«

Rich <> wrote:

> wrote:
>> I just bought a Rebel XT and I just cannot get good indoor photos from
>> it. I've only used it on "automatic", but I've used it with the
>> built-in flash and with an external flash. All of my pictures look too
>> dark and lack any vivid color. I've always been a huge Canon fan, so
>> I'm really disappointed in this one. (My previous camera was a G6,
>> which I sold to get the XT). Any advice would really be appreciated!

>Canon is know for it's neutral (flat, washed out looking) image
>renditions. The vividness produced by some other cameras is considered
>cartoony by some Canon shooters who prefer a more natural image.
>Nothing preventing "revamping" those images in PS though.

He says his images are dark. That's not washed out. And
his previous camera was a Canon.

---- Paul J. Gans

Paul J Gans wrote:
> "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>> Paul J Gans wrote:
>>> <> wrote:
>>>> I'm not naive. I understand there's a learning curve with a dSLR
>>>> and I will eventually take the time to learn how to use it in
>>>> manual mode. That said, I still think I should be able to get
>>>> decent photos in automatic mode as well. I've tried it with the
>>>> built-in flash, no flash, the external flash straight-on, and the
>>>> external flash bounced off the wall. None of the photos have been
>>>> properly exposed. I just wonder if I somehow got a lemon. I
>>>> think a camera this expensive should take good photos in auto
>>>> mode. Otherwise, it shouldn't have an auto mode. Anyway, I
>>>> appreciate all of your comments.
>>>
>>> I happen to agree with you.
>>>
>>> What I'd do is take some daylight shots on automatic outside.
>>> See how they come out.
>>>
>>> If they are no good, you have a problem.
>>>
>>> If they are, try taking a photo of something that won't move
>>> such as a chair. Do this from about three feet away. The image
>>> should not be dark and even may be washed out.
>>>
>>> Do it again from six feet away. Compare. Then try nine feet.
>>> Let us know what happens.
>>>
>>> And don't pay any attention to the folks who like heaping scorn.
>>> Canon did not make the XT so that "green zone" pictures would be
>>> lousy. That negates the entire purpose of the camera.
>>>
>>> It is, as some have said, true that you can do *better* with
>>> more manual control, but you should be able to get usable pics
>>> on automatic.
>
>> That's only true if you're shooting a scene that is a neutral
>> tone...like blue jeans, or green grass.
>> If you're shooting something predominantly dark or light, the meter
>> will be thrown off.
>
> No. The camera will take the scene and make it (subject
> to the current color balance) make it a neutral gray.

Exactly...which is preciselywhat I said. Whites will be too dark, and
blacks will be made grey.
-Or...as I said..."thrown off."

>
> In other words, the XT in "green zone" mode should do
> what a P&S would do.

That depends on how various camera zone their meters.
This is far from standard.


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

>> You should be disappointed in yourself. Don't blame the tool because you
>> don't know how to use it.
>
> Why do you folks assume that. In any of the "automatic"
> modes, the camera takes care of everything, including
> white balance and popping the flash.

Yes, but it can only do so much. A DSLR is set up differently from a
P&S. A P&S is programmed to produce the best photograph possible under
the conditions it detects. A DSLR is programmed to allow the user to get
the exact results he wants. That's a compromise, and it's why we "folks
assume that." With a DSLR you *have* to help the camera towards the
result you want.

> The resulting photos, if the subject is not too far away,
> should be reasonable. If they are very unreasonable, something
> strange is going on.

Or, as in this instance, the camera is being used under difficult
circumstances (dark, indoor, flash used, vivid colour results wanted)
and needs user input to get to the results the user wants.

"Paul J Gans" <> wrote in message
news:ehmccc$me0$...
> Celcius <> wrote:
>
>><> wrote in message
>>news: groups.com...
>>> I'm not naive. I understand there's a learning curve with a dSLR and I
>>> will eventually take the time to learn how to use it in manual mode.
>>> That said, I still think I should be able to get decent photos in
>>> automatic mode as well. I've tried it with the built-in flash, no
>>> flash, the external flash straight-on, and the external flash bounced
>>> off the wall. None of the photos have been properly exposed. I just
>>> wonder if I somehow got a lemon. I think a camera this expensive
>>> should take good photos in auto mode. Otherwise, it shouldn't have an
>>> auto mode. Anyway, I appreciate all of your comments.
>>>
>
>>Try to put your camera on "P" (to take the photo with flash, you have to
>>open the flash by pressing the flash button on the left had side of the
>>flash), then the white balance (WB) at "automatic", try also white balance
>>on "Flash". Try taking the flash with ISO 100, then 200... Remember that
>>on
>>the XT, once you've chose the WB, or the ISO... you have to hit the
>>"Enter"
>>key, otherwise it remains as it was. You didn't say how far you were from
>>the subject or whether the room was dark or partially lit... Just a few
>>ideas. Marcel.
>
> NO. The camera should take a reasonable picture when set to
> the "green zone".
>
> The camera then takes care of white balance, iso number, and the
> flash. If that produces lousy pictures, there is something wrong
> with the camera. Taht you might be able to compensate for it
> in other ways is quite beside the point.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans

I know, Paul.
It was simply to verify further...
Green mode? You use Pentax?
Marcel

wrote:
> I'm not naive. I understand there's a learning curve with a dSLR and I
> will eventually take the time to learn how to use it in manual mode.
> That said, I still think I should be able to get decent photos in
> automatic mode as well. I've tried it with the built-in flash, no
> flash, the external flash straight-on, and the external flash bounced
> off the wall. None of the photos have been properly exposed. I just
> wonder if I somehow got a lemon. I think a camera this expensive
> should take good photos in auto mode. Otherwise, it shouldn't have an
> auto mode. Anyway, I appreciate all of your comments.
>
I'd take it back to the store. I bought a XT last year which has always
taken excellent photos on auto both with and without flash..

--
-------------------------------------------------------
"Every day is Saturday when you're retired."

Bob Burns
Mill Hall PA
(email is a spamtrap)

<> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
>I just bought a Rebel XT and I just cannot get good indoor photos from
> it. I've only used it on "automatic", but I've used it with the
> built-in flash and with an external flash. All of my pictures look too
> dark and lack any vivid color. I've always been a huge Canon fan, so
> I'm really disappointed in this one. (My previous camera was a G6,
> which I sold to get the XT). Any advice would really be appreciated!
>
Hi again!

Where are you at now, since your first thread?
Have you taken it back to the store to try it out? To get a new one?

Thanks,

Marcel

<> wrote:
>I'm not naive. I understand there's a learning curve with a dSLR and I
>will eventually take the time to learn how to use it in manual mode.
>That said, I still think I should be able to get decent photos in
>automatic mode as well. I've tried it with the built-in flash, no
>flash, the external flash straight-on, and the external flash bounced
>off the wall. None of the photos have been properly exposed. I just
>wonder if I somehow got a lemon.

How do you know if they're properly exposed?

Are you judging by what you see on the computer, by the prints you got
back from the lab, or by the display on the camera's screen?

The photo might be correctly exposed and the problem might be somewhere
else.

--
Ray Fischer

Derek Fountain wrote:
>>> You should be disappointed in yourself. Don't blame the tool because
>>> you don't know how to use it.
>>
>>
>> Why do you folks assume that. In any of the "automatic"
>> modes, the camera takes care of everything, including
>> white balance and popping the flash.
>
>
> Yes, but it can only do so much. A DSLR is set up differently from a
> P&S. A P&S is programmed to produce the best photograph possible under
> the conditions it detects. A DSLR is programmed to allow the user to get
> the exact results he wants. That's a compromise, and it's why we "folks
> assume that."

What compromise? A DSLR in auto mode *is* a P&S, and should not take
worse pictures than any other P&S. It has a bigger sensor, bigger lens,
and (most likely) more powerful flash. The auto pictures should be
better, not worse. Canon is not so stupid as to intentionally make a
disfunctional auto mode so elitists can taunt newbies, for that we have
usenet. That in no way detracts from whatever else a DSLR can do when
it is not in auto mode.

Thanks for everyone's input (except Derek Fountain's comment that "you
should be disappointed in yourself. Don't blame the tool because you
don't know how to use it." That's not helpful and I would never
respond to someone's good-faith plea for help with a ridiculous comment
like that.)

Anyway, my outdoor photos look great. It's only indoors (at night)
that I have a problem with. Regardless of the amount of light in the
room, the photos look like they were taken with a cheap film camera.
They're too dark and the features look "washed-out". (Those are the
only words I know to describe them. I would post some samples, but I
don't know how to do it.) It helps when I use the external flash
bounced off the ceiling, but they still don't look very good. I think
a dSLR on "auto" mode should function as good, if not better, than a
point & shoot camera. But I guess I'm wrong about that. The reason I
got this camera was because I thought the rest of my family could use
it, without messing with the manual controls. And I'd still be able to
use the camera in manual mode to try to improve my photography.

Anyway, I really appreciate your help! Thanks again.

On 25 Oct 2006 14:36:10 -0700, <> wrote:
>
> Thanks for everyone's input (except Derek Fountain's comment that "you
> should be disappointed in yourself. Don't blame the tool because you
> don't know how to use it." That's not helpful and I would never
> respond to someone's good-faith plea for help with a ridiculous comment
> like that.)
>
> Anyway, my outdoor photos look great. It's only indoors (at night)
> that I have a problem with. Regardless of the amount of light in the
> room, the photos look like they were taken with a cheap film camera.
> They're too dark and the features look "washed-out". (Those are the
> only words I know to describe them. I would post some samples, but I
> don't know how to do it.) It helps when I use the external flash
> bounced off the ceiling, but they still don't look very good. I think
> a dSLR on "auto" mode should function as good, if not better, than a
> point & shoot camera. But I guess I'm wrong about that. The reason I
> got this camera was because I thought the rest of my family could use
> it, without messing with the manual controls. And I'd still be able to
> use the camera in manual mode to try to improve my photography.

Go to flickr.com or photobucket.com and register for a free account.
Those sites (among others) make it pretty easy to upload pictures to the
web. Then put up a couple of the bad shots; that will give people here
something definite to look at, which should help in diagnosing the
problem.

-dms