5d 3 underexposure

[crustyraven]

I am having a major problem with my 5d3 in that it is underexposing in Photoshop and Lightroom.  In the Photoshop Raw Filter, shooting raw pics exposure registers at -2.02 underexposed.  The pics are very dark even in a well lit day scene.  I sent the camera to a Canon service center expecting the problem to be corrected.  No change in the pics when it was returned to me.  Using my Canon 30D and my 3Ti, I have no problem in exposure, the pics look perfect straight out of the camera into Photoshop and Lightroom.  A Canon Rep suggested their software so I tried it and the exposure looked perfect.  I am completely befuzzled!  I don't use their free software since I have the best software available.  I have looked into my software for a setting that might fix the problem but have found nothing.  I reset the camera to default after the Rep made the suggestion.  No help there.  If you have a solution, I hope you will post it here.

[cicopo]

Read your manual regarding EXPOSURE COMPENSATION.

[kvbarkley]

Are JPEG's underexposed?

If it is OK in DPP, it is not the camera.

Do you highlight tone priority on? That can confuse non-Canon raw processors.

[ebiggs1]

"Do you highlight tone priority on? That can confuse non-Canon raw processors."

Never heard of that. Ever!  PS or LR is not causing the problem.

"I have looked into my software for a setting that might fix the problem but have found nothing."

Maybe you have a preset that is doing an under exposure in LR?  Turn off all your presets for now and try it.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"Do you highlight tone priority on? That can confuse non-Canon raw processors."

Never heard of that. Ever!  PS or LR is not causing the problem.

"I have looked into my software for a setting that might fix the problem but have found nothing."

Maybe you have a preset that is doing an under exposure in LR?  Turn off all your presets for now and try it.

---

I have no opinion on whether highlight tone priority could be a contributor. But given that the exposure is correct when the photo is edited in DPP and wrong with PS/LR, how can you possibly say that PS or LR is not causing the problem? The evidence says that something in the RAW image or its Exif data is confusing PS and/or LR but not DPP. What other interpretation makes any sense?

[ebiggs1]

Bob from Boston,

"Never heard of that. Ever!  PS or LR is not causing the problem."

This is my educated, opinion, form several decades of using PS and/or LR.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Bob from Boston,

"Never heard of that. Ever!  PS or LR is not causing the problem."

This is my educated, opinion, form several decades of using PS and/or LR.

---

Ah, OK; that explains it. I had thought, from the wording, that you were presenting it as fact.

BTW, how many decades is "several"? I see that Wikipedia thinks that Photoshop came out in 1988 and Lightroom in 2007.

[ebiggs1]

"BTW, how many decades is "several"? I see that Wikipedia thinks that Photoshop came out in 1988 and Lightroom in 2007."

When you are as old as I am, the stone tablets are more difficult to read.  Could be one or could be 10 who knows?

We had PS before it was called Photoshop.  It was only B&W at that time.  It was only Mac.  As I recall about all you could do was change the brightness and contrast.  Some other little things.  I beta tested for Adobe for a couple years.

I don't recall the original name but it was created by two brothers.  Adobe later bought it and changed the name to Photoshop 1.

Since then, in 2005 or so, Adobe changed the name again to Creative Suite 6, or whatever number they are up to now.  I have stopped with CS6.  I don't like the rental software model and I don't see myself needing anything CS6 can not do at this point in my life.

I would be stuck if/when I get a 1Dx since CS6 won't read its files. LR is still being updated but CS6 is not.  LR can still open them and let you edit in PS, however.

[kvbarkley]

It could be that LR and PS understand the setting, but Aperture (i.e., the Apple RAW Processor) certainly does not and causes just this kind of behaviour. While the RAW data is readily accesible, the camera settings included have to be reverse engineered, and sometimes they get it wrong. 

It is certainly worth a try.

[ebiggs1]

"It is certainly worth a try."

I must say, reluctantly, I do agree with this.  Try everything!