D7000 - photos are all too dark

[cherylynne1]

I thought the EXIF said it was in shutter priority?

I stand corrected. I misread that one.

OP said it was in auto, that's probably where the misunderstanding happened.

 

[snowbear]

No, I saved the file and looked at the EXIF about the same time Sparky did, so I just misread Opanda.

If I matrix meter the inside plant and shoot, it would still expose for that bright window, correct? The inside plant would be in silhouette, but wouldn't the outside look OK?

 

[cherylynne1]

You'd think that something would be correctly exposed. Or, more likely, that the window would be overexposed and the plant underexposed. But for all of it to be five stops under on a semi-auto mode? That's really strange.

I think we need to see more photos in order to figure it out.

 

[snowbear]

A rear quick test.

I can only go down to ISO 200 but this is matrix meter, shutter priority @ 1/3200. The aperture opened up to f/1.8 and it's not as dark as the OP's.

 

[cherylynne1]

So if you'd been using a kit lens, like the OP, it would have only opened up to f4, so it would have been darker...so yeah, it looks like you recreated it.

Okay, OP, either put it in auto or set the shutter speed to something lower.

 

[robbins.photo]

So if you'd been using a kit lens, like the OP, it would have only opened up to f4, so it would have been darker...so yeah, it looks like you recreated it.

Okay, OP, either put it in auto or set the shutter speed to something lower.

Well, unless the plants are attached to a rocket of some sort.. lol

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[snowbear]

So if you'd been using a kit lens, like the OP, it would have only opened up to f4, so it would have been darker...so yeah, it looks like you recreated it.

Okay, OP, either put it in auto or set the shutter speed to something lower.

Give me a minute!

 

[snowbear]

Better?
I shot at 1/2500 to make up for being at ISO 200; f/4, matrix meter. Single focus point is the top of the centered flower pot.

 

[cherylynne1]

Haha, I didn't mean you had to redo it, snowbear! But now that you have, I think it looks pretty spot on. There's no way to completely recreate the lighting, but this is so close that I think we solved it.

 

[snowbear]

Lol - I knew you didn't ask me to, but . . .

I am (somewhat) scientific (but also artistic) so I will experiment.

 

[Alexr25]

There's no question it's underexposed.

The issue is why.

The usual reason I guess, not enough light for the given exposure settings.
The ISO was fixed at 100, the shutter speed was fixed at 1/3200 and the camera was in shutter priority mode. Once the camera opened the aperture to the maximum of f/4 and there was still not enough light then all it could do was under expose. The EXIF data shows that the camera knew it was under exposing but given the settings there is nothing it could do about it.
That is the danger of using shutter priority, you have to keep an eye on the exposure meter in the viewfinder to make sure that the camera does not run out of aperture adjustment. In aperture priority mode there is much more room for the camera to adjust the shutter speed, you might end up with a blurred photo due to camera shake but at least it will be a well exposed blurred photo.

 

[wfooshee]

Yeah, now that we know it was shutter-priority, not full auto, and the ISO was set to the camera's minimum and not auto-ISO, it's clear that the situation was simply beyond the camera's ability to correct.

Shutter speed was locked because the camera was in shutter-priority mode. For the OP, that's S on the mode dial. That means the camera will use the shutter speed you've set, and adjust whatever else it's allowed to adjust to get the correct exposure.

So it adjusted aperture. It made the aperture the largest available (smallest number) to get the most light possible. Once it reached the lens's maximum, it had no more adjustment to make. f:4.0 was all it could do.

So then it looked at ISO, But ISO was set at 100, not auto-ISO, so there was no adjustment for the camera to make.

It did what it could, and took the picture anyway. You told it 1/3200, and at maximum aperture and the specified ISO, there wasn't enough light to get the picture.

Now the question is, why such a fast shutter speed?? 1/250 would have been my absolute fastest in that situation. You should have seen LO in the viewfinder to tell you the camera couldn't expose properly. Even if you'd set auto-ISO and let the camera salvage the image, it would have needed ISO 3200 or thereabouts, and I can tell you from having a D7000, you wouldn't have wanted that image.

The camera tried to tell you that you couldn't get the picture. use the information in the viewfinder. If you thought the camera was full auto rather than shutter-priority, then that was just a mistake, and one that is easy to make. It's easy to turn that dial accidentally when you pull the camera out of the bag or put it in, so check it every time you start shooting.

 

[dannylightning]

is there some sort of screw on filter on your lens.. that could possibly do it..

 

[480sparky]

is there some sort of screw on filter on your lens.. that could possibly do it..

The meter should account for that.

 

[Braineack]

It did what it could, and took the picture anyway. You told it 1/3200, and at maximum aperture and the specified ISO, there wasn't enough light to get the picture.

this.

You only have 3 things to change in order to capture an image but you effectively locked out all three of them. (you manually forced (2) and had no more give on the last)

I'm sure if you looked in the viewfinder, the meter would show that the image was going to be severely underexposed.