I can't get the contrast right with my digital camera?

Question

Compared with what I see, the a520 will bury the blacks to get the brightest areas right, or if i change exposure so the blacks are correct, theres way too much white level.Have tried all combinations of parameters.

Answer 1

Cameras can only capture a limited dynamic range. Not just your A520 but all cameras, both digital and film. Normally you don't notice this, but dark foregrounds against a bright cloudy sky etc, are almost impossible to get right. When the camera can't record everything properly, you have to make choices.
This is where a little theory helps.
Your A520 has a spot meter. This is pretty amazing, because the entry level dSLR cameras by Canon don't! With the spot meter, you tell the camera to nail the exposure for the area under the central AF-dot, and do whatever it wants with the rest of the shot.
Or you could use the histogram. When you review a test shot with the histogram turned on, you'll see a little graph of the exposure. Normally this graph will show a nicely centered bell curve, but under-exposed areas (pure black) are pushed off the left side of the chart and over-exposed areas (pure white) are pushed off the right side of the chart. With some + or - EV compensation on your next shot, you can force the average exposure back towards the middle of the chart.
And thirdly, you can cheat. You can take 2 shots, one exposed for the dark areas and one for the bright areas, and combine them in an image editor. (Works best with landscapes and a tripod.)
If you want a LOT of theory, read Ansel Adam's book 'The Negative' for his explanition of the zone system. It's still in print, and it's still valid for digital photography.

Answer 2

Digital is more versatile. I'm sick of going through this and starting the hell arguement, so that's all I'm saying. If you like film, then go for it. But the reality is, digital is the way to go these days. There's virtually nothing you can do with film that you cant do digitally. And anything there is that you can't do with digital, it would be something no one has ever, nor will ever need to do.

Answer 3

Not sure its a good news or bad one. Sounded like you have out grown your A520. Time to move on to a better camera.

Answer 4

Yep! I just Googled around and most of the reviews agree.

You might try to avoid high contrast when possible and use the tried and true methods when you can't. Try taking them in softer light, use bounce lighting, fill-in flash, or flash diffusers - all of the usual stuff...

"The Luminous Landscape - " How to Find the Best Light for a Specific Photograph"
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/composition-4.shtml

Reviews
-------------
PC Magazine .. need more dynamic range..
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1784499,00.asp

The Imaging Resource
... "Like most consumer digital cameras, its somewhat contrasty tone curve caused problems under harsh, high contrast lighting, resulting in lost highlight detail. Shadow detail was surprisingly good though, and its trouble with highlights was no greater than in most consumer-grade digital cameras that we test." ...
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/A620/A620A.HTM

One said it would be good for a juvenile, but didn't note that one.
Ah - here it is!
http://www.photographyreview.com/sf-1/pid-23626623/productproreviewcrx.aspx
... "general lack of dynamic range" ...
... "image noise at ISO 200 and 400, and the lack of shadow detail" ...
... "one could give this type of camera to a juvenile for first photography experiences"
----------
You should also have purple-fringing in high-contrast photos, significant noise at higher ISOs, and way less than quoted battery life with standard battery.

You'll have better results by not letting the camera process the film (raw mode) and fix in photoshop.

Maybe some help (or at least company) here:
"Digital Camera Resource" page for Canon (general)
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=10

"Digital Camera Resource" - "A510/A520 best settings for P Mode"
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8006

------- Off Topic (sorta) ------
"Why a two-dollar roll of film is better than a $3,000 digital camera." (The Zone System)
http://www.hbutz.com/wwwboard/messages/152.html

Dozens of low contrast films are available such as Kodak Portura 160T, Portra 400NC, VPS, VPA, Ektachrome 200, Kodacrome 200
Fuji Realia, Provia, & Superia Reala.
Agfa AGX-II
More specialized: Kodak PROFESSIONAL EKTACHROME EDUPE, KODAK VISION 5263 / 7263 500T Color Negative Film, Motion picture stock

Internegs, masking (printing together with slightly exposed blank negative) - are all good methods - for fixing a critical shot.
But are NOT meant to be used for every picture.

Taking 2 duplicate pictures and merging them requires a tripod or very steady support and merging them sounds just how I want to spend a afternoon (don't have the time - addicted to "Answers) and have better things to spend $300 on. :)

Also, over-exposing and under-developing , the not quite as famous - "pull-processing" - produces lower contrast.

I own 1 digital camera, a Fuji E510 bought last year to take pictures for eBay - since the nearest drop off is a drugstore 20 miles away and nearest 1-hour 35 miles. The $165 price and 0.6" macro focusing fit my criteria. Oh yeah - has a spotmeter also.

Walmart will develop film only to negs only and transfer to CD for $1.99.
A flatbed scan of a 4x6" print has amazing quality if you have not tried it. More amazing is the amount of detail in a Polaroid print! (Polaroid, the original "digital camera")

I don't think I could have amassed the amount of photographs that I have over the last 35 years - if I had to "fix it in PhotoShop".

Add - what $300 for Photoshop C2? to a $150 camera to get quality almost as good as $5 disposable camera.
However, I digress...

---- History of the Digital Camera is Better myth ----
Digital Audio Disk (CD) = better
Digital Video Disk (DVD) = better
Digital Cell Phone = better
Digital cameras = not better
OK for some stuff.
Often requires extensive post-editing.
11MP required to match 35mm B&W, and around 36MP to equal a fine-grain slide film (Hasselblad makes a 39MP camera for around $30,000)

Digital has a long way to go to equal film, but in time will make it. The first TV's were not that impressive either.