EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 picture colour


Status
Not open for further replies.

leowster

New Member
May 8, 2009
18
0
1
42
Hi. I'm a newbie to DSLR photography.

Was wondering why the pictures taken by this len appear very white? Picture taken of my gal at aperture 4.0. I find the pictures taken are all very bright. Do I need to turn down the contrast to darker? Can anyone share some pointers?

Thank you very much.

 

2evans

New Member
Nov 8, 2007
1,849
0
0
What is your white balance set to? If it's set to AWB, it can be fooled by the indoor lights.
 

rendition

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2008
1,976
0
36
Singapore
www.VisualVerve.sg
I see no problem with the picture. Is it your monitor? Anyways, PictureStyle may affect how your pictures look so if you like something richer, try using the Standard PictureStyle and adjust the parameters, maybe can start with increasing the Saturation my 2. No, contrast won't make your pictures darker, it's... contrast not brightness. You'll just get a darker shadows and brighter highlights – higher contrast.
 

lordpain

Senior Member
Feb 22, 2007
949
0
16
I would say its the quality of your light. You are probably taking under a florescent lamp, which already gives a very flat lighting to the subject. Try taking your daughter outdoors and try some shots. The suns rays will reflect a higher range of light in the spectrum, resulting in more vivid colors.

Alternatively, if you need to shoot indoors, try to make use of natural light, like near the windows or doors etc.

Hope this helps.
 

dRebelXT

New Member
May 14, 2005
1,636
0
0
is it true non-L canon lens does bad at red color?
last time i use 100 macro at pinkish flowers, the color all turn out different, red, with AWB, and the difference is so distince.
 

calebk

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,588
0
0
Clementi
is it true non-L canon lens does bad at red color?
last time i use 100 macro at pinkish flowers, the color all turn out different, red, with AWB, and the difference is so distince.
Canon lenses, and Nikon lenses, and all other original manufacturer's lenses, are supposedly manufactured to a certain degree of uniformity where colour rendition is, and should be, uniform across the board. So, I don't think the problem lies with your lens being L/non-L, but rather the white balance, or simply the fact that the camera is not able to handle red well.

From my personal experience, my 30D did not handle red very well - it went more towards magenta, so I needed to correct it every time. Now using the 1DII, I don't have that problem anymore, regardless of lens.
 

aungzawwin

New Member
Feb 16, 2008
610
0
0
the blue planet
Hi. I'm a newbie to DSLR photography.

Was wondering why the pictures taken by this len appear very white? Picture taken of my gal at aperture 4.0. I find the pictures taken are all very bright. Do I need to turn down the contrast to darker? Can anyone share some pointers?

Thank you very much.
i think it may be due to WB and using high ISO. under indoor fluorescent light, AWB (or even fluorescent WB setting) of my 40D usually makes the pix of my kids pale too..
and high ISO adds up loss of contrast..
 

nottipiglet

New Member
Apr 20, 2006
1,087
0
0
The lens is great. You need to check the AWB setting as well as the quality of existing light. If you shoot in fluorescent lighting, the colour will tend to be poorer.

This is taken with a 450D and the 17-55mm. Absolutely nothing wrong with the colour. In fact, the colour quality is on par with Ls. The only thing this lens lack compared with a true L is the build quality.

 

jeremyteocx

New Member
Dec 28, 2008
358
0
0
Singapore
The lens is great. You need to check the AWB setting as well as the quality of existing light. If you shoot in fluorescent lighting, the colour will tend to be poorer.

This is taken with a 450D and the 17-55mm. Absolutely nothing wrong with the colour. In fact, the colour quality is on par with Ls. The only thing this lens lack compared with a true L is the build quality.

nice colors and cute girl there ... but probably not the best shot to use as comparison to TS's. your's has natural sunlight, nearer background objects, and nicer colours in the background. TS's photo only has indoor fluorecent, and the color of the subjects are relatively dull to start off with.

to the point, TS u can either change the styles, WB (can shoot in RAW and change later), or use PP to up the color n saturation. cute girl there too!
 

nottipiglet

New Member
Apr 20, 2006
1,087
0
0
If you shoot in natural light, and the subject is properly exposed, then the colour will tend to be good. If you shoot in artificial lighting, like fluorescent or tungsten, then the AWB of the camera will try to correct it, but more often than not, it will fail to get the ideal white balance.

If you shoot a lot of portrait, it pays to shoot RAW, and do a bit of extra work in Photoshop. A good book to reference would be 'Skin' by Lee Varis, which tells you how exactly to get the right skin tone.
 

leowster

New Member
May 8, 2009
18
0
1
42
Forget to add. The shot was taken hand-held, under florescent lighting around 9pm. All settings on auto. ISO was 1600 under picture properties. I switched to AV and just shoot. :sweatsm:

Will take note of the AWB when shooting indoors. Have yet to fully understand the rest of the settings in the camera. Been studying the manual for the past week!

Its really a huge step from the small digital camera that I owned! As for the build quality of the lens, I think its kinda rough with a small resistance around 20mm. Other than than, this lens is really great under low light!

The colours outdoor is definitely more richer than indoors. But I am amazed by the colour that was posted by nottipiglet! Very nice shot! Pretty gal too!

Thank you all for the pointers!

 

nottipiglet

New Member
Apr 20, 2006
1,087
0
0
You're most welcome. :)

I posted my picture to show a few things...

1. The colour of the 17-55 is way up there... in L heaven. There is no doubt about that. If you see poor colour, it is not the lens at fault.

2. The importance of light quality. It is not true that quality light can only be found outdoors. Window light is usually good as per my picture. Expect to lose saturation if you use fluorescent or tungsten light, even after you correct the temperature. You will need to do more work to get the skin tone right if you want to work with these lights. If you want quality artificial light, you can use flash or strobes with the correct colour temperature. But for these, you need to get the direction and diffusion right, else it will introduce excessive highlights and harsh shadows all in the wrong places, which is even worse than just relying on the original tungsten/fluorescent lighting.
 

nottipiglet

New Member
Apr 20, 2006
1,087
0
0
nice colors and cute girl there ... but probably not the best shot to use as comparison to TS's. your's has natural sunlight, nearer background objects, and nicer colours in the background. TS's photo only has indoor fluorecent, and the color of the subjects are relatively dull to start off with.

to the point, TS u can either change the styles, WB (can shoot in RAW and change later), or use PP to up the color n saturation. cute girl there too!
Thanks. :)

I posted my picture not as a comparison with the TS's. TS blamed the poor colours of his picture on the lens. He said he wondered why the colours taken by this lens is so white. I'm just trying to say that the poor colours has very little to do with the lens.
 

midicity

Senior Member
Mar 14, 2006
695
0
16
Are you shooting jpg? If so, change or adjust your picture style, punch up the saturation 1-2 notches from the default
 

Status
Not open for further replies.