Colour, Richness and more

T

thelongmile

Suspended / Banned
Messages
46
Edit My Images
Yes
This might seem like a frighteningly simple thing to many of you, but for years I've been overly concerned with the way colour is reproduced in my photos.

I see, time and time again, people with beautifully rich, vibrant shots, great saturation (and well, most of these tend to be from Nikon photographs) and yet, mine, well they seem slightly washed out... holiday snap like.

I've tried whacking up the contrast, (nope), saturation (no, not unless you like glowing things)... even vibrancy layers and well nope, it's almost like it needs to just be... richer... that's the only thing I can think of

So... what am I missing, what are your tips to getting high impact photographs that don't look... well... luminous...


Thanks all!
 
What you shooting with ?

Ive always found Canon photos from the camera or from the raw without tweaking very dark, contrastly and brown cast.

Go for a more neutral dynamic rangle, less contrast and see how you go then.
 
Shooting with a Canon EOS 40D (about to get a 7D) and a 24-70mm L lens, they do seem overly dark sometimes,

When your referring to neutral dynamic range, can you explain a little more about this?

Thanks
 
How about a 1024 example of what you have taken and do not feel happy with ;)
 
Are the pics you see processed? My photos are usually quite dull till after processing in LR.
 
u8myufo - Good idea, I'll try and get a shot of something as an example or least pull a raw off when I finish this 12 day 12 hour shift business... *shudders*

terryt - I believe most of them have a little, but I'm seeing more and more where people claim no editing has taken place... quite strange, but although I did ask, I wasn't permitted to get something as an example
 
Just found a Nikon example for you, this is an ideal look at the kind of colour reproduction I was seeing, now granted this image isn't mine, and it's probably been edited, but its quite similar to the non edited shots I saw before, very sharp, VERY sharp, and the colour is great

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonpier/4108277248/

Now I'll try and dig out one of mine...
 
Correct WB + contrast usually does it for me. Saturation sliders are often left alone.
 
I often found the opposite: JPEGs straight from camera when shot on Canon bodies were far better than those shot on Nikons (this is going back to when nikon's top-end camera was the D2x) - so much so that we encouraged sports and news photographers who typically shot in JPEG-Fine to use Canon equipment.
Now the D3 (-s, -x) is widely available with so many custom picture settings, it's less of an issue.

In your specific case I'd look more at you monitor and post-production workflow than the camera itself.

Lenses can also make a huge difference. I have a mixed bag of lenses and the colour rendition from some is quite different from others: my 24-70 and 70-200 are almost identical, as are my 50mm f/1.4 and 17-35 - all are slightly warm, giving rich skin tones on caucasians.
My 85mm f/1.4 is slightly more neutral and about the same as my 135mm f/2, so I have to bear that in mind if switching lenses during a portrait shoot.

A friend and occasional colleague of mine uses (I think) the new 24-120mm f/4G Nikkor on a D3 and it's noticably cooler than my 24-70: so much so that we had to set up a specific photoshop action for post-production work if we shot on the same job for the same client.
He's now bought a 24-70 so we're singing off the same song-sheet for those occasions.
 
If you are looking to improve the shots out of the camera, and assuming you are shooting jpg), then you need to change the settings for picture processing (not sure where they are on a Canon). There are usually stauration, sharpness, contrast settings etc. Play around with them while shooting a single scene to determine the effect they have.

Other thoings to consider. If you have the colour space set to Adobe RGB this does not display well via browsers online (or on many monitors). Set to sRGB and see if that gives the images a bit more punch. Also simple stuff like making sure the image is correctly exposed - if its under it will look a bit dull and lifeless. The image you provided has been lit by flash so plenty of light to make everything look bright.
 
Im not sure on settings for Canon cams but on the Nikon there are picture settings such as Vivid, Standard, Neutral etc. I tend to stick to neutral as it doesnt crush the shadows and highlights and gives a more natural look (IMHO).

With the D300 onwards I think Nikon got their act together with colour out of the camera. I was using a Fuji S3 before that and it ran rings round the D200 and D2h/s/x etc.

Here's a shot from the D700 from last year, no saturation boost at all - only shopping was skin softening and mild digital surgery:

http://www.strathycruise.com/pics/lg-holly.jpg
 
thelongmile said:
I'm shooting in Adobe RGB according to my menu as opposed to sRGB
Click to expand...

Adobe RGB will tend to give flatter colours. Try sRGB and see if it is any better.
 
terryt said:
Woah, NSFW :lol: :bonk:
Click to expand...

haha, I don't know, my boss loved it, :lol:

Oggy - I'll give sRGB a go, certainly seems that this could be the case

for reference, I shoot in RAW, so it looks like there's some editing to be done anyway!

For years I've been using Adobe RGB as I'd been 'told and taught' various things... Oh well.
 
If you're using a Nikon try colour mode 3 also. :)
 
thelongmile said:
Great... Sadly I'm a canon user , but hopefully future visitors will be benefited
Click to expand...

Yep, hopefully they will.

For what it's worth, I found the same thing when I first got my D60, the colours looked a little flat, but once I experimented with the colour settings in the camera I'm now more than happy after a little experimenting. :)
 
HuntMike said:
Yep, hopefully they will.

For what it's worth, I found the same thing when I first got my D60, the colours looked a little flat, but once I experimented with the colour settings in the camera I'm now more than happy after a little experimenting. :)
Click to expand...

True, I think it's also fair to say that since I've been shooting on Adobe RGB for so long, in RAW i've come to view things a little differently, plus my camera (40D) has long since had one or two issues with balancing and metering, so perhaps that's all it is, just a culmination of factors!

Still, I'll keep digging tonight with what I have and see if I can find a good example, but from the sounds of it, and based on one or two test shots, the AdobeRGB could well be my issue here. Still, I have a 7D turning up tomorrow!
 
Ok, so er, looks like I have a serious fault... ISO400, um, I really shouldn't get THIS much noise on ISO400 with a 1/2000 shutter speed (there is NO editing going on here, I swear!)

http://grab.by/9EfD

Thoughts?
 
I wasn't aware the 40D was that bad!

I've a 7D arriving today, which I am praying, will be better
 
ChrisGilbert said:
With a 40D this doesn't suprise me at all, to be honest. Things Canon-wise have improved considerably since then. If you want really crap noise at ISO400 then get yourself a Sony :D Nikon handles noise far and away better than other cameras in it's pro-sumer classes (and I shoot with a Canon).
Click to expand...

Sony's CMOS sensors are virtually noiseless up to iso 1600..
 
iced_jacob said:
Sony's CMOS sensors are virtually noiseless up to iso 1600..
Click to expand...

Agreed.

You shouldn't really have to muck about with colour settings in the camera, the software gets it pretty spot on to start with, with most camera's.

I changed Canon to Nikon for that very reason, that compared to my shots Nikon seemed so much better, but its a big learning curve.

Post processing is really where you need to worry, the camera has all the information you need; with a few tweeks with the levels and curves, you can get what you need and bring some pop into your images.

Photoshop or Lightroom would be a good choice, sometimes i use both, but my camera gets it good to start with so i don't really have to do that much.
 
cobra_lite said:
I often found the opposite: JPEGs straight from camera when shot on Canon bodies were far better than those shot on Nikons (this is going back to when nikon's top-end camera was the D2x) - so much so that we encouraged sports and news photographers who typically shot in JPEG-Fine to use Canon equipment.
Now the D3 (-s, -x) is widely available with so many custom picture settings, it's less of an issue.

In your specific case I'd look more at you monitor and post-production workflow than the camera itself.

Lenses can also make a huge difference. I have a mixed bag of lenses and the colour rendition from some is quite different from others: my 24-70 and 70-200 are almost identical, as are my 50mm f/1.4 and 17-35 - all are slightly warm, giving rich skin tones on caucasians.
My 85mm f/1.4 is slightly more neutral and about the same as my 135mm f/2, so I have to bear that in mind if switching lenses during a portrait shoot.

A friend and occasional colleague of mine uses (I think) the new 24-120mm f/4G Nikkor on a D3 and it's noticably cooler than my 24-70: so much so that we had to set up a specific photoshop action for post-production work if we shot on the same job for the same client.
He's now bought a 24-70 so we're singing off the same song-sheet for those occasions.
Click to expand...

Some good points there that make lots of sense.

We use Canons at work but I opted to go with Nikon because of what I could get with my money. Totally happy with the output from my D2x but the likes of the 30/40/50D bodies we have, when used in JPEG, produce better saturation, especially with flash, but I don't miss that look you get with those Canons where colours (bright reds, oranges) block up and almost lose any definition. That doesn't seem to happen as much on my Nikon and the JPEGs look much more 'raw-like' (i.e. flatter, less contrasty but with less saturation). I do find the black point kicks in a bit earlier on the Canons, especially when you use anything but a totally neutral pre-set. Whether that's to do with overall dynamic range being compromised by the presets, I don't know. Of course, raw capture voids all this so you can start from where you want. All-in-all thogh, I'd rather work with the slightly more even, more neutral Nikon files.

On the lens point, again, it's quite telling when you line lenses up against one another; my 60mm macro is probably my most nuetral lens in terms of colours but is contrasty I feel. My 17-55 is pretty much spot-on (very similar to the 17-35 you mention), as is the 70-200mm VR, but my Sigma 14mm is very, very warm indeed, adding a lot of extra yellow into the shot that isn't a pain to remove in PP, but is noticeable if you just want to ship a JPEG straight out of camera onto an e-mail. These differences in lenses are now massive considerations that I may have overlooked when i was less experienced. Of course, again, raw capture and software light Lightroom do make evening things out much ore simple and quick.
 
Last edited:
thelongmile said:
This might seem like a frighteningly simple thing to many of you, but for years I've been overly concerned with the way colour is reproduced in my photos.

I see, time and time again, people with beautifully rich, vibrant shots, great saturation (and well, most of these tend to be from Nikon photographs) and yet, mine, well they seem slightly washed out... holiday snap like.

I've tried whacking up the contrast, (nope), saturation (no, not unless you like glowing things)... even vibrancy layers and well nope, it's almost like it needs to just be... richer... that's the only thing I can think of

So... what am I missing, what are your tips to getting high impact photographs that don't look... well... luminous...


Thanks all!
Click to expand...

Erm, I'm going out on a limb here by suggesting something non-equipment related, but what about this ...

Could it be anything to do with the quality of the light that you're shooting in :shrug:?

The way that you described the pictures you don't like as 'holiday snap like' made me think of the kind of washed-out colours and reduced saturation that you get (with any camera) when shooting with the sun high overhead. Shooting in morning/evening light and favouring under-exposure above over-exposure is a sure-fire way to improve the quality of your colours :).

I was in Venice recently, for the Carnival of the Masks, and the quality of the colours in the shots that I came back with were way above anything that I'd ever achieved when shooting under the (weaker, due to air pollution) sunlight that we get here in northern Germany :(.

As (reflected) 'light' is all that you see in a photograph anyway, it makes sense (to me) that the quality of the light source is key to the quality of the final image. Just a thought :shrug:!
 
Last edited:
Lunaticsamurai said:
Agreed.

You shouldn't really have to muck about with colour settings in the camera, the software gets it pretty spot on to start with, with most camera's.

I changed Canon to Nikon for that very reason, that compared to my shots Nikon seemed so much better, but its a big learning curve.
Click to expand...
I remember reading somewhere that Canon's only meter using a single colour channel, while Nikon's meter using all 3 colours (RGB), but I would have thought this only affects exposure.... But I guess there's a chance it could affect white balance also and overall look of the photo also maybe?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top