1DMKII(n) and exposure

I have been working on capturing birds in flight and have come a long way, it is a lot to keep up with as admittedly I am an amateur still learning. Even with the progress I have made the last piece of the puzzle that I am struggling with is consistent exposure across a fast sequence of pictures. I am using a 1DMKII or n version at times and am curious as to feedback as to what people in similar circumstances have had better success with when it comes to cfn 4 and exposure compensation. I am of course using aiservo and have been experimenting with center point on and off, Av mode being set between f4-f8 depending on how the lighting is that day to keep the Tv up and other custom settings are cfn 8=1, 17=1 and 18=2 which came from the EOS_Digital.pdf
I have now begun dialing in anywhere from +1/3 to +2/3 exposure compensation as even with my custom settings I seem to get under exposed images which when I try to manipulate in PS (shooting RAW and JPG) I get noise (or as some have called it jpg artifacts) in the dark areas as I bring the exposure up. That coupled with the fact that I seem to get drastically varying AE levels what’s next in my learning curve?? Any input would be appreciated. Below is a shot from my last trip, not perfect but way ahead of where I started.
http://www.pbase.com/samd12/image/70232850.jpg

No time now for a length reply, but one quick suggestion - learn to shoot in Manual Exposure mode. As long as your subject isn't going from bright sun to shadow, or if the sun isn't rapidly going in and out of clouds, then you will be much better off determining the appropriate exposure for the light your subject is in, and then just leave it there. This way, you are properly set for the light that your subject is in, and it won't matter what the background is, what the color of the bird is, how large or small it is in the frame, etc., and these are the variables that will cause Av to vary your exposure significantly.

Hope this helps!

While it won't fix large exposure errors for circumstances such as backlighting, etc., you will get more consistent exposures if you use centre-weighted average metering instead of evaluative. Apparently the evaluative has some flexibility built ino it that causes what we see as randomn exposure variations.

Manual metering is better still if you are always pointing in the same general direction.

Also note, FWIW, that CF4-1 locks AE with the half shutter press, so as long as you maintain that half press, you'll get a consistent exposure. (CF4-3, in contrast, gives you a new AE reading for each frame, even in a multi-frame burst.)

And it's probably worth paying attention to slight changes in WB too if you're shooting AWB.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Exposure lock

This is a very timely thread. I've been trying to figure out the most efficient way of determining exposure during performances, when the lighting changes from scene to scene and the background is often an overwhelming black. Experimenting during performances has been problematic.

I've had the great results spot metering off the face. This gives me excellent exposure, but makes composition a problem; if I recompose, the exposure changes. As I understand the Photoworks article, if CF 4-0 is selected, I can lock exposure with the star button. Anyone know if it is a "press once" situation or if * has to be kept depressed? It hasn't worked as I expected.

From what you've said here, the advantage of CF4-1 would be that I could lock exposure with the shutter button depressed, and the exposure would not change if I recompose. The * button would then allow me to focus on something else in the scene. Does the * button lock focus when half depressed in this mode?

For some reason, this all makes sense when I read the descriptions, yet when I'm working in the dark, unexpected issues always come up.

Disregard the last question in my previous post

Sorry, Nill, I just reread your post and realized that you answered my final question. This subject always drives me crazy!

Performances with changing lighting and dark backgrounds really are very difficult. I've actually had the best luck overall in that sort of situation using Av evaluative. If the lighting is consistent I just chimp till I get it right, then go manual.

By the way, this document has a wealth of good info about the use of the various custom functions, etc.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Sam Delfino said:

I have now begun dialing in anywhere from +1/3 to +2/3as even with my custom settings I seem to get under exposed images which when I try to manipulate in PS (shooting RAW and JPG) I get noise (or as some have called it jpg artifacts) in the dark areas as I bring the exposure up.http://www.pbase.com/samd12/image/70232850.jpg

Click to expand...

Blue sky is problematic, because it is very weak in red content, and the camera itself is least sensitive to the red end of the spectrum, so there tends to be a lot of noise in the red channel in blue sky. Obviously, you can make a selection of the sky in PP and soften it, but really the best way to fight noise is not to let it happen in the exposure. "+1/3 to +2/3 exposure compensation" is simply not enough when pointing the camera at the sky. For deep blue sky, +1 or +1.33 are probably better, and for white skies, +2 to +2.66 should be good. The RAW data clips at +3.5 for greys and whites.

You are not alone in your under-exposure; many people, even many professional bird photographers, are under-exposing their images because of superstitious beliefs about digital exposure. The fact is that with Canon cameras, optimum exposure is achieved by first selecting the Tv and Av that you need or can accept, and then using the highest ISO that puts the scene's desired highlights just short of clipping the RAW data. IOW, you will get *less* noise if you shoot at ISO 1600 and +2.33 EC than if you shoot at ISO 400 and +0.33 EC.

Nill Toulme said:

Performances with changing lighting and dark backgrounds really are very difficult. I've actually had the best luck overall in that sort of situation using Av evaluative. If the lighting is consistent I just chimp till I get it right, then go manual.

By the way, this document has a wealth of good info about the use of the various custom functions, etc.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, our technician seems to love to vary lighting drastically from scene to scene and across the stage. And with the minimalist sets that the theater department has been favoring, the overwhelming black always throws off evaluative. Gel filters add another dimension, though some of the most severe effects are easily softened or even removed completely in post with PS filters. (Except for his favorite violet warming filter, which seems impossible to counter completely.)

You can see how AV with spot metering off the face worked out with changing lighting conditions and a dark background here. I've reproduced it several times now, using both the 135 2 (used here) and the 200 1.8. Now I need to find the most effective mode to separate the metering from focus under these conditions. So far it hasn't worked as I expected. Unfortunately, I don't get much in the way of trial runs for these - I have to come away with useable shots.

http://www.potomacschool.org/gallery/index.asp?LinkID=1743&ClassID=&TeamID=&ModuleID=189

Click on the larger image to get decent resolution.

Deb

Deborah Kolt said:

...You can see how AV with spot metering off the face worked out with changing lighting conditions and a dark background here. I've reproduced it several times now, using both the 135 2 (used here) and the 200 1.8. Now I need to find the most effective mode to separate the metering from focus under these conditions. ...

Click to expand...

Match needle manual?

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net