Canon Rebel XT - Can't get good pictures.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Here are two photos I took with the camera. I just took them with the
camera set to full "auto" mode. Thanks again for your help!

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...law/canon2.jpg

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...law/Canon1.jpg


Yes they both look very dark. Autolevels immediately improves both of them
immensely.

www.rudybenner.com/album/Canon1_copy.jpg
www.rudybenner.com/album/canon2_copy.jpg

Something wrong for sure. Its like the EV is set down a few notches. Anyone
else have any ideas?

r.

Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
I'm not naive. I understand there's a learning curve with a dSLR
and I will eventually take the time to learn how to use it in manual
mode. That said, I still think I should be able to get decent photos
in automatic mode as well. I've tried it with the built-in flash, no
flash, the external flash straight-on, and the external flash bounced
off the wall. None of the photos have been properly exposed. I just
wonder if I somehow got a lemon.

How do you know if they're properly exposed?

An easy test would be to shoot green grass under daylight...with a small
piece of paper off to the side...then switch the camera to center-weighted
metering (since it doesn't have a spot meter). Meter off of the grass, and
then include the paper in the edge of the photo. Green grass is extremely
close to a neutral value for metering...so if it the paper is much too dark
or light, you've likely got a problem.

This will only test the meter, though, and not the interaction of the flash
with the meter.


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

On 25 Oct 2006 16:11:10 -0700, wrote:

Here are two photos I took with the camera. I just took them with the
camera set to full "auto" mode. Thanks again for your help!

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...law/canon2.jpg

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...law/Canon1.jpg

They do look somewhat on the dark side. I'm not familiar with the
details of the dRebel; in full auto mode, is it possible to set exposure
compensation? If so, you might want to check to see if you've
accidentally set exposure compensation to -1 or so. If that is indeed
the case, set it back to zero.

-dms

I reset the camera to the default settings before I took these
pictures. I don't think there's anything else I can adjust in the full
auto mode.

On 25 Oct 2006 17:25:26 -0700, wrote:

I reset the camera to the default settings before I took these
pictures. I don't think there's anything else I can adjust in the full
auto mode.

EXIF info (from the first image):

Exposure Time: 1/60 sec
F-Number: f/5.0
Exposure Program: Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating: 400
Lens Apertu f/5.0
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Flash: Flash, Auto, Red-Eye Reduce

So, the bias wasn't set negative, so that theory goes down the drain,
Guessing: Maybe there's something wrong with the flash?

-dms

Mark² wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
I'm not naive. I understand there's a learning curve with a dSLR
and I will eventually take the time to learn how to use it in
manual
mode. That said, I still think I should be able to get decent
photos
in automatic mode as well. I've tried it with the built-in flash,
no
flash, the external flash straight-on, and the external flash
bounced off the wall. None of the photos have been properly
exposed. I just wonder if I somehow got a lemon.

How do you know if they're properly exposed?

An easy test would be to shoot green grass under daylight...with a
small piece of paper off to the side...then switch the camera to
center-weighted metering (since it doesn't have a spot meter).
Meter
off of the grass, and then include the paper in the edge of the
photo. Green grass is extremely close to a neutral value for
metering...so if it the paper is much too dark or light, you've
likely got a problem.
This will only test the meter, though, and not the interaction of
the
flash with the meter.

It's difficult to tell if the camera is metering wrong, same for the
external flash, but ... Looks to me as if the 'flat' is due to the
metering pattern; it doesn't take much glare on one of the elements in
the frame to upset the overall exposure. That whitish flower on the
chair, and the white cat could convince the camera's exposure brain it
needs to back off a stop or so. Pretty clear the cat is headed toward
gray, which is what I'd expect an 'auto' instruction would say. Not so
much for the shapely but wooden subject in the other photo, but on the
same continuum.

I remember quite a bit of complaint about flash function when the 20D
came out, repeated for the 350D; underexposure was rampant, and I
disremember if the problem just became a known 'feature' and accepted
fault, or if it was resolved in firmware. I do remember seeing plenty
of examples similar to yours, or worse, and people resignedly
commenting that as a matter of course they were cranking in two-thirds
or a stop-and-a-third of overexposure whenever flash was employed.

My wife wants your cat; I want your guitar ...

--
Frank ess

Frank ess wrote:
Mark² wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
I'm not naive. I understand there's a learning curve with a dSLR
and I will eventually take the time to learn how to use it in
manual
mode. That said, I still think I should be able to get decent
photos
in automatic mode as well. I've tried it with the built-in flash,
no
flash, the external flash straight-on, and the external flash
bounced off the wall. None of the photos have been properly
exposed. I just wonder if I somehow got a lemon.

How do you know if they're properly exposed?

An easy test would be to shoot green grass under daylight...with a
small piece of paper off to the side...then switch the camera to
center-weighted metering (since it doesn't have a spot meter).
Meter
off of the grass, and then include the paper in the edge of the
photo. Green grass is extremely close to a neutral value for
metering...so if it the paper is much too dark or light, you've
likely got a problem.
This will only test the meter, though, and not the interaction of
the
flash with the meter.

It's difficult to tell if the camera is metering wrong, same for the
external flash, but ... Looks to me as if the 'flat' is due to the
metering pattern; it doesn't take much glare on one of the elements in
the frame to upset the overall exposure. That whitish flower on the
chair, and the white cat could convince the camera's exposure brain it
needs to back off a stop or so. Pretty clear the cat is headed toward
gray, which is what I'd expect an 'auto' instruction would say. Not so
much for the shapely but wooden subject in the other photo, but on the
same continuum.

I remember quite a bit of complaint about flash function when the 20D
came out, repeated for the 350D; underexposure was rampant, and I
disremember if the problem just became a known 'feature' and accepted
fault, or if it was resolved in firmware. I do remember seeing plenty
of examples similar to yours, or worse, and people resignedly
commenting that as a matter of course they were cranking in two-thirds
or a stop-and-a-third of overexposure whenever flash was employed.

My wife wants your cat; I want your guitar ...

--
Frank ess

Frank,

So, in general, do you agree the photos are not what they should be?
When I use an external flash, they're not much better. (My cat and my
guitar are my prized possessions. But don't tell my wife that.

Thanks for your comments.

Ethan

wrote:
I just bought a Rebel XT and I just cannot get good indoor photos from
it. I've only used it on "automatic", but I've used it with the
built-in flash and with an external flash. All of my pictures look too
dark and lack any vivid color. I've always been a huge Canon fan, so
I'm really disappointed in this one. (My previous camera was a G6,
which I sold to get the XT). Any advice would really be appreciated!

I have the same camera, but on full auto mode I get great results. The
exposure appears dead on. I'd suggest having the camera looked at.

wrote:
Frank ess wrote:
Mark² wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
I'm not naive. I understand there's a learning curve with a
dSLR
and I will eventually take the time to learn how to use it in
manual
mode. That said, I still think I should be able to get decent
photos
in automatic mode as well. I've tried it with the built-in
flash,
no
flash, the external flash straight-on, and the external flash
bounced off the wall. None of the photos have been properly
exposed. I just wonder if I somehow got a lemon.

How do you know if they're properly exposed?

An easy test would be to shoot green grass under daylight...with a
small piece of paper off to the side...then switch the camera to
center-weighted metering (since it doesn't have a spot meter).
Meter
off of the grass, and then include the paper in the edge of the
photo. Green grass is extremely close to a neutral value for
metering...so if it the paper is much too dark or light, you've
likely got a problem.
This will only test the meter, though, and not the interaction of
the
flash with the meter.

It's difficult to tell if the camera is metering wrong, same for
the
external flash, but ... Looks to me as if the 'flat' is due to the
metering pattern; it doesn't take much glare on one of the elements
in the frame to upset the overall exposure. That whitish flower on
the chair, and the white cat could convince the camera's exposure
brain it needs to back off a stop or so. Pretty clear the cat is
headed toward gray, which is what I'd expect an 'auto' instruction
would say. Not so much for the shapely but wooden subject in the
other photo, but on the same continuum.

I remember quite a bit of complaint about flash function when the
20D
came out, repeated for the 350D; underexposure was rampant, and I
disremember if the problem just became a known 'feature' and
accepted
fault, or if it was resolved in firmware. I do remember seeing
plenty
of examples similar to yours, or worse, and people resignedly
commenting that as a matter of course they were cranking in
two-thirds or a stop-and-a-third of overexposure whenever flash was
employed.

My wife wants your cat; I want your guitar ...

--
Frank ess

Frank,

So, in general, do you agree the photos are not what they should be?
When I use an external flash, they're not much better. (My cat and
my
guitar are my prized possessions. But don't tell my wife that.


Lucky guy.

I'm thinking (dangerous, I know) P&S designers might take those
principles into consideration, and make everything a little 'over',
whereas the dSLR designers would expect a bit more savvy from their
intended targets. In the olden days a large majority of film sales
were to print-as-final-product users, where correction was applied in
the process. Slide folks were more likely to tune exposures, just as
(more conjecture) dSLR users will today. Nowadays if you upload your
flat photos to Costco and don't specify otherwise, they'll come out
'corrected' and looking pretty good. Your slides will come back with
what you decided written all over them.

Just a way of dodging the real answer: your photos are not what they
could be and should be.

Uh, Wake Up, Canon!

--
Frank ess

Frank ess wrote:
Mark² wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
I'm not naive. I understand there's a learning curve with a dSLR
and I will eventually take the time to learn how to use it in
manual
mode. That said, I still think I should be able to get decent
photos
in automatic mode as well. I've tried it with the built-in flash,
no
flash, the external flash straight-on, and the external flash
bounced off the wall. None of the photos have been properly
exposed. I just wonder if I somehow got a lemon.

How do you know if they're properly exposed?

An easy test would be to shoot green grass under daylight...with a
small piece of paper off to the side...then switch the camera to
center-weighted metering (since it doesn't have a spot meter).
Meter
off of the grass, and then include the paper in the edge of the
photo. Green grass is extremely close to a neutral value for
metering...so if it the paper is much too dark or light, you've
likely got a problem.
This will only test the meter, though, and not the interaction of
the
flash with the meter.

It's difficult to tell if the camera is metering wrong, same for the
external flash, but ... Looks to me as if the 'flat' is due to the
metering pattern; it doesn't take much glare on one of the elements in
the frame to upset the overall exposure. That whitish flower on the
chair, and the white cat could convince the camera's exposure brain it
needs to back off a stop or so. Pretty clear the cat is headed toward
gray, which is what I'd expect an 'auto' instruction would say. Not so
much for the shapely but wooden subject in the other photo, but on the
same continuum.

I remember quite a bit of complaint about flash function when the 20D
came out, repeated for the 350D; underexposure was rampant, and I
disremember if the problem just became a known 'feature' and accepted
fault, or if it was resolved in firmware. I do remember seeing plenty
of examples similar to yours, or worse, and people resignedly
commenting that as a matter of course they were cranking in two-thirds
or a stop-and-a-third of overexposure whenever flash was employed.

My wife wants your cat; I want your guitar ...

Hmmm... I didn't ever find a post with a link to the photos...
???
Got a link?

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson