Am I losing it?

[kkraczek]

I have just started photography, so please bear with the basic questions!

If I'm bracketing, and my camera brackets the shutter speed automatically in this order: 1/60, 1/125, 1/30, why would my photos come back in this order: normal, over-exposed, underexposed? I'm counting them exactly the way they were taken, since my Canon counts from 24 down to one.

It doesn't seem possible, but maybe I'm backwards in my thinking? (that the higher the shutter speed, the less exposed the picture will be)

[Asylum Steve]

I'm counting them exactly the way they were taken, since my Canon counts from 24 down to one.

When you say my camera "counts", I assume you mean either a small frame number window (film) or LCD display (digital).

In any event, your actual shots would be recorded in ACCENDING order. Rolls of film all start at number one, and digital file names (depending on how your camera's set) start at either number one or continue from the last file number shot. With both, the number increases as you shoot.

Bottom line is you are right about exposure. With a constant aperture, the higher the shutter speed, the less exposure an image gets.

[kkraczek]

When you say my camera "counts", I assume you mean either a small frame number window (film) or LCD display (digital).

In any event, your actual shots would be recorded in ACCENDING order. Rolls of film all start at number one, and digital file names (depending on how your camera's set) start at either number one or continue from the last file number shot. With both, the number increases as you shoot.

Bottom line is you are right about exposure. With a constant aperture, the higher the shutter speed, the less exposure an image gets.

Thanks Steve, I'm still not sure what happened, but I guess it doesn't matter in the end, since I can tell by looking which ones are over/underexposed anyway! BTW, when I said that my camera "counts backwards", I was referring to the fact that it automatically unwinds the entire roll into the camera, and as each shot is taken, it winds back into the film canister. That way the shots are protected in the event that the camera back opens. Therefore, my shots are returned in "reverse order". #24 is the first picture I took, and #1 is the last. I hope this makes sense... thanks for your confirmation that I'm not crazy!

[Lemming51]

>>If I'm bracketing, and my camera brackets the shutter speed automatically in this order: 1/60, 1/125, 1/30, why would my photos come back in this order: normal, over-exposed, underexposed? <<

Are you using slide or print film? If print, are you examining the negatives or the prints?

[kkraczek]

>>If I'm bracketing, and my camera brackets the shutter speed automatically in this order: 1/60, 1/125, 1/30, why would my photos come back in this order: normal, over-exposed, underexposed? <<

Are you using slide or print film? If print, are you examining the negatives or the prints?

Print film, and I'm examining the prints. The developer includes a "print sheet" as well, with a copy of all of the prints (and their negative number) on one 4x6. So even when I compare with the print sheet, they are not jiving with the order that the camera brackets. Mostly, I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't incorrect in thinking that the faster shutter speeds create less exposure. So, regardless of what order they come back in, I can tell what shutter speed they were taken at based on under/over exposure. Thanks for the help!

[Asylum Steve]

So, your camera actually DOES shoot backwards, eh?

Interesting concept. I don't think I've ever seen that kind of camera. Hope you didn't think I was talking down to you in my other post. It's just that I wasn't sure what you were describing with the order of the numbers. As you probably know, many cameras (including digital SLRs) "count" backwards but record the image numbers forward.

Anyway, now that everyone's thouroughly confused, I'm glad that you can see a connection between your bracketing and the results on the prints. That's the important thing...

Thanks Steve, I'm still not sure what happened, but I guess it doesn't matter in the end, since I can tell by looking which ones are over/underexposed anyway! BTW, when I said that my camera "counts backwards", I was referring to the fact that it automatically unwinds the entire roll into the camera, and as each shot is taken, it winds back into the film canister. That way the shots are protected in the event that the camera back opens. Therefore, my shots are returned in "reverse order". #24 is the first picture I took, and #1 is the last. I hope this makes sense... thanks for your confirmation that I'm not crazy!

[kkraczek]

No worries Steve- I didn't feel that way at all! It's a Rebel TI by the way; I think that other Rebels shoot the same way, but I'm not positive. Anyway, like you said, at least I'M not confused anymore! hehehe Thanks again!

[Lemming51]

Yes, all Rebel models, from the original to the Ti prewind the film out of the canister and wind it back in with each exposure to protect against opening the back with film loaded. With a 24-exp roll the camera will get 25 frames, the first shot taken will be in frame 24A-24 (as marked on the negative), ..., the last will be 0A-0.

The reason I asked whether you were using print film is two-fold. First, unlike slide film, 1-stop bracketing has little effect on most print films as they have very wide exposure latitude. So even examining the negatives you may see some difference, but it'll not be as apparent as with slide film. Secondly, unless given special instruction to print w/o adjustment (and sometimes even if you request that) most labs routinely compensate for over/under exposure when printing, so that bracketed shots will be printed nearly identically.

The 4x6 index print is created digitally and may also include adjustment. It is not the same as a contact print, where the negatives are placed against the photo paper and all receive the same print exposure.

Since you see obvious differences in your 3 bracketed prints, the lab seems to have printed w/o compensation. Are the prints #'d on the back or are you going by the order they were in the envelope? Or is it possible that the terms under- and over-exposed are being confused? An underexposed negative (ie. the 1/125 or 2nd bracked shot) is going to be "thin" or not as dark overall as proper exposure (1/60, the first shot). Without compensation, a print from that underexposed negative is going to be darker than the proper exposure. Similarly with overexposure - the overexposed negative (ie. 1/30, the 3rd bracketed shot) will be "dense" (dark) and the uncompensated print would be lighter.

[kkraczek]

Yes, all Rebel models, from the original to the Ti prewind the film out of the canister and wind it back in with each exposure to protect against opening the back with film loaded. With a 24-exp roll the camera will get 25 frames, the first shot taken will be in frame 24A-24 (as marked on the negative), ..., the last will be 0A-0.

The reason I asked whether you were using print film is two-fold. First, unlike slide film, 1-stop bracketing has little effect on most print films as they have very wide exposure latitude. So even examining the negatives you may see some difference, but it'll not be as apparent as with slide film. Secondly, unless given special instruction to print w/o adjustment (and sometimes even if you request that) most labs routinely compensate for over/under exposure when printing, so that bracketed shots will be printed nearly identically.

The 4x6 index print is created digitally and may also include adjustment. It is not the same as a contact print, where the negatives are placed against the photo paper and all receive the same print exposure.

Since you see obvious differences in your 3 bracketed prints, the lab seems to have printed w/o compensation. Are the prints #'d on the back or are you going by the order they were in the envelope? Or is it possible that the terms under- and over-exposused are being confused? An underexposed negative is going to be "thin" or not as dark overall as proper exposure. Without compensation, a print from that underexposed negative is going to be darker than the proper exposure. Similarly with overexposure - the negative will be "dense" (dark) and the uncompensated print would be lighter.

Thanks... I do ask my developer for "no corrections" when processing. They also print the numbers on the back of each photo, which is a big help! I hadn't really looked at the negatives, (afraid I'd confuse myself even more! hahaha) but I understand what you're saying. Maybe my camera was just bass-ackwards yetserday, but I'll be taking another roll soon to see if maybe I'M bass-ackwards.
Thanks again!