pictures come out dark on bright sunny day?

[glennb]

Had an issue the other day with my pictures coming out too dark. Was using Aperture setting and it was a nice bright sunny day! Im pretty sure I was on matrix metering and shooting in raw.55-300dx and 35mm, not all come out like the below pics but most did. They look like they were taken under the shade. any advice would be great, is it me or is it the camera or lens, possible causes. Cheers This pic,f4.5,1/3200sec,ISO200,auto white balance http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3771/9159849830_9644ea55c4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/93300173@N08/9159849830/)
2013 06 22_1782_edited-1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/93300173@N08/9159849830/) by Glennb76 (http://www.flickr.com/people/93300173@N08/), on Flickr. This next pic,1/1250sec,f11,ISO100 http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3809/9157619537_c04e8a3a55_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/93300173@N08/9157619537/)
2013 06 22_1757_edited-1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/93300173@N08/9157619537/) by Glennb76 (http://www.flickr.com/people/93300173@N08/), on Flickr even this landscape 1/500sec,iso200,f11 http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7396/9159855336_b28891eede_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/93300173@N08/9159855336/)
2013 06 22_1793_edited-1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/93300173@N08/9159855336/) by Glennb76 (http://www.flickr.com/people/93300173@N08/), on Flickr This is how I thought it would of come out like, this after a play in photoshop http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7354/9157623631_3e0a2c260c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/93300173@N08/9157623631/)
2013 06 22_1757_edited-2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/93300173@N08/9157623631/) by Glennb76 (http://www.flickr.com/people/93300173@N08/), on Flickr

[Glenda]

White birds are difficult. Usually best to use spot metering on the bird - I assume you used matrix or evaluative metering. Did try to check on your Flickr page but you have the image set at private. With the camera metering the whole scene the pelican will usually be dark. Like how you've processed this though.

[ameerat42]

Somehow your camera metered the highlights - see the white feathers - and underexposed everything else.
The exposures are way too low for those conditions. Anyway, a good recovery in Photoshop. No camera
mentioned, so can't be specific on its settings. (Can't get EXIF.)
Am.

[Mark L]

As Lplates said, it's the metering mode you're using. Spot metering on the bird will expose for the bird. The rest of the scene is brighter than the bird and the camera is exposing for that brightness.
Knowing this, if you used the same metering mode again, you could dial in a slower shutter speed (as you where using aperture priority). The camera would say you're over exposing, but that's what you want to expose the bird properly with such a bright background.
Last photo shows the benefit of RAW.

[glennb]

Thanks guys ill try and put more of the meta data up , wouldn't allow me to copy and paste , camera was d5100 still confused why the land/seascape was also underexposed.
Edit now open up flicker for public

[Glenda]

Maybe you were pointing the camera at the sky which is lighter and the camera metered off that. I know my Nikon always tends to underexpose. I did read somewhere that Nikons did this rather than blow out highlights. I tend to use spot metering 90% of the time but more particularly with birds and I always expose to the right - I've found this gives me the best results. You've just got to experiment and see what suits your camera best.

[ricktas]

Looking forward to getting access to the EXIF, that is going to tell us a lot. easiest way is to make your album on flickr a public one rather than a private one.

[arthurking83]

the other important question is, did you use any filters of any kind? UV, ND, CPL, etc?

[mongo]

Mongo finds it hard to believe that these results were due to exposure meter mode alone.

the third image had a lot of dark blue in it which would have tended to brighten the image in ant metering mode except spot metering and only if pointing to sky in that image. Even with filters, the camera metering should have adjusted to give a longer exposure.

the problem looks more like your compensation exposure on your camera may be set to about -1.3 to -2.0 EV. Check that your exposure compensation is set to "0".

It could also be a combination of some of the possibilities we have all mentioned in this thread. Mongo will be intrigued to learn what it is eventually.

[glennb]

Looking forward to getting access to the EXIF, that is going to tell us a lot. easiest way is to make your album on flickr a public one rather than a private one.
It should be open to the public now, the only data I can find on flicker is under additional info which just gives the main settings. Also I didn't use any filter on the 55-300 and uv on the 35mm, problem was on both lenses.

[glennb]

Ok, I have uploaded more pics to my flickr and is open to public .Also seems I used centre weighted and pattern/multi-segment most of the time with a few at spot metering. But all still inconsistent, and EV is at 0 for all.
here are a few more pics and you can get the exif data on flicker.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7340/9170604561_413f27543f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/93300173@N08/9170604561/)
2013 06 22_1791_edited-1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/93300173@N08/9170604561/) by Glennb76 (http://www.flickr.com/people/93300173@N08/), on Flickr


http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3824/9170514025_5c522da232_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/93300173@N08/9170514025/)
2013 06 22_1788_edited-1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/93300173@N08/9170514025/) by Glennb76 (http://www.flickr.com/people/93300173@N08/), on Flickr


http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2805/9172724752_0d002f4ae0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/93300173@N08/9172724752/)
2013 06 22_1745_edited-1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/93300173@N08/9172724752/) by Glennb76 (http://www.flickr.com/people/93300173@N08/), on Flickr


http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5455/9170566271_5233382fdc_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/93300173@N08/9170566271/)
2013 06 22_1778_edited-1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/93300173@N08/9170566271/) by Glennb76 (http://www.flickr.com/people/93300173@N08/), on Flickr

[arthurking83]

OK, so filters aren't the issue.

I just checked the exif data on #3 in the first set and exposure compensation is set to 0!

Why it exposed so dark is a bit of a mystery to be honest. and it seems to have been shot with the 35/1.8 which (from memory) usually exposes a bit on the brighter side.
ie. T stop on this lens is better than the kit lenses tend to be.


So far I'm at a bit of a loss.

[ameerat42]

Well, what about the processing? (???)
Am.

[rackham]

The pelican is in a couple of instances backlit, that may have contributed a bit.

[glennb]

Well, what about the processing? (???)
Am.

Sorry Am what processing are you talking about? No post processing done except change to jpeg for flicker, straight from camera to photoshop organiser to edit for jpeg to flicker. Exif data can be seen on flicker now.

[ameerat42]

OK, so you do not have any problems in that area! OK, back to square one.:(
Am(puzzled).

[mpb]

I think as rackham said the main issue is backlit birds with the front of the bird in shadow.
The metering system is trying to average the exposure in the area being metered when in multi segment/patern metering. Therefore because most of the scene is in sunlight and not in shadow so it will darken the shot to compensate.
Some of the shots have been cropped so we can not see the full view that the camera was seeing.
The landscape is dark probably because it was shot with spot metering, so it is really sensitive to what was actually metered, ie if the spot was on the sky them the shot is probably as expected.

[arthurking83]

The landscape image was indeed spot metered.
This could account for the dark exposure. If the central focus point was chosen as the spot, and the meter catered mainly for the sky section of the horizon, then this would account for the dark exposure.

Pixel luminance values of the slight cloud mass along the horizon are roughly in the 140 ballpark, so this makes the most sense.

And if mpb's comment that the images have been cropped in any way is true, then this also makes it harder to assess the exposures.

Also I noticed that the OP uses Ps Elements(ACR7.1) .. in my experience with ACR via Lightroom 4, is that it usually tend to render a raw file more bright when compared to the rendering on the camera and on the Nikon software I use.
If you have access to Nikon's ViewNX2, I'm wondering how different the image rendering looks between the two softwares(assuming that you shot in NEF format!!).

[glennb]

The landscape image was indeed spot metered.
This could account for the dark exposure. If the central focus point was chosen as the spot, and the meter catered mainly for the sky section of the horizon, then this would account for the dark exposure.

Pixel luminance values of the slight cloud mass along the horizon are roughly in the 140 ballpark, so this makes the most sense.

And if mpb's comment that the images have been cropped in any way is true, then this also makes it harder to assess the exposures.

Also I noticed that the OP uses Ps Elements(ACR7.1) .. in my experience with ACR via Lightroom 4, is that it usually tend to render a raw file more bright when compared to the rendering on the camera and on the Nikon software I use.
If you have access to Nikon's ViewNX2, I'm wondering how different the image rendering looks between the two softwares(assuming that you shot in NEF format!!).

Hi mpb and arthurking, No cropping has been done, I was 3 to 4 meters from it, so pic is what the camera is seeing. No post processing done except change to jpeg for flicker, straight from camera to photoshop organiser to edit for jpeg to flicker.(but disregard pics with my water mark on it on my flikr page they have been edited) I will try Nikon viewNX2 and see if theirs a difference. cheers Guys

Also is there a particular test I can do to see if I have a exposure problem with the camera?cheers

[arthurking83]

At this stage, I don't think testing for exposure accuracy is important!

FWIW: I just loaded a couple of images(NEF) into Rawtherapee(raw converter) and they came out a touch less than -1Ev darker looking by default than the same raw files look in ViewNX2.

But with this particular image, the exposure level in LR4 is about the same as that seen on the camera, and hence also in ViewNX2.

So again we have one level of variance in raw file interpretation between some raw file converters, and not others. But I've seen many instances where LR4 and ViewNX2 differ quite a bit too.
Nikon's software(ViewNX2 and CaptureNX2) will always render the image as per the settings on the camera, as it takes into consideration the camera's Picture Control settings .. which many other raw converters don't.

As for a quick'neasy exposure test ... a plain white(ish) wall .. reasonably lit, and just try to expose it neutrally(ie. no exposure compensation). Your WB can be set later on if you choose raw file type in the camera.

Test for all three metering modes, and you may notice very slight differences in exposure between all three modes .. and also test at wide open aperture settings as well as a mid range setting(eg. f/5.6 or something)
Make sure that what ever you're looking at, the centre pixels in these white wall test images should be registering approximately 128 in RGB luminance levels. Doesn't have to be exact tho.
In many instances, you will get some vignetting at the periphery, and luminance levels may be significantly lower.

If your walls aren't very white, then a sheet of A4 copy paper can substitute well enough for such a non scientific test to see if you have any issues with your gear. You don't necessarily need to have the entire white copy paper as the image frame, just a major portion of it in the centre, especially for spot metering. You then use this white paper as your white point to set a whitebalance value.
Note that domestic CFL lights are notoriously inaccurate in their colour rendering properties(very low CRI values) .. if you have CFL lighting in your home/office/etc.

[glennb]

Thanks arthurking, I seem to be getting a consistent picture on all metering settings and A P S M modes and RGB luminance around 131 on my antique white USA walls.
looking at some pics I took after each other and one being brighter than the other, it looks to me the shutter speed is not being adjusted enough to allow more light in.(using aperture priority) I have one dark pic with a shutter speed at 1/4000(fastest setting)why so fast :/
I have only one spot metering pic of the pelican which is also on the darker side but think I will have to do some experimenting to see if spot metering helps. Was looking at pics of my dog which were taken on a sunny day and he also looks a bit on the darker side but not as bad as these pics.
thanks again for your help

[arthurking83]

The first thing that came to mind, was a possible inaccuracy of the diaphragm operation of the lens.
Whilst it's not the most common issue to read/hear about, it's also not completely impossible either.

But this issue will arise(usually) with the lens stopped down a little ... that is not wide open. But from what I can see in (at least) some of your images is that you have kept the aperture wide open in some(possibly many) of your images, and as the camera doesn't actually operate the lenses diaphragm if the lens is set to wide open, this is less likely to be the issue.

So the issue is really more of: the camera's metering is just seeing more light that is really there.

Some things that can cause this is inappropriate metering usage .. apologies for the next comment .. but basically your technique is wrong. This is not a derogatory comment on your abilities .. I can tell you I suffer from the same issue myself many times(current new lens is getting hard to get used too for me here too at the moment) .. so it's more of a comment for you to 'test a bit more' and don't become disheartened.

For me, my most favoured metering mode is spot metering. Many of my lenses, I have a very good understanding of how they meter and expose a scene. But a while back(and just for fun) I began using the most basic of my lens collection .. a 18-105VR .. just for the hell of it. One thing that came out of this prolonged usage was that it underexposed any scene a lot more darkly than my usually preferred lenses(either the 17-50/2.8 or 28-75/2.8 Tamrons).
And so over time, I got used to this knowledge, and where I'd usually set the camera (with my Tammy's connected) at about -0.3 to -0.7Ev underexposure(just my taste) .. I initially set the 18-105VR at the same exposure level, and images came out wayyyy too dark. So eventually my response with the 18-105 mounted was to leave metering at neutral.

Now I have the total opposite issue with my Tammy 24-70VC, where it over exposes the scene(relative to my taste) and that's with -0.3 to -0.7Ev compensation set too. It's just responds differently to how my other main lens does .. and I keep forgetting this point. That just comes down to experience(eventually) and the knowledge of it. Actually the 24-70 doesn't actually over expose, the exposures are really about spot on .. but it's brighter than my natural preference(of slight underexposure to create natural colour richness).

Another question that should have been asked: do you use your lens hood? If not, then change this fact and use it.
Lens hoods can make a difference in the way the metering sees. Complex lenses such as the 55-300(with many lens elements) can capture extraneous light rays and where the metering sees extra light, it reacts accordingly.
That is, the camera is not a particularly intelligent device .. it just sees light with no understanding of what that light is... ie. is it a pelican, or is it an elephant .. or a iron smelter .. or a pizza .. it simply doesn't know.
it just sees light levels, and somewhere in a database, a series of colours are compared to what is currently seen by the metering system and it recommends a particular exposure for you to use.
if stray light is getting onto the front lens element(because the lens hood if mounted in the parked position .. not mounted the right way out!) .. this can confuse the metering to thing there's more light that it should see.
There is a high probability of this happening in contra light(as you have with many of your images shown.

I mention this in passing, as this may not be the cause for such dark images .. simply because there is barely any visible trace of lens flare in your images.
The two basically go hand in hand .. a bit of lens flare will usually also equate to slightly darker images. But this is not a definitive statement .. it may .. it may not.

The reason I mention this is that there is a very slight trace of what looks like lens flare in #2 second set of images(lower left corner).

While the darkness of the images is most likely due to having used the wrong metering mode under the wrong set of shooting conditions(as already implied by others), I'm not 100% convinced that this is the sole reason.
The second image in set number two again .. I'd have thought that the centre weighted mode(usually a 12mm circle being metered from in the centre of the frame) looks to be entirely covered only by the pelican's beak and eye area .. and as such is not really seeing the highlights in the image. Of course I don't really know this for sure, as I wasn't there and I don't have any idea on how this lens performs .. so is more of a guess on my part.
And I suspect something for you to watch for if you're out again the next time.

[fillum]

Glenn, are you shooting these in raw or jpg? Did the images on the camera's lcd screen look dark as well or are they ok?

I don't think it's a metering issue - I only looked up a few of the settings but they seemed reasonable for a bright sunny day...



Cheers.

[glennb]

Thanks guys, Im sure your right about it being being the user. used a hood for the 35mm and can't remember with the 54-300 , I usually do. Will like to get out there again in the same conditions and have a play around.

Phil I shot in raw and the LCD on cam was same as PC, there definitally is inconsistency in the pics you can see more on my flicker page. Water marked ones have been edited.

[ameerat42]

LCD brightness? Still think processing? Clutching at straws?
Am.