False metering ?

[xpatUSA]

Hmm, maybe I am misunderstanding the sandwich of three Images which was posted as the support document.
I understood those three images to be the JPEG files, SOOC?
WW

I view and pre-edit RAW files with Adobe Camera RAW 4.2 and it has the ability to save any default settings you like for the RAW to JPEG or TIFF conversion - including exposure "compensation" and also brightness. This is entirely independent of the original camera settings. So it's easy enough to have accidentally (?) used excessive settings for that 1/4000 image, IMHO.

If it's a test, did I pass?

Ted

[William W]

So it's easy enough to have accidentally (?) used excessive settings for that 1/4000 image, IMHO.
If it's a test, did I pass?

Arrhh OK! . . .

Another possibility - I was looking for an "in camera" possibility as the answer to the mystery, thereby I assumed too much and was therefore not open to other possibilities: for example an accidental hiccup in the PP process.

Thanks for pointing out one of these possibilities.

Passing? for sure.
I'd reckon you’re up in the 90% area with that response.

WW

[Colin Southern]

I view and pre-edit RAW files with Adobe Camera RAW 4.2 and it has the ability to save any default settings you like for the RAW to JPEG or TIFF conversion - including exposure "compensation" and also brightness. This is entirely independent of the original camera settings. So it's easy enough to have accidentally (?) used excessive settings for that 1/4000 image, IMHO.

If it's a test, did I pass?

Ted

Hi Ted,

I would have assumed that the same presets (if any) would be applied to all 3 files in the same manner though.

Also, interestingly, Sunny 16 suggests that the appropriate exposure of 1/3200 @ F2.8 @ ISO 100. These were "basically" that - but at ISO 800 - which would be about right considering ... the 1/4000th image is slightly over-exposed - 1/4000th is faster than 1/3200th - and there could well have been a bit of cloud cover. So IMO the 1/4000th @ F2.8 @ ISO 800 is the only correct exposure - it's the other two that are wrong. And if that's the case, nothing is going to recover a shot that's 4 stops over-exposed.

The only thing I can think of that would explain that would be a 4 stop ND filter being present during the first 2 exposures.

[William W]

Also, interestingly, Sunny 16 suggests that the appropriate exposure . . .

Frankly, that was my initial thought also. But I was curious about other issues.

My initial thoughts precisely were:
At F/2.8 and ISO 800 and having consistent and defined shadows on the LEAVES of the plant and noting that Plant Green is very closes to 18% P. Grey – . . . the Tv required for a correct exposure for the Pot Plant would in a two stop range around: 1/256,000s ~ 1/6400s . . . and the 1/4000s shot seems a tad overdone.
***

The only thing I can think of that would explain that would be a 4 stop ND filter being present during the first 2 exposures.

Patrik mentioned a Filter in Post 5 - but the mention of the filter, does not seem to relate to any post previous.

Maybe Patrik could return to this thread and answer if he does have has any ND Filters and if it or they could have been used?

WW

[pat3pee]

Replying to Ted,Colin and Bill....

I have checked the RAW file (always shoot RAW and a small jpg) with the original settings but no clues there however, Colin could be onto something. I do have a ND 0.6 filter which could have been used. Maybe senility creeps up too fast as I don't remember if I used it.

But thanks all you guys for your CSI work, you have taught me more about the technicalities of photography.. and it wasn't an April 1st joke .
Patrik

[William W]

. . . it wasn't an April 1st joke.

Thanks for confirming that. Good that the camera works OK now.

WW