Why do my photos have a greyish tint?

[R. Burke]

I use a Canon eos rebel t2i and it takes great pictures, but ive noticed they have a grey tint to it when i upload them to my computer. I use a Tiffen 58mm UV protector. Does that have something to do with it? If anyone knows how to help, please let me know.

[Draken]

No idea but the UV filter is supposed to be neutral.

[R. Burke]

so the filter shouldnt be affecting the colors?

[Draken]

Quote Ryan Burke:

so the filter shouldnt be affecting the colors?

Yes, it shouldn't.

[David Ian Wilson]

Example?

Grey isn't really a colour - theres no such thing as a grey 'tint' -

I think you mean probably mean slight underexposure or lack of contrast

[AustinMN]

Do they have the same issue when you look at them with another computer? If not, then you may need to adjust and/or replace your monitor.

Austin

[R. Burke]

that could be lack of contrast. i'm still learning how to use this camera so ive been just using auto. so contrast and underexposure could be.

[R. Burke]

Quote AustinMN:

Do they have the same issue when you look at them with another computer? If not, then you may need to adjust and/or replace your monitor.

Austin

we just got this monitor like 3 months ago

[AustinMN]

Quote Ryan Burke:

we just got this monitor like 3 months ago

That doesn't prevent bad monitor adjustments. ops:

Anyway, if you can give an example (straight from the campera without adjutments) it might help.

Austin

[R. Burke]

Quote AustinMN:

Quote Ryan Burke:

we just got this monitor like 3 months ago

That doesn't prevent bad monitor adjustments. ops:

Austin

i just thought of that after i read your post over haha. i read it wrong

[R. Burke]

heres an example. does it look like the color isnt all there? this is straight from the camera with no editing

[Draken]

Do you shoot jpg?

What white balance did you select?

What image control? Neutral, Standard, Vivid?

What colour profile? Adobe?

I can see all the colours. It may be a little wishy-washy, lacking contrast but that is all.

[R. Burke]

I just had it on Auto or Landscape settings. you cant really set anything on them. so its whatever the two settings do.

[Galatas ©]

Draken. EXIF shows sRGB. The histogram shows overexposure.

[Draken]

Yes, I checked it afterwards... I don't think AUTO or Landscape has anything to do, do you?

[R. Burke]

Quote Draken:

Yes, I checked it afterwards... I don't think AUTO or Landscape has anything to do, do you?

like any settings?

[Galatas ©]

It shouldn't.
If I was consistently getting these results from my Nikon I would try a different metering system (not sure what options Canons have). Or I would set exposure compensation to minus 1 or 2 ev

[David Ian Wilson]

Overexposed. You need to understand how to use the the histogram on your camera in replay mode, and set an exposure over-ride accordingly. Final tweaking should be done in image editing software. Despite ones best efforts what comes off the camera is very rarely a perfect image. I think I had one or two in the last year.

Quote Galatas:

(not sure what options Canons have).

They have the option to give you overexposed images on a regular basis unless you understand what's going on and do something about it. My compact is permanently set at -0.66EV as a starting point for any photo. The SLR (EOS 400D) is slightly better behaved but still falls over on very contrasty scenes - and I get a lot of those here in Spain

[davidcmc58]

I have an EOS T1i set at auto white balance and landscape mode. It also tends to over expose on regular basis. The thing to do is to set the exposure compensation to either -1/3 Ev or -2/3 Ev. Good luck, David

[R. Burke]

i'm still figuring it out. its my first digital slr camera. and im kind of new to photography. but thanks for the help!

[Galatas ©]

Metering modes can be found on page 86 of your user manual. Exposure compensation is on the next page.

http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/9/0300003169/01/eosrt2i-eos550d-im-en.pdf

I recommend saving the pdf to your computer. It's much easier to read from the screen rather than a book whilst handling your camera

[Matthew Winn]

Quote David Ian Wilson:

Quote Galatas:

(not sure what options Canons have).

They have the option to give you overexposed images on a regular basis unless you understand what's going on and do something about it.

My Nikon has that feature too! On anything but low-contrast scenes I use -1/3 or -2/3 stop exposure compensation.

As for monitor calibration, monitors are usually distributed with the brightness far too high because that's what looks most eye-catching in the showroom. There are plenty of sites around that give advice on how to adjust the monitor to get the best image without losing detail in the shadows or the highlights, and a new monitor should always be set up properly first before starting to evaluate any images.

[Nikonista]

Quote Galatas:

Draken. EXIF shows sRGB. The histogram shows overexposurea.

Hi Galatas

Where do you get the historam info from the EXIF data please?

[Galatas ©]

The histogram isn't part of EXIF. You need to use a photo editing programme that is able to display it.

[Nikonista]

Quote Galatas:

The histogram isn't part of EXIF. You need to use a photo editing programme that is able to display it.

Gotcha! Thanks.

[David Ian Wilson]

Combined histogram of the red, green, and blue channels in Ryans uploaded image as displayed in Photoshop. the height of any bar is proportionate to the area displaying that particular RGB value. The histogram runs from black (RGB 0-0-0) on the left to white (RGB 255-255-255) on the right.

This is typical of an overexposed shot - the bars tail off well before pure black on the left, and are piled up at the pure white end - due to a large area of blown cloud.

[Paxdeena]

Quote Galatas:

The histogram isn't part of EXIF. You need to use a photo editing programme that is able to display it.

The histogram is also on the camera (NikonD90)

[brabason]

Yes Paxdeena. For Canon press 'photo display' and 'information' beside the LCD. Information cycles through various options depending on the camera and shooting mode.

Canon full automatic (P) offers very few options. Over exposes like many mentioned before but does a neat DOF and focus job.

Ryan it is a steep learning curve, I read many books and experimented. Before long you will out grow automatic.

[David Ian Wilson]

Quote brabason:

Canon full automatic (P) offers very few options. Over exposes like many mentioned before but does a neat DOF and focus job.

P is 'Programmed auto' not full auto. - the camera chooses fstop and shutter speed - but the user is allowed a number of over-rides, including + and - EV exposure modification (maximum amount varies with camera model) .

Full Auto is indicated by a green rectangle on the mode selector dial. No exposure over-ride is allowed. I think you can select image size and quality and thats about it.

[Galatas ©]

Quote Paxdeena:

Quote Galatas:

The histogram isn't part of EXIF. You need to use a photo editing programme that is able to display it.

The histogram is also on the camera (NikonD90)

Nikonista didn't take the photo. He just wanted to know how to view the histogram of the photo that was posted.

Quote Nikonista:

[R. Burke]

my Canon T2i has the histogram feature. i guess i should ask how do i read it correctly? im an amature

[Galatas ©]

What you/we are interested in is the left and right edges. Up and down doesn't matter much.
In an over exposed image the graph will be too far to the right. In an underexposed one , too far too the left. The graph shouldn't "pile up" at either end.
Every histogram is unique to the photo it belongs to. There is no ideal.

[Panamon-Creel]

Ryan, the in camera histogram is a great tool to determine/get good exposure from your camera.
There is lots of good information on the net on how to read the histogram (which is very simple btw) e.g.:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml

[R. Burke]

So if the lines are taller in the middle more than the left and right ends it has good exposure?

[Galatas ©]

For most scenes you want the graph lines to taper off but just touching both ends.
The height merely signifies how many pixels of each colour there are in the scene.
If the graph ends abruptly at either end you have a bad exposure.

Quote Galatas:

[QuentinUK]

I followed the link to luminous-landscape and there it says you should Expose to the Right, ie slightly overexpose (but not so much as to blow the highlights) then after downloading to the computer use the software to correct the exposure. This way you get less noise in the dark regions of the photograph.

[theverbiage]

Quote QuentinUK:

I followed the link to luminous-landscape and there it says you should Expose to the Right, ie slightly overexpose (but not so much as to blow the highlights) then after downloading to the computer use the software to correct the exposure. This way you get less noise in the dark regions of the photograph.

Yes, but you should take care not to overexpose ("blow out&quot the highlights. Exposing to the right is a useful technique (as I've been discovering), b/c noise in the darker areas can be quite frustrating, even at 100 ISO

If you care about that sort of thing, of course...

[Galatas ©]

Quote QuentinUK:

I followed the link to luminous-landscape and there it says you should Expose to the Right, ie slightly overexpose (but not so much as to blow the highlights) then after downloading to the computer use the software to correct the exposure. This way you get less noise in the dark regions of the photograph.

Ryan is already having problems with overexposure , why suggest to him that exposing to the right might help ?

[Matthew Winn]

Quote R. Burke:

So if the lines are taller in the middle more than the left and right ends it has good exposure?

Not always. If there are plenty of midtones and few highlights and shadows then the histogram will be taller in the middle, but if there are lots of highlights and shadows with few midtones (think of a dark mountain under a bright sky) then there will be a peak near each end of the histogram and a dip in the middle.

The important thing is to make sure that the very brightest parts of the scene don't hit the right hand end of the histogram. In a high-key image (many light tones, few shadows) the peak of the histogram will be way over on the right, but as long as it hasn't actually crashed into the right border the exposure will be OK. (In fact with a high-key image you don't want the peak in the middle of the histogram, because that will mean your bright tones will come out as dull midtones.)

[leolund]

So now we learned a lot again. I think though that one solution would be in PP, if you would like to see how I would have solved it please let me know and I will post it.

leo

[Galatas ©]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/histograms.htm

[QuentinUK]

I am not suggesting that he exposes further to the right than he already is but the camera manufacturers may be setting this as a default for this reason. Then when users get their photos printed the printer will automatically do the correction.

[Galatas ©]

Quote QuentinUK:

I am not suggesting that he exposes further to the right than he already is but the camera manufacturers may be setting this as a default for this reason. Then when users get their photos printed the printer will automatically do the correction.

Are you seriously proposing that as a possibilty ?

[R. Burke]

The other day i upgraded my memory card. The guy told me at for higher megapixle cameras that you do the settings, you want to get a memory card for it because it keeps the high resolution better. So i went with that and i uploaded a few to the computer from that new card and they dont look as they did before as much.

[Galatas ©]

Quote R. Burke:

The other day i upgraded my memory card. The guy told me at for higher megapixle cameras that you do the settings, you want to get a memory card for it because it keeps the high resolution better. So i went with that and i uploaded a few to the computer from that new card and they dont look as they did before as much.

Would you be interested in a car I am selling ? Only ever driven by a little old lady to go to church on Sundays.

[David Ian Wilson]

Quote R. Burke:

The other day i upgraded my memory card. The guy told me at for higher megapixle cameras that you do the settings, you want to get a memory card for it because it keeps the high resolution better.

This is just nonsense. The size of your memory card has no impact on image resolution or quality. A larger card simply enables you to shoot more images before the card gets filled and you are obliged to download to your computer in order to be able to erase the shots on the card and continue shooting.

Quote R. Burke:

So i went with that and i uploaded a few to the computer from that new card and they dont look as they did before as much.

I can only think that this is your imagination playing tricks on you. Card size and 'quality' have no impact on image quality. A shot will look exactly the same on your computer screen whether it is saved to a 2Gb or a 64Gb card, or a cheap low speed card as opposed to an expensive high speed 'ruggedized' card. The digital image data (a huge string of zeros and ones) is identical in all cases.

[AustinMN]

Quote R. Burke:

The other day i upgraded my memory card. The guy told me at for higher megapixle cameras that you do the settings, you want to get a memory card for it because it keeps the high resolution better.

Never, ever spend another dime (penny, euro, or whatever your currency is) at that store again. Tell all your friends that the salesman lied to your face. What he told you is absolute nonsense.

Austin

[Draken]

It is like saying a 2 litres bottle holds 250 millilitres of water better than a 1 litre bottle.

[QuentinUK]

Maybe he meant with the higher capacity disk you could set the camera to take higher resolution photos and still store lots of photos. If you rely on the memory internal to the camera this is often very small. For example, the Casio EX-Z1200, if you set it to maximum resolution could only store one (12 megapixel) image.

Anyway quite often shop assistants do not know what they are talking about. It doesn't mean their prices are not competitive.

[R. Burke]

im not talking about memory amount. i know that has nothing to do with it.

[Guillermo Aguilar]

Quote Galatas:

What you/we are interested in is the left and right edges. Up and down doesn't matter much.
In an over exposed image the graph will be too far to the right. In an underexposed one , too far too the left. The graph shouldn't "pile up" at either end.

Every histogram is unique to the photo it belongs to. There is no ideal.

I don't agree that all images that have a histogram, showing high on the edges are under or over exposed. It could be done on purpose. I have a case that I would like to show here, which according to the histogram shows very high on the dark, but I did it on purpose. I am quite new to this forums, and would like to ask if I show this on this thread, or if it would be better to open a new thread?

[Draken]

Guillermo:

As the photo is related to the dscussion please post it here.

Draken, forum moderator (just in case you didn't know it )

[Matthew Walters]

I would go ahead and post, just be sure to use a thumbnail.

>From your description I think it can only help the discussion move along.

Matthew

[Guillermo Aguilar]

The subject is the Sky and lake view, which in my opinion, has the right light and exposure. If I did it with a perfect histogram, it will not give what I wanted.

So I must confess, that I never see histograms on my camera, or on my post processing sofware.


Moderator Edit. ~Draken~ Picture Size Reduced.
Picture sizes to be used:
Height to Width ratio less than 1:2/2:1 >> thumbnail size (100 Pixels)
Ratio from 1:2/2:1 to 1:6/6:1 >> small size (240 Pixels)
Ratio over 1:6/6:1 >> medium size (500 Pixels)

[Guillermo Aguilar]

Of course I knew, you are the moderator. You welcomed me, a few days ago, which I appreciate a lot.

I am very glad to be here, and put “mi granito de arena” (My humble contribution), to this great project for all.

[Ali Ahmadi]

[Mod. Edit.~Draken~ Two emoticons ("rolling eyes" and "evil" don't constitute precisely a message. You have already proved you know how to post (first posting). We now expect more consistency... and some words, please. Thanks in advance. ]

[Galatas ©]

Quote Guillermo Aguilar:

Quote Galatas:

What you/we are interested in is the left and right edges. Up and down doesn't matter much.
In an over exposed image the graph will be too far to the right. In an underexposed one , too far too the left. The graph shouldn't "pile up" at either end.
Every histogram is unique to the photo it belongs to. There is no ideal.

I don't agree that all images that have a histogram, showing high on the edges are under or over exposed. It could be done on purpose. .........

If a photographer chooses to over or under expose doesn't alter the fact that it is over or under exposed.
Done on purpose or not a histogram still shows what it shows. ie Over or under exposure.
"Artisitic impression" allows each photographer to do whatever he likes. Sometimes it is good , sometimes it is not.
Photography is full of rules and guidelines. We stick to them or break them whenever it suits us to add variety. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.
Some people deliberately take blurred photos to illustrate movement. They are still blurred photos.

[Guillermo Aguilar]

Night photography, will always give a histogram packed at the left, no matter what you do or use.

Indoor photography, without flash or without sophisticated artificial lighting, will also always give a "bad" histogram.

I would not call some night photos, as underexposed, even if the histogram shows it like that.

Histograms could be useful under very good light conditions, but only then. If you have very good light conditions, why take your time to assure that the histogram looks good!

Unless one doesn't trust at all the light metering used.

[Galatas ©]

Quote Guillermo Aguilar:

Quote Guillermo Aguilar:

Night photography, will always give a histogram packed at the left, no matter what you do or use.

Are you saying that histogram is wrong ?


You are just continuing to argue that there may be times you wish to deliberately under or over expose. I have never disputed that fact.
The histogram shows what it shows. Use that information or ignore it as you wish.
Personally I rarely look at histograms. In most cases I can see from the screen whether or not my exposures are as I want them

[Guillermo Aguilar]

Quote Galatas:

Are you saying that histogram is wrong ?


You are just continuing to argue that there may be times you wish to deliberately under or over expose. I have never disputed that fact.
The histogram shows what it shows. Use that information or ignore it as you wish.
Personally I rarely look at histograms. In most cases I can see from the screen whether or not my exposures are as I want them

Histograms are NOT wrong in interpreting curves of light intensity. What is wrong, in some cases, is labelling images as under or overexposed, because the histogram gives that result.

I agree with you, that it is much easier to analyze an image for exposure, than a graph.

The image shows light in its place, not in a graph!

Imagine, before digital photpgraphy, to go to Ansel Adams, and tell him that most of his pictures are underexposed!

[Peter van Rens]

Quote Guillermo Aguilar:

Exposure is a technical term. If Ansel Adams wanted his images to be underexposed, I doubt you could insult him if you were intelligent enough to realize that is what they are.

In any event, are you sure that Mr. Adams' photos are underexposed. Most seem to cover the entire range of tones. There may be more dark tones than light tones but that is not a measure of under or over exposure. More like he had a preference for low (ish) key.

[Guillermo Aguilar]

What I am saying, is that Mr. Adams Photographs, are by no means underexposed, even though, technology by the use of histogram give high values to the left of that chart to many of his photographs.

You understood wrongly, what I stated when I mentioned him.

[Guillermo Aguilar]

Please don't get me wrong. I would never compare anything with that level of art, but I believe, that new technological measurments, will have very little to do with creativity.

I trust more in what I would like to achieve, than in what a chart, that will most times, tell me that I am off either way (specially underexposed).

I will not say more about this, because it is too open in discussion, but I would only like to say that in art, I like very much the Chiaroscuro (light/dark in Italian), and there is no technical measurement to put that in terms of good or bad aesthetical value, or lighting condition. It is not under or over, it is perfectly balanced, like the night light.

[Panamon-Creel]

I think this discussion went into another light dimension ;)
The histogram is a tool that has to be used/interpreted within the context of the captured scene or to be captured scene. Nobody can say a photo is over/under exposed by histogram alone without knowing the scene. The histogram can show if the related photo contains blown out areas, is overall dark, bright but not if it is intentional or if it "works" like one would with actually viewing the photo.

[Guillermo Aguilar]

Quote Panamon-Creel:

I think this discussion went into another light dimension

The histogram is a tool that has to be used/interpreted within the context of the captured scene or to be captured scene. Nobody can say a photo is over/under exposed by histogram alone without knowing the scene. The histogram can show if the related photo contains blown out areas, is overall dark, bright but not if it is intentional or if it "works" like one would with actually viewing the photo.

Perfect! Bulls eye explanation. Thanks.

Also thanks to Galatas, that has said the same, earlier and only now I recognize. This is my edit.

[AustinMN]

Quote Guillermo Aguilar:

Quote Galatas:

Are you saying that histogram is wrong ?


You are just continuing to argue that there may be times you wish to deliberately under or over expose. I have never disputed that fact.
The histogram shows what it shows. Use that information or ignore it as you wish.
Personally I rarely look at histograms. In most cases I can see from the screen whether or not my exposures are as I want them

Histograms are NOT wrong in interpreting curves of light intensity. What is wrong, in some cases, is labelling images as under or overexposed, because the histogram gives that result.

I have to know what your definitions are of "overexposed" and "underexposed." The rest of the photo industry disagrees with you.

A "high key" photo is by definition overexposed. A low key photo is by definition underexposed. This was the case before digital photography and historgrams were invented. The fact that the histogram agrees with it is secondary.

Quote:

Imagine, before digital photpgraphy, to go to Ansel Adams, and tell him that most of his pictures are underexposed!

You would be wrong. His photos are not underexposed.

Austin

[Guillermo Aguilar]

Again, I totally agree, that Mr. Adams photos, were NOT underexposed, no matter what todays digital histograms, draw.

[Guillermo Aguilar]

I began investigating about histogram, recently, so I could be wrong. From the information I gathered, the histogram above, is low key, but not necesarilly an under exposed photo?

[Peter van Rens]

Quote Guillermo Aguilar:

I began investigating about histogram, recently, so I could be wrong. From the information I gathered, the histogram above, is low key, but not necesarilly an under exposed photo?

Pretty sure that is what I attempted to say. I just didn't include the histogram.

In any event, I'm pretty sure that we are thinking the same thing but not expressing it the same.

[Guillermo Aguilar]

Thanks Peter. I need to read much more about this subject, in order to get the idea.

This thread has been a very good start!

[Panamon-Creel]

Quote Guillermo Aguilar:

I began investigating about histogram, recently, so I could be wrong. From the information I gathered, the histogram above, is low key, but not necesarilly an under exposed photo?

My Interpretation without knowing the photo would be that the majority of it is dark to mid tone, also has some totally black in it (climbing the left border) and there is room to the right border allowing for longer exposure without having blown out areas if needed.
now where is the RGB Histogram?

[Guillermo Aguilar]

Its a black and white photo.

Its Ansel Adams, White House Ruins, at the official website.

I think it's very well interpreted! Thanks Panamon.

[AFGMPhotos]

re: greyish stuff

from what i understand, your picture might look a little more "foggier" than usual. if that is the case, you can easily adjust the "blacks" to compensate for it

given this previous histogram as an example, i see a gap between the left side of the graph and the left edge of the histogram curve therefore i would do the following tweaks:

- in lightroom, adjust develop/blacks value so that the left end of the histogram curve will almost be touching the left end of the graph
- for photoshop, it is image/adjustment/levels/click and adjust the black slider of the histogram and position it under the left end of the histogram curve

and voila, the foggy misty look is banished and contrast is enhanced

hth

[R. Burke]

Thank you everyone for the help (:

[Kevin Childress]

R. Burke,

Have you dumped the UV protector yet?