Same settings, different result

[eagledad]

A very slight change in framing might have been enough to cause the evaluative metering to set 1/250 of a second for your second photo....if there were specular highlights on the water, that could have played a factor. 1 /80 to 1/250 , is not "that" much of a difference.

I didn't think the 1/80 vs. the 1/250th would have caused as much of a change as it did. I've tried to download both photos but getting a warning that the files are too large. I think I just need to get out again this weekend and pay more attention to some of the finer details of my settings and go from there. Thank-you

 

[Derrel]

If you were photographing in jpeg mode it is possible that the camera made a somewhat different decision on the tone curve and therefore the two pictures look quite a bit different from one another.

As was mentioned earlier in this thread, even the presence of a slight bit of cloud cover can affect a light meter reading, and the camera generated jpg depends upon a number of factors. The sensor data must be read and interpreted and processed, and camera-generated JPEG files can sometimes be quite a bit different from one another even though the scene appears to be roughly the same. Once a threshold is crossed, the in-camera processing algorithm takes over and can result in very different appearance of finished jpegs.

 

[weepete]

Sure, using the creative modes Av, Tv or P the camera will use the metering to adjust the exposure and try to select the settings based on that.

So in Av move you've manually set the aperture and the camera will adjust shutter speed (and ISO if auto ISO is enabled). Either 1 of 3 scenarios has happened: The lighting has changed between the two shots and the meter has given you a faster shutter speed for the second shot, what you've metered on changed to something brighter and the camera has increased your shutter speed in the second shot or the meter hasn't had time in your first shot to properly read and you've had an error (if I remember correctly the metering takes about 1/4 of a sec to read).

 

[Sharpshooterr]

A very slight change in framing might have been enough to cause the evaluative metering to set 1/250 of a second for your second photo....if there were specular highlights on the water, that could have played a factor. 1 /80 to 1/250 , is not "that" much of a difference.

I didn't think the 1/80 vs. the 1/250th would have caused as much of a change as it did. I've tried to download both photos but getting a warning that the files are too large. I think I just need to get out again this weekend and pay more attention to some of the finer details of my settings and go from there. Thank-you

That’s almost TWO full stops of light, that’s actually quite huge!!!
SS

 

[Derrel]

A very slight change in framing might have been enough to cause the evaluative metering to set 1/250 of a second for your second photo....if there were specular highlights on the water, that could have played a factor. 1 /80 to 1/250 , is not "that" much of a difference.

I didn't think the 1/80 vs. the 1/250th would have caused as much of a change as it did. I've tried to download both photos but getting a warning that the files are too large. I think I just need to get out again this weekend and pay more attention to some of the finer details of my settings and go from there. Thank-you

That’s almost TWO full stops of light, that’s actually quite huge!!!
SS

Not even two full stops is not what I would classify as "huge". Significant, yes, but not huge. Light meter readings can be influenced easily by overly bright or dark areas, no matter if one is using spot metering or center-weighted or evaluative metering. I have occasionally run into what I call flyer exposures, which are quite a bit off from the rest of a sequence. It is rather risky to make hard-and-fast decisions without seeing an actual photo and being able to comb through the exif information.

Remember the original poster was talking about a lighthouse photo, so I assumed he was either by a large lake or by the ocean and I am expecting that the evaluative metering algorithm exposed one shot for intense backlight and made one attempt to expose more for the background.

 

[JBPhotog]

Have we even seen photos of the problem?

 

[Sharpshooterr]

Have we even seen photos of the problem?

I’m sure we have not, so were all just guessing as to possible circumstances!!!
SS

 

[Derrel]

Without actual photos and EXIF data, we are just speculating, based upon experience.

 

[TWX]

I understand. I do feel I am a reasonable distance from going full manual yet though. I appreciate the suggestions.

It can actually be kind of hard to truly go fully automatic on modern digital cameras, both because there are inevitably some settings that are left to the camera that one has missed, and because many modern cameras, even pretty high-end ones, may not have control knobs or buttons for literally everything one wants to do manually.

I tend to forget things like white-balance, which has definitely messed up a number of attempts at panoramas/stitching, as photos end up too different from each other to look good.

 

[Sharpshooterr]

I understand. I do feel I am a reasonable distance from going full manual yet though. I appreciate the suggestions.

It can actually be kind of hard to truly go fully automatic on modern digital cameras, both because there are inevitably some settings that are left to the camera that one has missed, and because many modern cameras, even pretty high-end ones, may not have control knobs or buttons for literally everything one wants to do manually.

I tend to forget things like white-balance, which has definitely messed up a number of attempts at panoramas/stitching, as photos end up too different from each other to look good.

The Canon 1Dx models don’t even have an Auto mode! Only the priority modes and then no dial on top to spin quickly! Maybe it’s too hard to seal really well!
SS