Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 38 of 38

Thread: PLease help : Photos are not vibrant/rich enough.

  1. #21
    Moderator Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    12,388

    Default Re: PLease help : Photos are not vibrant/rich enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by NormanSelvaraju View Post
    Octarine >> Am back home now.. Tried installing DPP, but there is some software problem. I tried downloading an older version. It works but doesn't open my CR2 files. So updating using the updates from canon, but installation stops towards the end. So I'm gonna get a diff RAW file editor. Gonna try GIMP and Capture One Pro. Shall not get stuck in 3rd gear!!! Thanks!
    Use GIMP and the RAW file tool UFraw. Alternatively, use Adobe DNG converter, the DNG format is royalty free and can be read by many other tools as well.
    While Capture One Pro is a good tool (I use Lightroom), you will need to buy a license to continue using it after trial period. And you cannot export the RAW processing steps for further usage.
    EOS

  2. #22

    Default Re: PLease help : Photos are not vibrant/rich enough.

    Octarine >>. Thanks! Tried for a couple of hours, bu can't seem to find any solution to work with RAW. However, I just managed to get the Adobe DNG convertor 7.2. Its converting the RAW files!

    And I'm using PS CS4 with Camera Raw 5.7.

    Yup. I'm gonna explore formulating and getting used to a good workflow.

    Thanks for pointing me in the right direction!!

  3. #23
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: PLease help : Photos are not vibrant/rich enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by jfxberns View Post
    The great Ansel Adams said:

    "The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways."

    The RAW file is the modern equivalent of the negative and your output medium (screen, print, whatever) is the equivalent of the print.

    The idea being, the print is always somebody's interpretation of the negative, and the negative, in turn is just a representation of the reality you sought to capture.

    In the end (at least in my opinion), our job is not to capture some image that absolutely reflects reality (isn't all reality subjective?), but render an interesting and personal interpretation of the reality we captured.

    Photography, as an art, is as much a reflection of who we are as the light we seek to capture is a reflection of the reality we observe.
    Even when shooting RAW, the process of shooting is already going through our own filters in our perception of reality. The moment you "compose" or "frame", you are choosing what to include and exclude in a frame. You are already affecting perceived reality. And with addition of filters like GND, or by dragging the shutter, adding flash, we are changing "reality" even more.

    It is not wise to just depend on post processing. The key of shooting is to have a visual vison of what you want a picture to be when looking at a scene with your eyes. From then, just get everything else into place, like exposure, filters, additional light and the post processing required, to come to the final picture. Even the great Ansel Adams himself will work to determine (using his zone system) where the exposure of his camera will lie to best capture the dynamic range of the scene in his large format film negative. On days where conditions are not "perfect" he would just turn around and not shoot at all. And yes, he does do post processing too, spending days and weeks in the dark room to get the picture just right, before making another master print negative that will be used for printing of the final print.

    So, knowledge and skill in shooting it right in camera is just as important as post processing, in that they are the tools that will help your achieve your vision.
    Last edited by daredevil123; 9th February 2013 at 11:53 AM.

  4. #24

    Default Re: PLease help : Photos are not vibrant/rich enough.

    Daredevil >> Thanks for the tip.. Yeah, I too understand and I want to improve to the level where I don't have to depend on post-processing to make the photo an exact representation of what I wanted to capture.

    Unfortunately, I can't seem to achieve that all the time. However, I understand that it comes with a lot of experimenting, learning and hard work. So I'm looking forward to the day when I can achieve that standard.

    In the meanwhile, there are some photos that I like (composition wise) but unfortunately, the technical aspects of my photo-taking don't o justice to the image. Hence, I am exploring ways on "rescuing" the image using post-processing.

    Additionally, I think its great practice for me in terms of developing good post processing to become a complete all-rounded photographer.

  5. #25
    Senior Member digitalpimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Shèng Gǎng
    Posts
    2,744

    Default Re: PLease help : Photos are not vibrant/rich enough.

    You want your photos to look more rich and vibrant?

    Three words: LAB Color Space

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    sing
    Posts
    3,353

    Default Re: PLease help : Photos are not vibrant/rich enough.

    Set to Vivid.

    Buy RX-1 for ultra vivid saturated colours - whether this is good depends on personal taste.
    Last edited by ricohflex; 10th February 2013 at 08:46 PM.

  7. #27

    Default Re: PLease help : Photos are not vibrant/rich enough.

    digitalpimp >> I just tried using the LAB colour space. Very easy way to make the images pop! I'll certainly be using it in future!

    The link to the quick 7 step fix on PS for those interested.
    Turn Ho-Hum Color into WOW! with Photoshop

    Two words for you : Awe - Some!
    Thanks!

    ricohflex >> Thank for pointing me to the RX-1. However, I think before I jump to a new machine, I had better learn more with my very recently purchased Canon EOS650D. Its barely 3 months old and my shutter count is only about 1500. I'll keep the RX 1 in mind for future reference. Though I think the 650D can produce thetype of vibrant rich images once I learn more.

    Thanks anyways!

  8. #28
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: PLease help : Photos are not vibrant/rich enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by NormanSelvaraju View Post
    Daredevil >> Thanks for the tip.. Yeah, I too understand and I want to improve to the level where I don't have to depend on post-processing to make the photo an exact representation of what I wanted to capture.

    Unfortunately, I can't seem to achieve that all the time. However, I understand that it comes with a lot of experimenting, learning and hard work. So I'm looking forward to the day when I can achieve that standard.

    In the meanwhile, there are some photos that I like (composition wise) but unfortunately, the technical aspects of my photo-taking don't o justice to the image. Hence, I am exploring ways on "rescuing" the image using post-processing.

    Additionally, I think its great practice for me in terms of developing good post processing to become a complete all-rounded photographer.
    It is a long long journey my friend.

    In the meantime, you start by knowing your camera better. Read more or attend courses. If you are not familiar with how your camera works, how can you use it to capture your vision?

    Focus on shooting it right, not on rescuing bad pictures.

  9. #29

    Default

    Daredevil>>. Yeah. I know it's a long journey. That's why I'm patiently pacing myself in terms of practicing, reading books, watching instructional videos etc. I've read the camera manual cover to cover. And now, I'm exploring it's functions thru taking photographs and being critical about them. the fact that you guys provide constructive criticism is absolutely awesome as well.

    Just from this one thread, I feel like I have been given so much to explore and learn.

    - shoot using vivid mode
    - post process the raw files instead of jpeg
    - edit using lab colour setting
    - ascertaining correct exposure before shot to reduce time spent on post processing and to get the correct colours
    - exposure bracketing
    - one digital negative can give rise to a million interpretations

    It's really great to have many enthusiastic members who are willing to share knowledge.

    Thanks all!

  10. #30
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    3,443

    Default Re: PLease help : Photos are not vibrant/rich enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by NormanSelvaraju View Post
    Daredevil>>. Yeah. I know it's a long journey. That's why I'm patiently pacing myself in terms of practicing, reading books, watching instructional videos etc. I've read the camera manual cover to cover. And now, I'm exploring it's functions thru taking photographs and being critical about them. the fact that you guys provide constructive criticism is absolutely awesome as well.

    Just from this one thread, I feel like I have been given so much to explore and learn.

    - shoot using vivid mode
    - post process the raw files instead of jpeg
    - edit using lab colour setting
    - ascertaining correct exposure before shot to reduce time spent on post processing and to get the correct colours
    - exposure bracketing
    - one digital negative can give rise to a million interpretations

    It's really great to have many enthusiastic members who are willing to share knowledge.

    Thanks all!
    Probably you would have know....but just pointing it out...

    Vivid mode will only apply the settings to JPEG. If you are using RAW to process in software like Lightroom or Photoshop, you won't be able to see the Vivid mode settings being applied (I think the only thing applied in those software is the White Balance). But if you are using the camera's default raw processing software like DPP, yes, you can see the Vivid mode and continue to work on from there.
    Too many great equipments but too little quality photos. [My Flickr] | [My Blog]

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    sing
    Posts
    3,353

    Default Re: PLease help : Photos are not vibrant/rich enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by NormanSelvaraju View Post

    ricohflex >> Thank for pointing me to the RX-1. However, I think before I jump to a new machine, I had better learn more with my very recently purchased Canon EOS650D. Its barely 3 months old and my shutter count is only about 1500. I'll keep the RX 1 in mind for future reference. Though I think the 650D can produce thetype of vibrant rich images once I learn more.

    Thanks anyways!
    Accurate true-to-life colours are NOT vivid. Preference for vivid is a personal taste. After a while, you may shed the liking for vivid. Vivid has its place for some photos.

    But when ALL Jpg photos coming out of the camera are vivid (even when you did not set the camera to vivid, i.e. the camera is at "normal" default colour setting) then there may come a time when you dislike it and consider them unreal over-the-top-saturated colours.

    Your Canon 650D is more than good enough. It is a very capable machine. And reasonably priced.
    The Canon 650D can handle EF and EF-S lenses.
    It has good video capability.
    It has an articulating LCD screen - important.
    It can change lenses - something the RX-1 can never do. You have a fantastic range of EF and EF-S lenses to choose from.
    It has good accurate colour.
    It is not over priced.
    It has a touch to focus on a part of the photo & fire shutter screen - good feature that Olympus EP3 also has.

    (edit) Con: It has a pentamirror, not a pentaprism.
    Last edited by ricohflex; 12th February 2013 at 03:15 PM.

  12. #32

    Default Re: PLease help : Photos are not vibrant/rich enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by ricohflex View Post
    It has a proper PENTAPRISM. Not a lousy pentamirror.
    It uses a pentamirror actually, if the local canon site is correct (and dpreview).
    I don't think pentamirrors are THAT terrible -- just got my first pentamirror DSLR a few days ago and am enjoying the compactness and lack of weight (not to mention it was cheap!).

    But I do agree about the 650D being more than good enough for the TS' needs.

    TS, the example photos you linked aren't suffering from a huge lack of colour saturation -- yes, the overexposure lowered the saturation, but these photos don't lend themselves to much saturation anyway. I think your PP-ed versions are a little overdone. Pick shots in good light if you want good colours.

    But more importantly, there is a lot more to these kind of street shots than just colour. Do have a look around the web (here is CS and elsewhere) and see what makes an interesting/appealing street shot. Develop a critical eye, and bin the shots that don't make the grade.

  13. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    sing
    Posts
    3,353

    Default Re: PLease help : Photos are not vibrant/rich enough.

    You are right. Thanks.
    Mixed that up with another model.
    Last edited by ricohflex; 12th February 2013 at 03:35 PM.

  14. #34
    Senior Member oceanpriest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Ghim Moh
    Posts
    3,453

    Default Re: PLease help : Photos are not vibrant/rich enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by jfxberns View Post
    Ansel Adams woke me up to a lot of what photography can be.

    Here's are some of his images on Google: ansel adams - Google Search
    his second book, the negative, is much better than those understanding/perfect/whatever exposure best selling books

    Quote Originally Posted by NormanSelvaraju View Post
    Daredevil >> Thanks for the tip.. Yeah, I too understand and I want to improve to the level where I don't have to depend on post-processing to make the photo an exact representation of what I wanted to capture.
    Perhaps you should shoot slide film, while you can

  15. #35

    Default Re: PLease help : Photos are not vibrant/rich enough.

    OceanPriest >> Slide Film? Haha.. I believe that it would teach me to acquire the skill and discipline discipline in double quick time. However, I think I'll stick to the DSLR. Its a lil more forgiving. But thanks!

    Ediwin Francis >> Thanks! Yeah, I've been scouring the web for street photos and I've been trying to read up as much as well. Currently reading "Chasing the Light" by Ibarionex Perello. I kinda understand what "street photography" generally means. At the same time, I'm trying to understand what I want to represent in this genre of photos.

    And yeah, i think ultimately, I need to recognize the correct technical aspects of a situation has so that I can use the correct settings to bring out what I want in a photograph of that scene. You are right that street photos are more than just about colour. (Haha. in fact a vast majority is in BnW)

    ricohflex >> Thanks! Yeap. I got the 650D at a decent price with a nice package of goodies as well! Didn't know about the pentamirror/prism thing. But thinaks for highlighting it! Shall keep it in mind for future use. Unless manufacturers abandon the pentaprism for the cheaper alternative!

  16. #36

    Default Re: PLease help : Photos are not vibrant/rich enough.

    Skystrike >> Thanks for that really important piece of info. I didn't know that the vivd setting only affects the jpeg and not the raw. Appreciate the heads up! I guess I 'll leave it as default and work on capturing the photo without it. Then I'll use PS if necessary.

  17. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Sembawang
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Camera's metering is not fool proof and different scenes demand different compensation over what camera decides. Not sure if someone already mentioned about histogram.
    Learn what histogram is and how u can improve ur photos' exposure by using this tool.
    You can find many tutorials online.
    If the exposure is correct usually the jpgs from camera r pretty good already and even if u process raw u need very little pp.
    Compare the histogram of good and bad photos u will see the difference.

  18. #38

    Default Re: PLease help : Photos are not vibrant/rich enough.

    iarshad >> Hi.. Thanks for the tip. Just reading the book "Chasing the light" and I understand now that sometimes when a scene has very contrasting colours, the exposure meter will be off. I'll take note of that in future.

    And yeah, histograms will be something that I will read up on next.

    Thanks!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •