Beginner How do you get your images to 'Pop'?

Leebert

Leebert

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,026
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
No
I've been taking a few photos recently taking inspiration from others and have been experimenting with processing them in GIMP but seem to always end up with photos that appear a bit lifeless and flat.

Looking on line, there are a few tutorials for giving a photo more punch but I haven't had much success. Is there a knack for creating depth to a photo that takes it beyond a snapshot?

Many thanks,
 
Personally, this is the sort of thing I'd be looking to sort at the photo-taking stage and not at the post-processing stage. Yes, raw files will look flat without any adjustment in post, but most of the 'pop' in my mind should happen in camera.
 
Last edited:
Light is biggest starting point, if your out there shooting when the lighting is best your going to get the best results assuming your talking about landscapes
 
I think that's true for pretty much all styles of photography tbh. Light is SO important.

Lee, it might help if we had some context. Can you show the type of image you are taking and what you are not satisfied with, and maybe link to the type of thing you are trying to achieve?
 
Thanks for the replies.
The photo that instigated this thread is this one. I was taken just around Sun rise on Sunday but I can't seem to get it to look as it did to my eyes. It just looks 2D in comparison to others I have seen on here. The photo was taken with a Nikon D5000 and 18-55 kit lens with a Cokin square gradual G2 filter.

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/38620631@N02/12597219433/] Bough Beech by MrLeebert, on Flickr[/URL]

This is one of many that I have seen that have the qualities that I am aiming for...

http://www.markmullenphotography.co.uk/britishlandscapes/h560BAD88#h560bad88

It's only the second time I have used the Cokin filter and I would be very interested to hear your thoughts...

Many thanks.
 
Take the image as RAW and then to get something like that on your link you'd need to put it into Lightroom and see what effects you can get without overdoing the image.. im by no means an expert though - this is just what I've seen done across this forum (im in the process of trying to teach myself Lightroom at the moment) :thumbs:
 
Leebert said:
Thanks for the replies.
The photo that instigated this thread is this one. I was taken just around Sun rise on Sunday but I can't seem to get it to look as it did to my eyes. It just looks 2D in comparison to others I have seen on here. The photo was taken with a Nikon D5000 and 18-55 kit lens with a Cokin square gradual G2 filter.

Bough Beech by MrLeebert, on Flickr

This is one of many that I have seen that have the qualities that I am aiming for...

http://www.markmullenphotography.co.uk/britishlandscapes/h560BAD88#h560bad88

It's only the second time I have used the Cokin filter and I would be very interested to hear your thoughts...

Many thanks.
Click to expand...

The biggest issue is the light in that, but there are little tricks such as shooting with a marginally warmer than needed white balance, that bank of cloud is not going to do you any favours as it will kill pretty much any hope of a great sunrise...where as the cloud is different in Mark's photo allowing the sunlight to reflect off the clouds in the sky, also playing with highlights and colour vibrancy will also help you...but as annoying as it is to hear you'll never get an amazing landscape without the amazing light...

This I'm also going to say and it sounds really condescending but it's not meant that way I promise, a good view doesn't make a great photo, there's little going for this view in the form of interest in the landscape, if there were livestock in the field I could see it working but not in this current situation...

Another tip that I picked up from a friend and amazing landscape photographer from the US when everyone is shooting towards the sun, don't forget to look the other way as some of the best colours from the low sun are the other direction from where the sun is setting :)

Matt
 
You could make the colours pop with careful PP - hoof contrast, warm it a little, bump saturation, contrast etc. GIMP is a bit unweildy sometimes, and can be slow to respond to changed settings. If you're on windows or Linux then download DigiKam for easier control.

As Matthew said, a lot comes down to the light you got, and if it's flat then there's not too much you can do to make it exciting.
 
Lee let us know what software you have?

If you give access to the RAW image someone or two may have a go at an edit & tell you how they did it.

I use LR5 & no point me making suggestions, at this point, unless you have it, or wish to give it a 30 day free trial from Adobe.
 
Leebert said:
I've been taking a few photos recently taking inspiration from others and have been experimenting with processing them in GIMP but seem to always end up with photos that appear a bit lifeless and flat.

Looking on line, there are a few tutorials for giving a photo more punch but I haven't had much success. Is there a knack for creating depth to a photo that takes it beyond a snapshot?

Many thanks,
Click to expand...

Ultimately you have to start with a great photo to begin with and just use photoshop to polish it up.

The knack to creating landscapes that go beyond a snapshot, so I hear, is endless studying of maps and weather reports with a healthy dose of many fruitless hours on a cold mountainside at 4am.
 
DayDreamer said:
Lee let us know what software you have?

If you give access to the RAW image someone or two may have a go at an edit & tell you how they did it.

I use LR5 & no point me making suggestions, at this point, unless you have it, or wish to give it a 30 day free trial from Adobe.
Click to expand...


Sadly its a 12 day trial.

Lee
Yes do try LR5!
 
All I can add to the great advice already given by people more experienced than myself is that it's definitely worth shooting in raw
I find it really helpful, it won't make an average shot great
I find it helps for things like adjusting the white balance if I don't get it right at the time
I don't know what camera you have but Canons come with a program called dpp that's really good for converting raws and adjusting white balance ect


Edit just noticed that you have a nikon but I assume that similar software to the Canon raw converter is available for nikon:)
 
Last edited:
You know, I never really subscribed to the shoot in RAW hype.
Jpegs are just as manipulable as RAW's.
If the detail is not there, it doesn't matter what "file extension" you are using,
you can't recover it.

I've no idea what you "saw" on the day,
And this is just working from your 200kb file,
with the full Jpeg file however you should be able to "get what you saw"

View attachment 6141
 
Gimp is quite a way behind Lightroom for making the most of a more average shot.
I used to use it and it's really hard work in comparison.
As everyone is saying you just have to be patient and make the most of good light when it comes along.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for all the very informative replies. I have lots to think about.
Apologies - but I don't know how to quote multiple posts but I'll try and reply in approx. post order...

MWHCVT: It makes perfect sense that a good view doesn't necessarily make a good photo. The view was (to me) a lot 'warmer and alive' but I understand that in the photo there isn't really much to captivate the eye. The Sun was rising over my left shoulder at the time but the field in the foreground was not illuminated. The frost/dew did look nice to the eye but kind of grey and lifeless in the photo. I will have a go with adjusting the white balance on this one and see how that changes the image. That'll give me a head start on my thought processes next time I go out.

DayDreamer: I am a bit restricted on processing software currently. I have an old copy of Paint Shop Pro and am trying to learn GIMP on a mac. For general tweaking of photos, I tend to use the editing bit in iPhoto. I have used Photoshop but don't have a copy but will definitely look into Lightroom 5 and download a trial version. Whilst I practice with it for 12 days, I'll be waiting patiently for some golden hour Sun and hopefully be somewhere photogenic at the same time!. I have always shot in RAW except in certain circumstances (some astrophotography).
I have uploaded a copy of the raw photo to Dropbox here - https://www.dropbox.com/s/ovwn71npquuao2f/DSC_0033.NEF If anyone would like to see if there is anyway to improve it, please feel free.

CharlotteM: Co-incidently, this photo came from a 4am start after checking the weather etc. to get a moonlit landscape. That didn't quite worked as I hoped so I moved on to the next place where I thought I might get a good shot and eventually ended up with the shot attached.

Cobra: I understand the photo is lacking in the foreground but you have improved it considerably! What changes did you make please?

Many thanks,

Lee
 
Cobra said:
You know, I never really subscribed to the shoot in RAW hype.
Jpegs are just as manipulable as RAW's.

If the detail is not there, it doesn't matter what "file extension" you are using.
Click to expand...

Those two statements are a huge contradiction if you think about it... ;)
 
Leebert said:
Cobra: I understand the photo is lacking in the foreground but you have improved it considerably! What changes did you make please?
Many thanks,
Lee
Click to expand...
Lee, I don't use lightroom, as a lot on here do, that was manipulated in ACR, which as I understand it, is quite close to lightroom?
Hence I made it a screen grab, with the setting showing on the right hand side.
If you look at the little +/- signs alongside the tweaks, you can see what I increased or decreased.
Hope that helps?

Stu Blackpool said:
Those two statements are a huge contradiction if you think about it... ;)
Click to expand...
Not at all, I am saying is, there is (virtually) nothing between RAW and Jpeg.
Both are as manipulable as each other.
Without detail in any file, Jpeg, Tiff, RAW whatever,
then there is nothing to manipulate.
 
Agreed, if the data is not there then there is nothing you can do, BUT, but a RAW file holds a lot more data than a JPEG. JPGs are compressed and unused data is discarded, whereas the RAW file retains all the data.
 
Cobra said:
Lee, I don't use lightroom, as a lot on here do, that was manipulated in ACR, which as I understand it, is quite close to lightroom?
Hence I made it a screen grab, with the setting showing on the right hand side.
If you look at the little +/- signs alongside the tweaks, you can see what I increased or decreased.
Hope that helps?


Not at all, I am saying is, there is (virtually) nothing between RAW and Jpeg.
Both are as manipulable as each other.
Without detail in any file, Jpeg, Tiff, RAW whatever,
then there is nothing to manipulate.
Click to expand...

The latter comment here is absolute nonsense. You've obviously never had a really lacking Jpeg to bring back to life. RAW blows it away when there is often nothing you can do with a Jpeg. RAW is non destructive so you always retain whatever detail is in the original file. Every time you save a Jpeg you lose quality whereas you can rework a RAW file as often as required.
 
Last edited:
Lightroom is also way more powerful that camera raw, especially with the range of presets available and the new tools in LR5.
 
Cobra said:

Not at all, I am saying is, there is (virtually) nothing between RAW and Jpeg.
Both are as manipulable as each other.
Without detail in any file, Jpeg, Tiff, RAW whatever,
then there is nothing to manipulate.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid this just isn't true. My raw files are 14bit. My jpg version of the same file is 8bit. That's a LOT of missing data that I can't play with. If you need to recover a 1.5ev overexposed sky for example, no worries at all with a 14bit raw. Forget it with a jpg, it's gone forever.
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
Agreed, if the data is not there then there is nothing you can do, BUT, but a RAW file holds a lot more data than a JPEG. JPGs are compressed and unused data is discarded, whereas the RAW file retains all the data.
Click to expand...
Of course, we all know that Jpeg is a "lossy file"
I'm not disputing that.
I love the "chippy's" analogy, measure twice, cut once ;)

haggis said:
Lightroom is also way more powerful that camera raw, especially with the range of presets available and the new tools in LR5.
Click to expand...
, I'll take your word for that, as I've never used it. :thumbs:
I use ACR and CS5.
I'm more than happy with both, they fullfill my needs.

Stu Blackpool said:
I'm afraid this just isn't true. My raw files are 14bit. My jpg version of the same file is 8bit. That's a LOT of missing data that I can't play with. If you need to recover a 1.5ev overexposed sky for example, no worries at all with a 14bit raw. Forget it with a jpg, it's gone forever.
Click to expand...
We are going round in circles here Stu.
So lets agree to disagree.
Oh and BTW I do shoot RAW ;)
 
I know what you are saying Chris if you get the shot right or nearly so then there's b****r all difference but my reasoning is that I may as well shoot raw because if I don't get it right then a raw gives you a lot more latitude for adjustment
I found this especially with my old camera a 40D it used to give a blue cast in certain lighting conditions
And if you're shooting landscape like the OP here you won't be taking that many shots
I discovered lightroom about three years ago it was a revelation its amazing what you can do
:):)
 
LCPete said:
I found this especially with my old camera a 40D it used to give a blue cast in certain lighting conditions
Click to expand...
A lot of Canons are "famous" for that Pete, just set the white balance to cloudy, that warms everything up a tad :)

LCPete said:
I discovered lightroom about three years ago it was a revelation its amazing what you can do
:):)
Click to expand...
I really can't get on with lightroom at all. I've tried using most versions
until quite recently,
and decided that CS5 & ACR are still the best.
But that's a whole new debate and almost as good as Canon v Nikon or Mac v PC :D
 
Cobra said:
Without detail in any file, Jpeg, Tiff, RAW whatever,
then there is nothing to manipulate.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree that a jpg is as manipulable as any raw file. The difference is the amount of information available at the extremes of exposure, and where a jpg is compressed, losing detail in highlights and shadows, in a raw file any data is accessible and can be used to build an image a little closer to what the eye saw. IMO of course.

I've only been processing raw files since about Nov this year, but have been happily reworking jgs for years.
 
I tried using Lightroom 5 some time ago. I gave up and got rid of the trial. I looked at some youtube videos and thought I could do that. I redownloaded it and this time I've got used to using it.

The only niggle I have with it, is that I don't how it sharpens photos. and I seem to get a lot of noise on the photos too.
Apart from this, I love it. I bought a copy and should have it some time this week :)
 
DSC_0033-1_zps27c3d5d5.jpg~original


How much pop do you want (ouch - my eyes!). ;)

It's a bit crude & gaudy but I tried to do it quickly working from the raw file. Loaded it into lightroom, minimised highlights/maxed shadows, set black & white points, warmed up a touch, put a cool gradient with -0.57 stops exposure on the sky, took noise reduction up to about 22 (you used 400asa for a 1.3 sec exposure - could have used 100 for about 5sec and a cleaner image with more detail) chromatic aberration correction on. Took it across into perfect effects, used dynamic contrast to bring up details, then a warmup brush on foreground & lower sky, cold brush on hills and top sky and second warmup brush on lower sky only. Took it back to LR and added a moderate vignette, then exported to .jpg.

It's probably worth you downloading perfect effects 8 from on 1 software, assuming it's still free - http://www.ononesoftware.com/landing/pe8offer/

For basic image editing on the Mac have a look & see if fotor (photor?) is still free in the app store - easy to use, some handy tools for a quick & dirty tweak.
 
Leebert said:
It just looks 2D in comparison to others I have seen on here.
Click to expand...

Just picking up on this comment really which looking at the image you posted relates more to composition than processing. To get that "3d" effect you need strong foreground which your image doesn't really have.. processing will help colour/contrast somewhat but won't help with this

Simon
 
Leebert said:
Thanks for the replies.
The photo that instigated this thread is this one. I was taken just around Sun rise on Sunday but I can't seem to get it to look as it did to my eyes.
Click to expand...

You could pull more punch out of it with processing, as Toni has done, but to be honest, it's a bit of a dog's dinner. The fact is, great images (especially landscape) need great light... and yours just doesn't have it. No amount of post processing will recreate the great lighting a great landscape shot needs. There's a great deal of patience and luck involved in landscape, as well as skill. Anyone who chases the light, so to speak will attest to this. Lots of getting up at the crack of dawn, and returning empty handed. It's not a game for the impatient.


Cobra said:
You know, I never really subscribed to the shoot in RAW hype.
Jpegs are just as manipulable as RAW's.
Click to expand...

It's mathematically impossible, sorry. Argue all you want.. wont change anything.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's ever going to jump out at you, like a scene with great light/colours/clouds/foreground interest or whatever. My wife made a comment about it that I found interesting though, she said she quite liked it, in a quiet sort of a way, and it made her wonder about what was beyond the trees, what is the water, what would it be like living in those houses with a view down to the water etc.

There's also an issue I suppose of "pop" versus "realism". I know from my own experience with sunsets that I can quite often make a cloudscape look much more dramatic than the reality of it looking rather flat with very weak features of shape, texture and colour.

This version for example might be considered more "realistic" in terms of the colours and light (I don't know, I wasn't there!). That can have an appeal for some people, while others want higher contrast and stronger colours - a strong, punchy visual impact. Do you want a record of how it was, or an appealing image? For my part I try to create appealing images that (at least to me) look credible (that is, it could in reality have looked like that, although it might or might not have looked like that when the photo was taken).


NOT MY IMAGE - Leebert Landscape DSC_0033 Export Std by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
 
Thanks for all the helpful replies and to those who had a go. As has been said, time will be spent checking the forecasts in more detail and also investigating various locations out to try and improve my composition technique.

GardenersHelper said:
...There's also an issue I suppose of "pop" versus "realism". I know from my own experience with sunsets that I can quite often make a cloudscape look much more dramatic than the reality of it looking rather flat with very weak features of shape, texture and colour.

This version for example might be considered more "realistic" in terms of the colours and light (I don't know, I wasn't there!). That can have an appeal for some people, while others want higher contrast and stronger colours - a strong, punchy visual impact. Do you want a record of how it was, or an appealing image? For my part I try to create appealing images that (at least to me) look credible (that is, it could in reality have looked like that, although it might or might not have looked like that when the photo was taken).
Click to expand...

I think this statement defines what I was / am trying to do really. I would say that you have got it pretty much spot on to the actual view that I remember. Impressive considering you weren't there! Once I have a shot with a better composition (with the appropriate weather and light), I would like to generate an image that reflects the conditions at the time but with that added certain something that keeps the eye lingering and wanting to explore the photo.

Thanks,
Lee
 
Well as above, the screen grab in my post #13, from ACR (and a jpeg file) gives me all the control I need over white balance.
I don't understand anywhere near ALL the technicalities, that's not why I do photography.

So I'll leave the technical stuff to Ken Rockwell to explain.
 
Cobra said:
Well as above, the screen grab in my post #13, from ACR (and a jpeg file) gives me all the control I need over white balance.
I don't understand anywhere near ALL the technicalities, that's not why I do photography.

So I'll leave the technical stuff to Ken Rockwell to explain.
Click to expand...

So if you don't get it right in camera you're quite prepared to write it off when you can't recover the lack of detail in a Jpeg?
 
haggis said:
So if you don't get it right in camera you're quite prepared to write it off when you can't recover the lack of detail in a Jpeg?
Click to expand...
No you miss understand me, I have all the control I need from ACR and CS5.
If the highlights are blown sufficiently, that they are not recoverable, then yes, cutting room floor.

But lets all back up a little, this was a "beginner suffixed" question,
What I was trying to avoid was the OP getting swamped with A RAW v Jpeg argument,
which they may or may not have understood.
Or indeed may or may not have the means to process a RAW file.
RAW files come and go in various formats, / brands, as they have done for years.
Jpeg is here to stay, no matter what.
But it seems that was an epic fail on my part.
So to the OP I apologise on that score.

For my part as I have already mentioned, I do shoot RAW and process from RAW and Jpeg.
And I see no difference in the image quality / detail for my purposes.
 
CharlotteM said:
The knack to creating landscapes that go beyond a snapshot, so I hear, is endless studying of maps and weather reports with a healthy dose of many fruitless hours on a cold mountainside at 4am.
Click to expand...
It's never fruitless, although it's true that you might not get any photographs. There's something organic and primally marvellous about sitting on a hillside watching the sun come up (or not).

But you're quite correct that landscape photography is as much about planning and persistence as it is about taking pictures.
 
pwhysall said:
It's never fruitless, although it's true that you might not get any photographs. There's something organic and primally marvellous about sitting on a hillside watching the sun come up (or not).

But you're quite correct that landscape photography is as much about planning and persistence as it is about taking pictures.
Click to expand...

Sometimes sarcasm isn't easy to spot, is it? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top