the shot holding the same focus on the shack. Perhaps this helps? chase

Reply
Jun 4, 2016 15:44:47   #
robertjerl Loc: Corona, California
 
chase4 wrote:
Thanks for your comments Robert, I used center weighted metering (12 mm) and focused on the shack and then reframed the shot holding the same focus on the shack. Perhaps this helps? chase

If you recomposed then the metering was now looking at a different place. The camera may have taken the first frame at the original metering and the second was metered off the new spot.

Reply
 
 
Jun 4, 2016 15:45:52   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
There is only one possible explanation I can think of:

The sensor had an electrical hiccup. (Did not have the time to discharge)

That is a wild guess, at best. I am as puzzled as everyone else.

Reply
Jun 4, 2016 17:03:28   #
twowindsbear
 
robertjerl wrote:
If you recomposed then the metering was now looking at a different place. The camera may have taken the first frame at the original metering and the second was metered off the new spot.


The data recorded would show the different exposure values if this had happened.

Reply
Jun 4, 2016 17:21:22   #
robertjerl Loc: Corona, California
 
twowindsbear wrote:
The data recorded would show the different exposure values if this had happened.

Ah so! Blame it on my ol buddy Murphy, I don't think he will mind, just add it to his HUGE list of accomplishments in the realm of messing with our minds.

Reply
Jun 4, 2016 19:04:00   #
chase4 Loc: Punta Corona, California
 
twowindsbear wrote:
The data recorded would show the different exposure values if this had happened.


Here are the two screen shots from Picasa and the only difference is in the two histograms. When I recomposed, I locked in both the focus and exposure. chase

#1
#1...
(Download)

#2
#2...
(Download)

Reply
Page 1 of 7 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Analysis
UglyHedgehog.com
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.