While shooting this evening I was very pleased with what I viewed in the back screen. However when the image was transferred to my computer, the results were totally different and needless to say, disappointing. Canon EOS 80D and a EF-S Canon 55~250mm, IS STM Lens. 1/40s, F/5.6, ISO 200, Shutter Priority Mode with Partial Metering and F/L @250mm. Thnx. Tony As you can see, the image turned out flat and soft, while on the back screen it was sharp and bright.
could this be the fact the screen shows the jpeg (it always will) and you are viewing the raw images. shoot a jpeg only image and see if the screen and downloaded image are same. other reason could be exposure simulation not set of screen brightness incorrect i take it you have checked older images to mage sure the screen on the computer is still outputting the same and the problem is not there
Thanks very much for your response. I shoot exclusively in JPEG. Thinking back, it may that I changed the image size from S3 to S2. That would not change what is revealed on the back screen, however I believe it would change what appears on my monitor. I will check on the other issues you mentioned. Tony
Changing the SIze would not change the anything but resolution. That would just give you small pixel files not the way that are exposed. Now, the LCD s have been made to be bright and contrast so you can see your image even in bright sunligght. They are not always a perfect representation of the output file. Other consideration: Did you post the JPG directly to web or did you edit it at all? Partial meter mode will heavily favor mid tone grey in the dead center of the image, which is were the reflective petal is. So if this is slid to the middle the shadow will be pushed to the left and show darker. I such a case a center or evaluative mode probably would work better. Also the monitor on a home computer is not always a great at showing what the file would print like, for example one monitor for my laptop setup in the office here is cool and muted and the other is brighter and warm toned for this image. That's why I always shoot raw, pay attention more to the histogram of the file than my camera screen to know what the exposure will look like printed, and edit on my color calibrated mac. All you may need to to do to this image is bump your exposure up a little and dial in some slight contrast and saturation to get to what the LCD showed.
Okay, here is another version of the same subject, only using Multi-Segment Metering/Evaluative. Pretty much sooc., utilizing only a little resizing, no cropping. Resolution; 700 X 1050. A bit underexposed as it was at the Blue Hour on a day with harsh sunlight. Let me know your opinion. Canon EOS 80D with a Canon EF-S 55~250mm, IS, STM Lens. 1/40s, F/5.6, ISO 200, Shutter Priority Mode, 0EV with Multi-Segment Metering. F/L 250mm. Many thnx, Tony
Well you have the same shutter/aperture/iso, so its interesting it does look just a hair brighter. It really should not have changed anything. The results are due to the lighting, being blue hour your getting a soft muted pallet and likely a camera is not going to always handle this well. Situations like this are where you can adjust with compensation in camera or editing in Photoshop. Learning the cameras tendency and reading the histogram to know when the cameras LCD is going to fool you is helpful. So you can make a few tweaks and get closer in camera to what you imagined in your shot.
when you look at the histogram for the images does that weigh up with what you are seeing in the computer, ie do the darker images record a darker histogram chart as Johnsey said the histogram is a great tool to have live when you are shooting. as like me you are a jpegger do you use the white balance in camera to correct for the scene? also in photoshop you can adjust the w/b quite a bit with the ge point and white point tools in levels its probably not as good as raw but jpeg does still have alot of adjustability to it, this though is straying a bit from the main question / pondering of the difference between screen and computer if you far off the look you wanted to get in camera try using shadows and highlights if your edit system has a dedicated adjustment for that rather than the bog standard side
I thought the increase in exposure was due to using Multi-Segment Metering. Okay, I will go ahead and upload the finished product so you and others can view the end results. BTW. I had used RAW for approximately a year and did not like it at all. To me, RAW is nothing more than Film. It is very useful for professionals who require their images to have their own personal touch since they make their living that way. However, for me I found to be time consuming, cumbersome and they do take up an inordinate amount of space. I feel JPEG certainly suits me and my needs better. Johnsey, many thanks again for your invaluable assistance. Tony
