Downloading to ZoomBrowser

[Cyril7]

I have a 400D and when shooting, my pictures look fine when viewed on the rear panel. After downloading to ZoomBrowser, almost every picture looks dark, particularly having been taken with flash, either built in or with a 430EX.
Much work in Photoshop, to the point of degradation, is necessary to produce acceptable results. Can anyone suggest what I am doing wrong?

[GaryS]

First, post an example. Thats a big help for us to see it.

Second, it might be that your monitor needs to be adjusted brighter.... That is one of the reasons that I really like the monitor calibration tools (like Huey, Spyder, etc) because they give you a baseline to know that your system is right, then you can adjust your photos from that standard.

[Cyril7]

Thanks for your reply but my screen is pretty good and pictures from elsewhere print fine.

Here is and example of a shot taken at 1.320th, f11, ISO 800 with an EF-S17-85, f4-5.6IS (crap) lens. Also the result after taking it thru DxO and Photoshop CS2.

[faisal]

you're LCD screen on the camera must be on maximum brightness...reduce it to medium...and 400D tends to underexpose pictures...

[adam75south]

i know my lcd is way brighter than it needs to be. usually when i expose correctly it looks overexposed on the lcd. do you know how to read the histogram on your pictures?

here's an explanation of the histogram. i haven't read through this, but it should give you a pretty good idea of how to read one.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml

anyway, i never trust my lcd on the camera, i ALWAYS go by my histogram.

[GaryS]

That shot is way underexposed (which you know...). Did the camera's meter chose those exposure settings, or did you based on the LCD preview?

The XTi can tend to underexpose by a 1/3 of a stop or so, but not to that extent....

[JTL]

First...please do not post full size images like that. People don't like it and will curse under their breath for it! Be considerate (especially when asking for help), show a little common sense and size the image so that scrolling is not neccessary. Thank you.

Second...I don't understand what I'm seeing in the EXIF info. Taking that type of shot at ISO 800 at f/11 and 1/360 makes no sense whatsoever to me. If it was indeed an "auto" exposure, my advice is to never, ever, ever use auto again. Ever.

What time of day was it taken?

[Cyril7]

Thanks, chaps. Sorry, JTL. Rather new at this game.
Back to the (exposure) drawing board after study of The histogram article in L-Landscape. The shot was, by the way, taken at about 4pm in February - and the histogram is crap.

[24Peter]

Thanks, chaps. Sorry, JTL. Rather new at this game.
Back to the (exposure) drawing board after study of The histogram article in L-Landscape. The shot was, by the way, taken at about 4pm in February - and the histogram is crap.

OK - but who chose those settings? Did the camera do that - or did you? Like the highly esteemed JTL said, whoever metered that shot could have done much better. Even at 4pm in February, I wouldn't shoot higher than ISO 400 outdoors. That shoot could have been taken at f5.6 & 1/100th ISO 200 and I bet your exposure would have been much better. So... again, who chose those settings? Are you in "P" mode (or green rectangle full auto)? Or are you in "M" plugging in values yourself...

[Cyril7]

The shot was taken in "P" mode. There does seem to be a constant under-exosure as the histograms are almost all stacked high to the far left with precious little on the mid and right. Thanks for your advice - and the next sample will be at a sensible size!