growing pains...

[Gina Franco]

So a few weeks ago I upgraded from a Rebel XSI to a 5DII, which is a lot of upgrading to do for a relative newbie and a slow learner, I know, but I really missed the wide angle view of my lenses from my film days, so I saved up for the full frame body. I haven't been able to use the new camera much yet (day job blues...), but I've had enough experience with it to know I'm doing something wrong--or at least that something of what I learned about exposure and composition with the Rebel doesn't quite translate to the 5DII. Can you help me?


1. I'm overexposing everything. Or something. The colors and contrast of the images I took with the Rebel seem deeper and more complex. It's as though the 5DII is more light sensitive. Or something. Why have I lost so much color saturation and contrast? Why are my blue skies no longer deep blue, but pale and light? ...I'm using the same lenses...


2. ALSO: post processing the RAW files from my Rebel seemed to make a dramatic difference for the better. Not so much with the 5DII. Most of the post-processing changes I make to the 5DII RAW files look overdone--even small revisions! I use DPP, not Photoshop, so my post-processing is pretty basic.


3. Can you recommend a website that might help me understand the nuances of exposure better? I understand the basics, can read the histogram, and I generally use aperture or full manual modes, etc. Ideally I'd like a site that shows me examples of properly/poorly exposed/processed images, so that I know what I'm looking for in my own images. (I found the recent CC on the "Orchid" post very very helpful--thank you!!)


4. What is the best way to resize the 5DII's large files when converting from RAW to JPEG so that I don't compromise image quality? I don't own Photoshop, so I'm relying on DPP.


5. I now have almost nothing in the telephoto range by way of lenses! I'm wondering if the 100mm f2.8 L macro might suffice as a telephoto as well as a macro? I know ya'll love the 70-200 lenses, and I'll probably go there eventually, but I want something lighter and not so conspicuously white for now.


No need to respond to all of these questions, of course. Thanks for any and all advice!! And I apologize for any dumb or repetitive questions--feel free to send me to other useful posts I may have missed in my search.


Gina


P.S. I'm most interested in the challenges of natural light photography, indoor and out, so if it helps your commentary, just know I'm not using flash at all.

[piiooo]

Hello Gina,


There could be quite a few reasons why this is happening, examples being your 5DII's default settings,settings that you may have accidentallychanged or maybe there is something wrong with your 5DII.


First off, check your exposure compensation setting. I is designed to be changed quickly (half pressthe shutter button to engage metering and move the thumb wheel), but it can be also accidentaly changed. Maybe that is why your camera is overexposing. If this is something you would never do or already checked, please do not get offended. I am just trying to be thorough,plus, I do sometimes get over- or underexposed photos, just because I did not change the settings from my previous session orI just did accidental thumb thing [:P].


If you still have the XSI and some time, you can conduct a more controlled test. Slap your 16-35 on the XSI and the 24-70 on your 5DII, set them to equivalent focal lenghts (eg XSI@ about 30mm and 5DII @ about 50mm) and and photograph the same object using the same exposure(shutter speed, f-stop, ISO) and white balance settings. Your depth of field may differ (different sensor size), so may the saturation (varies from body to body, not so much, though), but thephotos should be exposed similarily. It would be a good idea if you shared your results.


I am on the clockand gotta runright now, butI will check later.


Pete

[Gina Franco]

Hello Gina,


There could be quite a few reasons why this is happening, examples being your 5DII's default settings,settings that you may have accidentallychanged or maybe there is something wrong with your 5DII.


First off, check your exposure compensation setting. I is designed to be changed quickly (half pressthe shutter button to engage metering and move the thumb wheel), but it can be also accidentaly changed. Maybe that is why your camera is overexposing. If this is something you would never do or already checked, please do not get offended. I am just trying to be thorough,plus, I do sometimes get over- or underexposed photos, just because I did not change the settings from my previous session orI just did accidental thumb thing [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img].


If you still have the XSI and some time, you can conduct a more controlled test. Slap your 16-35 on the XSI and the 24-70 on your 5DII, set them to equivalent focal lenghts (eg XSI@ about 30mm and 5DII @ about 50mm) and and photograph the same object using the same exposure(shutter speed, f-stop, ISO) and white balance settings. Your depth of field may differ (different sensor size), so may the saturation (varies from body to body, not so much, though), but thephotos should be exposed similarily. It would be a good idea if you shared your results.


I am on the clockand gotta runright now, butI will check later.


Pete



<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Hi Pete,



No worries about offending! I'm very grateful for your help--and I'm pretty clumsy with the camera, so accidents are entirely possible. But now that you've sent me there, I'm looking closely again at the EXIF data of some of my images, and nothing shows up in terms of exposure compensation. I'm looking through the settings again too, but I admittedly shoot everything in RAW, in default shot settings, auto white balance, and no picture styles, so that I can make those choices later in post-processing. I did that with the Rebel, too, so I do know the images come out of the camera quite flat and colorless. But as I said earlier, usually in post-processing the Rebel images the colors and contrast would really come to life.


I don't think there's anything wrong with the 5DII camera, either. I think I'm more likely making technical mistakes. For example, I realized just now that I might be overexposing because my ISO is too high. I'll post some samples below so ya'll can see what I'm talking about, but I think that because I avoided using ISO 100 or even 200 on the Rebel (the resolution was always slightly melty at 100 if I didn't use a tripod), I got into the habit of shooting at either ISO 400 or 800. Don't ask me how that works--it seemed rather natural to me from the film days--but it's probably absurd to approach shooting with the 5DII that way.


I'm going to take your advice, though! This weekend I'm going to take both bodies out, and I'll test them on the sky (since it's the deep blues I miss most from my new images), and see what happens. Thank you so much!


Gina


***


These images are straight out of the camera, no post-processing. I feel as though the first one should have been "pushable" in post-processing, that the blues and greens should have been easy to achieve. But this is a good example of an image that didn't change much before looking overdone. The other two are examples of over exposed images I made with the 5DII on Good Friday. You can see that the reds are still really vibrant. Red ain't a problem.


1/400, f8, ISO 320, 24-70mm L









1/400, f8, ISO 320, 24-70mm L









1/400, f8, ISO 320, 24-70mm L

[piiooo]

These images are straight out of the camera, no post-processing. I feel as though the first one should have been "pushable" in post-processing, that the blues and greens should have been easy to achieve. But this is a good example of an image that didn't change much before looking overdone. The other two are examples of over exposed images I made with the 5DII on Good Friday. You can see that the reds are still really vibrant. Red ain't a problem.

Dear Gina,


Based on the three pictures of yours I do not find anything wrong with your new 5DII.


It looks like you took these photos when the sun was still fairly high, especially numbers 2 and 3 (short shadows).This time of the daydoes not give you optimal light.The sunmust have beentoo bright and too high.As aresultthe skywasmuch brighter than the ground. Your camera exposed the ground and the friars properlybutthe sky is washed off.Human eye's dynamic range is much higher and we are able to appreciate blue sky at midday, but our cameras not so much.


Photo #1, came out best of all three, I do agree. The shadows on it are longer and oriented away(the sun is lower,not as bright and somewhere behind you).Because the sun is not as bright and the ground is front lit,thesky/ground contrast is lesser and therefore easier to record by a camera.


The nuanses of exposure in relation to direction of light are written nicely in Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" and "Understanding Digital Photography", the latter being a newer, "digitalized" version of the first one.


I am afraid, if you took your XSI with you on that day, the photos would have come out similar, if not worse.


Also, if you have to take photos at around midday, a circular polarizer may useful.


I hope I did not confuse you,


Pete

[Gina Franco]

These images are straight out of the camera, no post-processing. I feel as though the first one should have been "pushable" in post-processing, that the blues and greens should have been easy to achieve. But this is a good example of an image that didn't change much before looking overdone. The other two are examples of over exposed images I made with the 5DII on Good Friday. You can see that the reds are still really vibrant. Red ain't a problem.

Dear Gina,


Based on the three pictures of yours I do not find anything wrong with your new 5DII.


It looks like you took these photos when the sun was still fairly high, especially numbers 2 and 3 (short shadows).This time of the daydoes not give you optimal light.The sunmust have beentoo bright and too high.As aresultthe skywasmuch brighter than the ground. Your camera exposed the ground and the friars properlybutthe sky is washed off.Human eye's dynamic range is much higher and we are able to appreciate blue sky at midday, but our cameras not so much.


Photo #1, came out best of all three, I do agree. The shadows on it are longer and oriented away(the sun is lower,not as bright and somewhere behind you).Because the sun is not as bright and the ground is front lit,thesky/ground contrast is lesser and therefore easier to record by a camera.


The nuanses of exposure in relation to direction of light are written nicely in Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" and "Understanding Digital Photography", the latter being a newer, "digitalized" version of the first one.


I am afraid, if you took your XSI with you on that day, the photos would have come out similar, if not worse.


Also, if you have to take photos at around midday, a circular polarizer may useful.


I hope I did not confuse you,


Pete
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Hi everyone!


I want to thank you all for supporting me through my panic and helping me learn how to use my new camera. You're all so knowledgeable and generous.


Here's an update: I found that indeed the Auto Lighting Optimizer default was set on "strong." Who knows how or why. For several of my images turning it off made a significant difference. For others, almost none at all. So it's not likely the real problem, but it certainly contributed. Thank you to John and Jan for pointing out that setting.


I think Peter is absolutely right about the hard light that day--absolutely--which is why the sky is blown out--but I also think the Brothers and the grass are overexposed. I've photographed the monks on sunny days at high noon before, and without so much color being bleached out, so I still think I'm doing something wrong with the 5DII that I learned from shooting the Rebel. But it was very sweet of you, Peter, to suggest at first that the problem might be with the instrument and not the operator. I especially appreciate your followup explanation about hard light and exposure. I've been looking into a circular polarizer filter for the 24-70, actually, ever since Easter weekend with the Brothers, but they're a bit pricey considering that I probably don't need one, not just yet. Maybe this summer when I head to the Arizona desert for a couple of months.


Since I was shooting on aperture preferred all of Easter weekend, today I took the camera out for a quick try at the auto-mode, as Jan suggested, and then to experiment with full manual. Exposure in auto-mode worked perfectly, as I expected, (ignore the composition--I was just pointing skywards and towards white flowers, since it's easy to overexpose either and both).


As you can see, the blue skies are back! All of these were taken around 11:30 this morning in good old-fashioned hard light with the sun not quite directly above. This image is straight out of camera: auto-mode.









So then I experimented and found that if I metered for the highlights and underexposed just a hair in full manual mode, the colors and contrast came back in, and the RAW files were malleable and fun again! (I don't really know how to photograph flowers, so though C&amp;C is welcome, keep in mind I was mostly trying to get good exposures in these images and was shooting wide open to force challenging light conditions.) I've tinkered a bit with these images. They are not straight out of camera, but their colors and contrast were great before post-processing.


50mm, f1.8, 1/8000, ISO 100









50mm, f1.6, 1/8000, ISO 100









50mm, f1.4, 1/6400, ISO 100






So: I'm thinking that until I can figure out what I'm doing wrong in aperture preferred mode, I'll stick to manual, which is easy and fun on the 5DII (not so easy and fun on the Rebel).


By the way, I was so frustrated with the minimum focusing distance of the 50mm 1.4 today, I kept thinking: if only I had a macro lens that also does portraits...


Peter: I'm going to get that latest book. It gets referenced a lot. --And you did not confuse me. You helped a bunch.


Thank you all so much!


Gina

[Sheiky]

Here's an update: I found that indeed the Auto Lighting Optimizer default was set on "strong." Who knows how or why. For several of my images turning it off made a significant difference. For others, almost none at all. So it's not likely the real problem, but it certainly contributed. Thank you to John and Jan for pointing out that setting.

That is definitely a part of the problem! In auto-mode it is put on standard full time. I suggest you put the ALO on off or standard at all times. I prefer OFF because you can do it yourself later on with postprocessing and you'll get more grip on your photos and getting more consistent photographs. Although the standard setting shouldn't be to heavy.

I think Peter is absolutely right about the hard light that day--absolutely--which is why the sky is blown out--but I also think the Brothers and the grass are overexposed.

Agreed. Have you checked what type of lightmetering you used? Matrix, spot etc

I've been looking into a circular polarizer filter for the 24-70, actually, ever since Easter weekend with the Brothers, but they're a bit pricey considering that I probably don't need one, not just yet. Maybe this summer when I head to the Arizona desert for a couple of months.

I bought a B&amp;W 77mm circulair polariser MRC and yes it is quite expensive, but it can bring out a lot more contrast and color in your photos. I think it is definitely worth it, especially if you take nature/landscapes a lot.

Exposure in auto-mode worked perfectly, as I expected, (ignore the composition--I was just pointing skywards and towards white flowers, since it's easy to overexpose either and both).

Very nice photo, that's how photos should look like straight out of the camera.

So: I'm thinking that until I can figure out what I'm doing wrong in aperture preferred mode

Check your lightmetering again... It should give you the same results if you take a picture in auto mode, then switch to AV and select the same settings. Inclusive ALO standard. It will automatically select the same shutterspeed if your settings are the same.


I hope you can figure it out and enjoy your weekend [H]


Good luck,


Jan


Ps:

By the way, I was so frustrated with the minimum focusing distance of the 50mm 1.4 today, I kept thinking: if only I had a macro lens that also does portraits...

Canon EF 100 f2.8 macro, with or without IS I use it for both occasions as well []

[neuroanatomist]

In addition to exposure compensation, other things to check would be the Picture Style setting you're using on the 5DII vs. the XSi, the Auto Lighting Optimizer, and your white balance settings.


I'll also have a go at #5. The 100mm Macro is a short telephoto - on a FF body, it makes a very nice portrait lens (pretty wide aperture, sitting between the classic portrait length of 85mm and the 'head-and-shoulders' focal length of 135mm. Whether 100mm is long enough really depends on what you're trying to shoot, and what you're going to do with the shots. By that, I mean if you're shooting candids of people, etc., and are printing smallish sizes (or on-screen viewing only), with the 5DII's low noise you'll have a fair bit of cropping that you can get away with. But, if your goal is to shoot wildlife, etc., 100mm isn't going to be nearly long enough.


Given the IQ of the other lenses in your kit (with the exception of the 18-55mm kit lens, and as a side note, you need to update your profile!), I don't think you'll be thrilled with any of the consumer zoom options (e.g. 70-300mm IS USM). I'm one of those who really likes the 70-200mm (just got my EF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L IS II last week!). But I also have the EF 200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L II, which is the longest non-white Canon L-series lens. It's very sharp (though amazingly, not sharper than the 70-200 II at 200mm, which speaks volumes about the quality of the new zoom!). It's relatively light, fast, and not terribly expensive. But, if you buy the 200mm prime now and find yourself wanting the zoom later, that may not have been money well-spent (in my case, I think it was, but that's because I picked up the 200mm f/2.8 prime used on Craigslist for &gt;40% less than the cost of a new one, and if I do decide to sell it, which is quite possible, I'll actually make a profit).


But, again, it comes down to what you're shooting. If you are going after birds and most wildlife, 200mm will still likely not be long enough. Even my EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: red;"]L IS on my 7D (=640mm on your 5DII) isn't long enough sometimes.


Good luck with your image processing issues and lens decision!


--John

[Gina Franco]

In addition to exposure compensation, other things to check would be the Picture Style setting you're using on the 5DII vs. the XSi, the Auto Lighting Optimizer, and your white balance settings.


I'll also have a go at #5. The 100mm Macro is a short telephoto - on a FF body, it makes a very nice portrait lens (pretty wide aperture, sitting between the classic portrait length of 85mm and the 'head-and-shoulders' focal length of 135mm. Whether 100mm is long enough really depends on what you're trying to shoot, and what you're going to do with the shots. By that, I mean if you're shooting candids of people, etc., and are printing smallish sizes (or on-screen viewing only), with the 5DII's low noise you'll have a fair bit of cropping that you can get away with. But, if your goal is to shoot wildlife, etc., 100mm isn't going to be nearly long enough.


Given the IQ of the other lenses in your kit (with the exception of the 18-55mm kit lens, and as a side note, you need to update your profile!), I don't think you'll be thrilled with any of the consumer zoom options (e.g. 70-300mm IS USM). I'm one of those who really likes the 70-200mm (just got my EF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L IS II last week!). But I also have the EF 200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L II, which is the longest non-white Canon L-series lens. It's very sharp (though amazingly, not sharper than the 70-200 II at 200mm, which speaks volumes about the quality of the new zoom!). It's relatively light, fast, and not terribly expensive. But, if you buy the 200mm prime now and find yourself wanting the zoom later, that may not have been money well-spent (in my case, I think it was, but that's because I picked up the 200mm f/2.8 prime used on Craigslist for &gt;40% less than the cost of a new one, and if I do decide to sell it, which is quite possible, I'll actually make a profit).


But, again, it comes down to what you're shooting. If you are going after birds and most wildlife, 200mm will still likely not be long enough. Even my EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: red;"]L IS on my 7D (=640mm on your 5DII) isn't long enough sometimes.


Good luck with your image processing issues and lens decision!


--John
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

John,


I'm going to check the Auto Lighting Optimizer thingy just in case. I didn't think to check that!


--As for the lens advice: thank you! I'm not shooting wildlife (I'm
too slow to catch birds), just people (mostly monks) and still objects,
though yesterday I took a lot of photos of a cow (and wished wildly for
a telephoto). Do cows count as wildlife? []


The macro lens might work (I like macro too), but maybe I'll rent
the 200mm you suggest, just to see how it feels. That's a good
suggestion.


(And yes: I'll update my profile!)



Gina

[Sheiky]

Hey Gina!

So a few weeks ago I upgraded from a Rebel XSI to a 5DII

Hmmm normally I would say congratz and enjoy it, but I guess that doesn't really count for you yet, so I will keep it in mind for later []

but I've had enough experience with it to know I'm doing something wrong--or at least that something of what I learned about exposure and composition with the Rebel doesn't quite translate to the 5DII. Can you help me?

Why have I lost so much color saturation and contrast? Why are my blue skies no longer deep blue, but pale and light? ...I'm using the same lenses...

Hmm normally I wouldn't advice anyone to do this, but have you tried the full-auto mode? That's the one mode that has to expose correctly without you interfering it. If photos still come out badly it's easy...your 5D copy isn't functioning as it should.


If your output in auto-mode would be correct, then there are a few more factors that might be wrong with settings. A few are already stated by piiooo. I can't really believe that you personally would be the factor that makes your pictures bad as they are now. Alright the fingerslip exposure is something that happends to me as well from to time, but that one doesn't clarify the loss of contrast and/or colors.


Better yet, my pictures are much better straight out of the camera compared to my ex-50D.


Could you perhaps show us some of the photos you are referring to? With Exif-details if possible.

2. ALSO: post processing the RAW files from my Rebel seemed to make a dramatic difference for the better. Not so much with the 5DII. Most of the post-processing changes I make to the 5DII RAW files look overdone--even small revisions! I use DPP, not Photoshop, so my post-processing is pretty basic.

Hmm that's weird, I found that my dynamic playrange increased with the 5D2. It almost sounds like you have auto lighting optimizer at the highest or something.

5. I now have almost nothing in the telephoto range by way of lenses! I'm wondering if the 100mm f2.8 L macro might suffice as a telephoto as well as a macro? I know ya'll love the 70-200 lenses, and I'll probably go there eventually, but I want something lighter and not so conspicuously white for now.

I'll just say the the f4 versions of the 70-200 aren't really that big and to be honest, qualitywise there aren't very good non-white alternatives. Or you should perhaps look at a Sigma or Tamron or other 3rd party brand. Also the canon 200mm L is a very nice and black lens.


The 100mm (L or non-L) is a very nice lens, but you won't really notice the extra mm's in the "telerange". You would buy this lens mainly for macro and/or portrait.


Hope my comment is some kind of usefull to you. I would really suggest you'd try to shoot full-auto and see what happens. Also post some photos, this could really help to give us a better idea of what you're experiencing.


Good luck,


Jan

[btaylor]

Hi Gina,


I'm not really in a position to give you any advice on the settings within your new 5D as I've only had mine for 4 days now. However I will say that I am getting significantly better results with the 5d MkII than my 40D - both straight out of the camera and during post processing.


I really hope you can figure this one out as it'd be a shame for a rather expensive piece of gear to be underperforming for you. You never know, it could be the simplest of solutions that you just haven't thought about yet.


Good luck, Ben.