noticed that my uncle can take great shots which the colors are very nice... well, he's using a F801 and i had a dynax 5... any tips on how to have vibrant colors? i know got to do with my skills as well
yeocolin said:Is your uncle using professional slides or just negatives? Even if using negatives, is he using professional negatives or the usual off the shelf negatives? Professional film, other than their names, are also differentiated by that they are kept refrigerated. They are generally more vibrant than amateur film, not to mention they cost more too.
Finally, check if your uncle goes to a professional lab while you go to a smaller scale lab. Pro labs generally take more care when printing from film.
Not forgetting, just go and ask your uncle how does he do it and come teach us all. :sweat:
stl said:noticed that my uncle can take great shots which the colors are very nice... well, he's using a F801 and i had a dynax 5... any tips on how to have vibrant colors? i know got to do with my skills as well
I am sorry pal but I just have to say this. Do not mislead others if you are not sure. Underexposing a negative film will not give you saturated colors and on the contrary it causes your shadow area to loose detail and get slightly muddier. If you need better color saturation, shoot at a slightly overexposed setting of less than 1 stop and tell the printer to print it darker. This way, you get better color and saturation and also a boosted contrast.coke21 said:Use Fuji Reala. The colours are more vibrant and punchier compared to the normal films. My opinion at least. However, you pay more for the film....
You can try underexposing your shots by one stop, the colours tend to be slightly saturated I think.
Andy Ho said:It is a misconception by many that the camera plays a part in colour saturation. It is a bigger misconception that only proper lighting gives you saturated colours. Works by Steve McCurry for National Geographic was taken in mostly conditions of overcast sky. It is your knowledge of colours and the performance of the film that counts. Of course, I am not saying that good lighting doesn't help but just saying that we can still take nice pictures in bad lighting too. It is how one balances the surrounding colours, available or artificial lights, and composition to create an outstanding picture.
I use slides 95% of the time when shooting with films and I chose Kodak E100VS for the extra punch and color saturation. Problem is Kodak E100VS is so very contrasty that one often looses details in the shadow area. A good photographer is also one who understands the characteristics of his films and work out a method to balance the lighting between the high-light and shadow area. Many complaint that using flash is artificial but with proper use of flash and placement of light angle one is able to create dramatic looking pictures.
The other thing is playing around with filters. Though I shant away from filters to boost colours in my pictures, I never omit the needs for a polarizing filter and in most landscapes, a set of graduate neutral density filters. These are just examples of what can be used to enhance colors in a picture and I wouldn't dwell on the technicalities involved.
The other way is to digitize your pictures and enhance colors in Photoshop. But in order to do so, one must still have the fundamentals of getting the colors right on film before you can work something out in Photoshop. There is always the saying, garbage in, garbage out. I personally hate to increase color saturation in Photoshop because E100VS is giving more than enough color saturation that if I were to increase it anymore everything would look too unnatural.
To end it all, enhanced color saturation is to what a lot of designers think, a thing of the past. I am a photographer and many of my clients are looking for pictures that are clinically clean and/or colors muted and I can tell everyone here that my Pulau Ubin pictures are considered a thing of the past. I kept it because it is something which I can never re-create again as most of the scenes are almost non-existent anymore.
Regards,
Andy Ho
My CS Gallery
Hi Kit,Kit said:Well, we've heard a lot of that haven't we? "Know this and that will make you a better photographer". "Know what you use will give you better results"..... yada yada yada.....
How about setting the record straight and enlighten us with the details and technicalities? Share with us how you were given an undesirable lighting situation and still made the most out of it maybe. How you worked out the "balance" with actual examples. What's the correct filter to use with examples. How you place your flash so that the results wouldn't look unnatural. How to avoid putting garbage into your comp. You'll sound a lot more convincing then.
You sound like you know a lot. So why don't you just share pointers instead of complaining so much about whether I am convincing or not? If the example of Steve McCurry from NatGeo that I gave is not enough to convince you that photos may be taken in bad lighting conditions, then what else can I say? I guess you probably don't understand. We are talking about saturated colors and not beautiful lighting. If you still don't get it, why don't you subscribe to NatGeo and see for yourself the kind of quality pictures that could be achieved on days with bad lighting? Don't waste anybody's time mumbling like an old heck.Kit said:This is what I expected..... as usual.
No offence but first, you wrote such a long message regurgitating what's readily available on the net. Then you wrote another equally long message saying you do not wish to waste everybody's time by sharing your knowledge??? Sorry, but you're still far from being convincing.
We don't expect you to write whatever you know here, something that would back up your claim in the first message would suffice. If you think this is a waste of time, then perhaps you shouldn't have wasted your time writing the first message in the first place.
Andy Ho said:You sound like you know a lot. So why don't you just share pointers instead of complaining so much about whether I am convincing or not? If the example of Steve McCurry from NatGeo that I gave is not enough to convince you that photos may be taken in bad lighting conditions, then what else can I say? I guess you probably don't understand. We are talking about saturated colors and not beautiful lighting. If you still don't get it, why don't you subscribe to NatGeo and see for yourself the kind of quality pictures that could be achieved on days with bad lighting? Don't waste anybody's time mumbling like an old heck.
Now I am not trying to be diplomatic!
Andy Ho
Andy Ho said:Don't waste anybody's time mumbling like an old heck.
stl said:noticed that my uncle can take great shots which the colors are very nice... well, he's using a F801 and i had a dynax 5... any tips on how to have vibrant colors? i know got to do with my skills as well
KNIGHT ONG said:Hi Kit and Andy Ho, I am not the moderator here but I do hope that both of you ceased firing at each others. It served no purpose and may spoil our relationship here. :cry:
We are suppose to give suggestion to "stl" on how to get vibrant color on film rite ?
Thanks ..