Help my settings....

[kaypea]

Okay here are two photos taken with an XTi. Both of them the meter showed the correct exposure. I have it set to F/8 because I wanted to make sure to get both kids in focus. It was around 5pm and the sun was super bright and harsh so I had them in a shaded area. I didn't want to drop my shutter speed down too low because they were moving around so much and I had to bump up the ISO to 200. I'm thinking the camera was metering on the background.

So when I moved back to get a wider shot it's just really under exposed. Grainy kids and just not a great shot. What settings should I use? I have the 430 flash but wasn't using it. Should I pull it out? These shots are by far not my best but do show what I need help with as far as where I am in the learning curve. I can take great closeups but shots like this mess me up nearly every time. any advice is welcome. Oh and the pictures are right out of the camera I haven't done anything to them yet.

Thank you!

Camera Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi
Date/Time: 2009:04:07 17:13:59
Resolution: 800 x 533
Flash Used: No
Focal Length 50.0mm (35mm equivalent: 81mm...
CCD Width: 22.28mm
Exposure Time: 0.0063 s (1/160)
Aperture: f/5.6
ISO Equiv.: 200
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual
Exposure Mode: Auto bracketing


File Size: 269 kb - 800 x 533
Camera Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi
Date/Time: 2009:04:07 17:18:14
Resolution: 800 x 533
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 50.0mm (35mm equivalent: 81mm...
CCD Width: 22.28mm
Exposure Time: 0.0063 s (1/160)
Aperture: f/8.0
ISO Equiv.: 200
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual
Exposure Mode: Auto bracketing

[vandergus]

A good example of the limitations of in camera metering. The meter in the viewfinder may have shown a correct exposure for each picture, but it only shows what the camera thinks is correct. The exposures are clearly different, as the EXIF data shows. The first shot is 1/160s, f/5.6 at ISO 200 and the second is 1/160s, f/8 at ISO 200, 1 stop less. Camera meters can do this, change the exposure with just a slight reframing, but there are some ways to minimize it.

In this case, the simplest solution may be to use center weighted or spot metering. This will force the camera to calculate the exposure based on the subjects in the center of the frame and ignore the background. This should give you more consistent and accurate exposures for the main subjects, but other parts of the frame may not be properly exposed.

The other option is to manually set the exposure. You'll probably have to try a few different settings but once you get what you want, you're guaranteed to have consistent exposures. And of course, if you move you're kids out of the shade, you'll need to adjust your exposure.

[fletch]

When you made the addustment to f/8 from f/5.6 you didn't compensate by slowing the shutter or increasing the ISO. Therefore as your exposure was 1 stop less your photo is darker.

While in Manual mode (as it appears you were) you need to take care that if you adjust one setting you need to either accept the change in exposure or compensate via the exposure triangle.

[wulf]

As noted, you did change the aperture between shots. I would say that the second picture is probably better exposed overall but the kids are sitting in the shade, which is why they have come out a little underexposed.

When taking pictures, think about the light. It looks like there were patches of light in the garden - if you could have got the kids in one of those, you might have got a better result. You could also add in a little artificial help with the camera flash (but probably on a low power - you don't want to overpower things).

Think about white balance as well. Both shots look a bit sickly because of the high levels of green (a consequence of all that light bounced off the grass). In camera white balance or post-processing adjustments could help counteract that and give a more natural, healthy look to the image.

Wulf