It's not banding. It seems to be due to a combination of things. Do you have your jpeg settings at highly saturated as well as bright? Underexposing white doesn't give you the same thing you would get shooting normal shadow detail at a correct exposre. How well does your camera take real photographs? I don't see any benefit in trying to create weird results by shooting things one would never shoot. An all white surface should be overexposed 1.5 to 2.5 stops to get normal results. Your meter thinks everything is 18% gray. Meters are dumb. Photographers have to provide the intelligence. I suspect that these results are a combination of your jpeg settings and the underexposure. Lets see some of your properly exposed photographs. Then we can see if there is any problem with your camera. Paul On Jan 30, 2007, at 7:49 PM, David Weiss wrote:
> Paul Stenquist wrote: >> Don't know what's going on here, but grossly underexposed pictures, > > > I know, but once I found the problem to be seen more clearly when > underexposed, I just left it that way. Wouldn't this just mimic > shadow > areas in a well exposed photo? > > >> which almost all of these are, will not yield good results. I also > > I know, but colored bands? That just doesn't seem right to me. I > guess > I would be more tolerant of other problems that you might see with > film, > this just seems like a defect in the design. Or maybe I am just old > fashion in my thinking. > > >> think shooting white with the jpeg bright setting might be somewhat >> of a problem. I think it's possible to generate bad results with any >> camera if one works hard enough to achieve them. Some of my >> underexposed transparencies from my Speed Graphic were real clunkers. > > I know, I have had my share of clunkers too, just I understood why in > those cases. > > Could someone see if they could reproduce these weird results so I can > stop thinking about sending my new camera back to Colorado? Do you > think that this is just that banding issue? Seems like it is > happening > in the same conditions. > > Dave > > > > > > > >> Paul >> On Jan 30, 2007, at 7:00 PM, David Weiss wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Well, the other day I decided to take a look at this k lens >>> underexposure issue (which appears to be a real problem) and instead >>> found another problem. Here are the pictures: >>> >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ >>> >>> This is a series of pictures of a white piece of tissue used to >>> wrap a >>> Christmas gift. Light was natural, white balance manually set. >>> Updated >>> firmware. Obviously, many of these are 1 or 2 stops underexposed, >>> but, >>> I was startled at the bands of color (green to the left, magenta to >>> the >>> right). >>> >>> Photos 1-3: Three is probably close to being exposed properly, >>> but it >>> still has a hint of the problem. The others show it clearly. >>> >>> Photos 4-6: So I decided to look at photos that were overexposed at >>> different f stops. I don't see the problem in 4 and 5, but it >>> shows up >>> again in 6. >>> >>> Photos 7-9: So I thought to change lenses. Still there on 9, small >>> aperture again. >>> >>> Photo 10: Might as well check the problem at 400 sensitivity. A >>> hint >>> of the problem. >>> >>> Photo 11: There it is again. >>> >>> Seems that the combination of high sensitivity, small aperture and >>> underexposure causes the problem. >>> >>> I also tried RAW and normal instead of bright mode, this did not >>> cause >>> the problem to be eliminated. >>> >>> So, is this just the infamous banding problem magnified a bit? >>> >>> Is this just my camera? I hope someone can verify for me that >>> this is >>> just a characteristic of this camera. Not that this would thrill >>> me, >>> because I expect something to work properly, but at least I wouldn't >>> send my camera in again. >>> >>> I know that I am not likely to shoot under these conditions, but it >>> would be nice if the camera worked properly just the same. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
