Why r my pix overexposed?

Troy Piggins wrote:

He said they both used evaluative metering, didn't he?


Oops!

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Robert Coe wrote:
Last Sunday my wife and I were in southern Vermont and shot pictures of
four
of their covered bridges. At two of the sites, most of my pictures (shot
on my
50D) came out ghrossly overexposed. It's clear that the meter in my
camera was
badly fooled. Martha's pictures, shot on her 400D, came out fine. Why??

The lenses we used are identical: Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. We were both using
evaluative metering, and both of us had our ISO speed set to somewhere in
the
400 to 800 range. The weather was slightly hazy, with a high overcast and
a
nearly white sky.

I've been able to identify only two prominent differences in the setup of
our
equipment:

1) My camera (but not hers) has an aftermarket "Katz Eye" focussing
screen.
That screen can cause exposure errors, but with evaluative metering under
daylight conditions, the effect should be (and has always been)
negligible.

2) Martha was shooting with a bare lens, while I was using a UV filter.
I had
thought that the filter would do more good than harm, but it's occurred
to me
to wonder whether light scattered off the surface of the lens could have
been
reflected back off the inner surface of the filter. But even so, why
wouldn't
the metering system see it and react accordingly?

Can anyone propose an explanation (other than the obvious one that my
wife may
be a better photographer than I am)?

Reread the manual's section on metering. What you're pointing at, how
it's lit and how you meter it determine the exposure. The Katz eye may
contribute a bias as well (as you point out). Added UV filters should
not affect metering at all (what's lost there will result in slightly
increased exposure, is all).

The difference between your wife's exposures and yours are likely
traceable to metering mode, choice of subject and composition.

Hi folks.

My guess is that the bridge was framed differently by the two cameras ... or
the 40D had the +/- exposure correction set on.

Regards, Roger..

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:20:00 -0700 (PDT), PatM
wrote:
: On Aug 12, 9:01*pm, Robert Coe wrote:
: Last Sunday my wife and I were in southern Vermont and shot pictures of four
: of their covered bridges. At two of the sites, most of my pictures (shot on my
: 50D) came out ghrossly overexposed. It's clear that the meter in my camera was
: badly fooled. Martha's pictures, shot on her 400D, came out fine. Why??
:
: The lenses we used are identical: Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. We were both using
: evaluative metering, and both of us had our ISO speed set to somewhere in the
: 400 to 800 range. The weather was slightly hazy, with a high overcast and a
: nearly white sky.
:
: I've been able to identify only two prominent differences in the setup of our
: equipment:
:
: 1) *My camera (but not hers) has an aftermarket "Katz Eye" focussing screen.
: That screen can cause exposure errors, but with evaluative metering under
: daylight conditions, the effect should be (and has always been) negligible.
:
: 2) *Martha was shooting with a bare lens, while I was using a UV filter. I had
: thought that the filter would do more good than harm, but it's occurred to me
: to wonder whether light scattered off the surface of the lens could have been
: reflected back off the inner surface of the filter. But even so, why wouldn't
: the metering system see it and react accordingly?
:
: Can anyone propose an explanation (other than the obvious one that my wife may
: be a better photographer than I am)?
:
: Bob
:
: ... because your wife is right and you are wrong. You've been married
: how long and haven't learned that yet?

43 years. :^|

Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:20:00 -0700 (PDT), PatM
wrote:
: On Aug 12, 9:01 pm, Robert Coe wrote:
: Last Sunday my wife and I were in southern Vermont and shot pictures of four
: of their covered bridges. At two of the sites, most of my pictures (shot on my
: 50D) came out ghrossly overexposed. It's clear that the meter in my camera was
: badly fooled. Martha's pictures, shot on her 400D, came out fine. Why??
:
: The lenses we used are identical: Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. We were both using
: evaluative metering, and both of us had our ISO speed set to somewhere in the
: 400 to 800 range. The weather was slightly hazy, with a high overcast and a
: nearly white sky.
:
: I've been able to identify only two prominent differences in the setup of our
: equipment:
:
: 1) My camera (but not hers) has an aftermarket "Katz Eye" focussing screen.
: That screen can cause exposure errors, but with evaluative metering under
: daylight conditions, the effect should be (and has always been) negligible.
:
: 2) Martha was shooting with a bare lens, while I was using a UV filter. I had
: thought that the filter would do more good than harm, but it's occurred to me
: to wonder whether light scattered off the surface of the lens could have been
: reflected back off the inner surface of the filter. But even so, why wouldn't
: the metering system see it and react accordingly?
:
: Can anyone propose an explanation (other than the obvious one that my wife may
: be a better photographer than I am)?
:
: Bob
:
: ... because your wife is right and you are wrong. You've been married
: how long and haven't learned that yet?

43 years. :^|

Still in the trial stage, eh?