Colours seem a bit... washed out...

[Deepsky]

been out and about with my camera for the first real time today and i've noticed that the colours seem to be washed out and a bit... dull.

I took this photo on a normal exposure with the sun coming up for a HDR shot and it looks terrible!
Those are red bricks and its coming out all grey and washed out and the sky seems the same...

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/richardfld/IMG_1258.jpg?t=1256836132

Here's the HDR shot

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/richardfld/BlickHall1.jpg?t=1256836129


Obviously comparing a HDR shot to a normal shot is not a fair comparison but it's just not picking out the colour as it should.
I've photographed that building before with a finepix s7000 and that brought out the colour better!

I have a canon eos 450... Is there a setting on the camera to saturate the colours more or something?


Thanks!

[Raddog]

That's Canon .jpg for you.

Shoot RAW and use photoshop.

[Alias]

looks ok for straight out the camera just a tiny tweek of the curves and levels to make it look ok:

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l303/Guerillaphoto/IMG_1258.jpg

[Alias]

P.S that was literally two seconds in photoshop

[Oxygen Thief]

You can use the vivid cetting on the camera, and turn the saturation up further. I used to get this problem all the time though, shoot in RAW, then convert to jpeg like raddog says.

[Dempsey]

Aye, check the canon settings are set to standard, and if not, boost the saturation. Personally, i think it looks A-ok, the HDR in comparison is shit.

[turkey]

:eek: Buy a nikon :eek: ;)

[Deepsky]

DUUUUUURRRRRR. I'm so special.

Just realised that it was set in 'neutral mode' instead of 'standard'.

I'll give RAW a go from now on too... Is there any good guides for photoshop on the net that anyone recommends? I've never used photoshop... tried it once and just got confused.

[Alias]

:eek: Buy a nikon :eek: ;)

I hate to disagree, but both Nikon and canon images straight from camera are flat, both need adjusting to bring the details and levels in.

[Dempsey]

both need adjusting to bring the details and levels in.

I disagree, i think the original is best.

[Alias]

then you are blind, even the manufacturers of cameras admit that a digital sensor will produce flat images with no depth. its the same as a negative in film, you need to up the contrast and increase the shadows/ highlights etc... in order to make the image pop. The age old argument that images should not be manipulated is flawed by the sensors capturing it or the film.

[Sir Digby Chickenlegs]

One over saturated (HDR) and one very under.. check your settings. I have had no such problems and I do not even own photoshop let alone use it...


Shoot in Aperture priority too, as you will have some control over the exposure.. use -+ EV too when it is needed.. Or a Circular Polariser, this will boost contrast and saturation.

The images in my report on pages one and two are straight from the camera.. Forget the Canon/ Nikon debate bollocks.... It is how you take the shot the settings and how you use light...

http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=44107

I forgot to say I did not use a circular polariser in this, as erm.. I didn't have one..... I am also experimenting with a 10fstop filter that will allow me to 30sec exposures at midday in the sun....

[Deepsky]

Does everyone always post-process? Nearly all my shots are straight from the camera (minus some cropping). I probably should learn how to use Photoshop at some point...

Likewise. I've never altered any of my pictures other than the odd crop.

maybe i've been missing out.

[Alias]

at the end of the day, everyones images are ok in their own eyes etc... however I see an images that has not had the levels/ curves adjusted and it just looks flat with no three dimension at all. the idea is to create a 3d effect out of a 2d image. That is the original use of photography, to document a scene and portray that scene to others, surely you should do that in the best way and the best way is to post process the image to improve it. This is the same as what you would do in a darkroom, and the same thing that happens when you print your photos at a lab even Jessops have presets in their neg scanning machines to up the contrast in an effort to make the image more dimensional.

[Deepsky]

One over saturated (HDR) and one very under.. check your settings. I have had no such problems and I do not even own photoshop let alone use it...


Shoot in Aperture priority too, as you will have some control over the exposure.. use -+ EV too when it is needed.. Or a Circular Polariser, this will boost contrast and saturation.

The images in my report on pages one and two are straight from the camera.. Forget the Canon/ Nikon debate bollocks.... It is how you take the shot the settings and how you use light...

http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=44107

I forgot to say I did not use a circular polariser in this, as erm.. I didn't have one..... I am also experimenting with a 10fstop filter that will allow me to 30sec exposures at midday in the sun....

I've begun to debate wether my polariser is worth it. Its just a cheapy one and i don't think the results it produces are very good...

[Sir Digby Chickenlegs]

Indeed Alias, Sometimes we just need a little help to balance things as we learn. UV can have the same effect in washing colour out..

It is all to easy to have over saturated images too.. Find something the looks good on the net, as it doesn't always then look good in print...

[Millhouse]

I don't see any harm in post processing on a reasonable level. I know I'm not particularly experienced, but Alias' version of the initial picture on the thread looks a lot better.

PS thanks for the tip about curves Alias, I didn't know about this and now I've tried it on a few of my images they look much better :)

[Alias]

curves and levels are essential in photoshop, they are the main tools that are used by photographers who do not wish to "edit" their images but wish to "enhance them". Its worth learning if you wish to improve your images, if you dont then thats your choice and your entitled to it.

[Dempsey]

then you are blind, even the manufacturers of cameras admit that a digital sensor will produce flat images with no depth. its the same as a negative in film, you need to up the contrast and increase the shadows/ highlights etc... in order to make the image pop. The age old argument that images should not be manipulated is flawed by the sensors capturing it or the film.

Well no, im just saying i prefer the original to the over-saturated one you posted.

[Alias]

calibrate your screen.

[Dempsey]

Calibrate your arse.

[vmlopes]

Well no, im just saying i prefer the original to the over-saturated one you posted.

It aint over saturated IMO, if your shooting Raw then curves/levels and sharpen is defo' needed...........

On film I have never needed it though, just a crop where necessary.

[REEF]

then you are blind, even the manufacturers of cameras admit that a digital sensor will produce flat images with no depth. its the same as a negative in film, you need to up the contrast and increase the shadows/ highlights etc... in order to make the image pop. The age old argument that images should not be manipulated is flawed by the sensors capturing it or the film.


He's right you know....

The manufacturers just try and give you as mich detail as possible, its up to the user the choose how they want there images to look. Thats why Picture Styles are so useful, don't forget you can create your own on a computer and upload them to your camera.

[Deepsky]

Went out on a mission again today with my camera around blicking hall and shot in RAW and stuck em all in photoshop and am VERY pleased with the results tbh...

Dunno why i've never done this before tbh! Much better than just .jpg straight off the camera!
The difference is STAGGERING!

JPEG straight off camera:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/richardfld/IMG_1258.jpg?t=1256836132

RAW into PS:


http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs040.snc3/12752_324977210170_641220170_9575296_271678_n.jpg

[AIS]

raw is the way forward, if you dont want the expense of photoshop, lightroom2 is a cracking bit of software, if you're a student, £90, does the basics of PS, and is great for catalouging etc

[Oxygen Thief]

Much nicer pictures there.

It's OK recommending Photoshop and Lightroom etc, but there's free software that can easily do the job, like the software that came with the camera for RAW processing, and picasa for finishing the job off. Total cost = £0

[Alias]

or gimp.

photoshop is free as well ;)

[Deepsky]

I'm seriously impressed with these pictures though, the colours are so much more crisper, full and richer than any photo i've EVER taken before!
Here's a few more...

Some of them could have been focused a bit better but i sometimes find it hard with the 10-20 lens to get everything in focus properly, especially when it looks so far away in the view finder... I'm SUPPOSED to wear glases, but fuck that... I've managed fine so far... Does anyone else have a problem with the 10-20 lens?
I also have an el cheapo polarising filter... would this have any adverse effect on this?


http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/richardfld/IMG_1280.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/richardfld/IMG_1281.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/richardfld/IMG_1289.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/richardfld/IMG_1302.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/richardfld/IMG_1307.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/richardfld/IMG_1316.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/richardfld/IMG_1318.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/richardfld/IMG_1326.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/richardfld/IMG_1330.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/richardfld/IMG_1332.jpg

[AIS]

Much nicer pictures there.

It's OK recommending Photoshop and Lightroom etc, but there's free software that can easily do the job, like the software that came with the camera for RAW processing, and picasa for finishing the job off. Total cost = £0

won't disagree with you, supplied software is ok, but the Adobe stuff rocks

[Sir Digby Chickenlegs]

What about Photoshop elements, that will cover most bases for about 80 quid...

[Alias]

yeah thats also an option

[nickg]

I used to shoot with the 450d (now have the 7d) and always shot in RAW then process the images. It might also be worth getting your hands on a monitor calibration system like Spyder Utility... Does make the difference!

[canni]

Have you tried upping the saturation in photoshop? Needs to be subtle though, as it can really make a picture look worse if you go overboard.

(image>adjustments>hue/saturation)

[Bunk3r]

I agree raw is the way, but if you can get the off camera jpg's better for when you can't be bothered that would be good. Can you alter your colours in camera? Saturation or vivid settings or anything else along them lines?