My images are friggin dark!!!

[marcusrevilla]

Hey all,

It seems that all of my images are coming out dark. It seems like I really have to throw my overexposure up quite a bit to get a decent result, but also sometimes, I get something completely blown out. It seems that with natural light, whatever my meter is telling me as accurate, I'm getting crap...anyone else having this problem?

Thanks!

Marcus

[Tom Nolle]

Couple of questions to try to zero in:

1--Are you shooting RAW or JPG?

2--What do the histograms look like after you've shot?

3--Do the images appear dark in all the applications you open them with, or with just selected ones?

4--Is the darkness a true overall reduction in luminosity or is there a strong color cast that's making everything look darker?

Tom

[lightwrangler]

Can you compare the meter readings with a known-to-be-on-the-money camera or handheld meter? In this way you can either get directly to the problem (meter) or move on to other variables, like Tom's list.

[sandman]

Marcus
Without knowing what your shooting it's an almost impossable question to answer. if by ''all'' you really do mean every single pic comes out under exposed, then your camera may be faulty, But if it's just certain kinds (lots of sea or sky )then it's most likely you have'nt quite got the hang of the setting on the camera, tell us exactly when it under expose's and the camera settings and kind of subject matter (post an example) and someone out here will help .

[crabby]

If you're judging your exposure by how it looks on the LCD, they will be underexposed. It helps to turn the brightness of your LCD all the way down (and to look at the histogram).

[Rockyw]

I'm with you crabby. I turned our LCD down a lot. I use the histrogram to set exposure and just a glance at the LCD once in a while. With the LCD set way down a dark picture shows up right now. before it looked great in the LCD but the histrogram told the story, and if you waited till you got home! OH OH. I also am sold on RAW RAW and RAW. We use the histogram now like we used the light meter with medium format. We still use the meter but the histogram is our guide.

[raidertek]

Originally posted by Rockyw
I'm with you crabby. I turned our LCD down a lot. I use the histrogram to set exposure and just a glance at the LCD once in a while. With the LCD set way down a dark picture shows up right now. before it looked great in the LCD but the histrogram told the story, and if you waited till you got home! OH OH. I also am sold on RAW RAW and RAW. We use the histogram now like we used the light meter with medium format. We still use the meter but the histogram is our guide.

fer sure stop looking at the LCD. the numbers never lie but your perception of the LCD under diff lighting conditions will.

[marcusrevilla]

Thanks all for your comments/advice. I have also turned down the LCD from the get go. The meter is telling me that the exposure is right on, but when I get home, everything is plain dark or overexposed. Nothing of the sort when it comes to matching what the metering is telling me. A complete 180 when I'm shooting my F100 and get the same reading. I'm thinking that this camera is a dud (what else is new)...

1. I am shooting JPEG
2. Unfortunately, we can't rely always looking at the histogram as our indicator. When you're shooting and moving, sometimes this option isn't feasible. If your camera is telling you the metering should be on, then it should be on.
3. I have used everything from ACDSee to PS...in general, they are dark...there hasn't been too much dependability with this one...


Thanks,

Marcus

[Swampy]

have you looked at the images on a different computer? Maybe post one up here (without doing any levels/contrast/brightness adjustments)? Maybe it's just your monitor that needs some calibration...

[marcusrevilla]

Actually, I have looked at them on another computer. When I correct them and send them off to be printed, they look great, but when you're shooting close to 1400 images in a wedding, it can be burdening...

Thanks,

Marcus

[Rockyw]

1400 Images at a wedding? That would be about a $6000.00 dollor package in my book. For a 250 picture package we shot about 400 or less. You might try shoting a few shots in RAW and see what they look like and what adjustment you need to make the picture look good. Also I did not see what mode your shoting in? P - A - M.

[marcusrevilla]

Rocky,

I always shoot in manual mode...

I will give the RAW thing a shot and see how that comes out...

Thanks!

Marcus

[King Kajun]

While at a state program, the speaker told us of his need to add 1/2 stop of exposure with the S2. Results form my use indicate the same thing. Add + .5 and this get it right . also check your histogram with a Black / grey / white card. By the way the speaker was a Fuji Spokesperson.

[Tom V]

I hope you are not using TTL flash. I have not read any good posts about the S2 and TTL flash.

My own tests confirm what others have complained about: TTL is wildly inconsistent on the S2. Some shots are ok, others overexposed, the next will be under. TTL on my Nikon F-100 and Nikon 8008s work as expected.

Setting the flash to Auto mode seems the best. (My flash had Auto mode back in 1974 - have we advanced any?)

>> Really dumb question: How do you know all your shots are dark? Could it be your computer monitor? (I think you would notice if your monitor was dark, but maybe not - it is a gradual thing.)

CRT monitors lose brightness after time, and can be detected in as short as a few months. Monitors should be calibrated every month because they can change that fast.

I had a RasterOps 21" that lasted 3 years before it got too dark to trust or calibrate. I then got a LaCie Electron Blue 22 with calibrator that went dark in 1 year, and was unusable in 2. The LaCie was replaced under warranty with a new one, which is great. To make all matters worse, the brighter you make your CRT, the faster it wears out.

[GaryB]

My new S2 Pro arrived yesterday - and goes back tommorow. The majority of my test shots are underexposed (confirmed by the histogram). The dealer reckons it is unusual and is going to replace....

Gary

[puglover]

Just like Marcus - most of my shots are underexposed as well. Could it be that I got a dud camera twice now??? probably. It's not my monitor - not the software - just most of my shots are dark - often very dark. or every now and then - just for fun - it really blows one out. I spend my life, in front of the computer - editing.

Do I sound bitter??

[puglover]

When shooting in RAW mode, the given software is very slow to convert - any suggestions on some faster conversion software?

[Rockyw]

We shot ALL RAW for everything. I find I can convert about one image per minute, maybe a little faster at times. Not a quick process but the best way to get the best quality for the customer.

[easternherp]

I have just read the first thread by marcusrevilla and I have had the same problem with my images coming out dark. I have not had time to do extensive tests but I am glad that I shoot in RAW so that I can lighten most images by 2-3 stops.
The exposure system doesn't seem to be as good as a film camera. I have tried in the P mode but still a lot of images are dark.