Photo lacking colour saturation and vibrancy

[ManWearPants]

In summary, other than good frontal lightings and proper exposure. The other factors that will affect colours are

- lens;
- colour space - Adobe RGB or sRGB;
- calibrated monitor;
- environmental such as location, the grass is always greener overseas;


Of interest to me will be to find out if Canon sensors are more muted in colours. I will do a test using a different FF camera body later after the world cup. So will keep this thread open. In the meanwhile, If someone can do a Canon vs m4/3 raw comparison to see if there is any difference between the way the respective sensor affects the colour, it will also help.

 

[NewbieInCS]

In summary, other than good frontal lightings and proper exposure. The other factors that will affect colours are

- lens;
- colour space - Adobe RGB or sRGB;
- calibrated monitor;
- environmental such as location, the grass is always greener overseas;


Of interest to me will be to find out if Canon sensors are more muted in colours. I will do a test using a different FF camera body later after the world cup. So will keep this thread open. In the meanwhile, If someone can do a Canon vs m4/3 raw comparison to see if there is any difference between the way the respective sensor affects the colour, it will also help.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SonyNex5Nex3/page15.asp

You can try this. Side by side comparison, with colour chart included. Just select the camera model, but some not available.

 

[chris0804]

Personally, I find the photo to be fine and neutral. I know that there are photos that are over saturated and it makes the whole picture looks rather fake. I guess all the years of viewing TV now especially moving from cathode to plasma, to LCD and now to LEDs. Just look at the settings of our digital televisions now. I am sure that many of us has the setting to higher contrast, higher saturation etc. Personally, I like to set it to neutral because any other setting will tire the eyes over an extended period. Compare the pictures between Philips and Sony LCD/LED televisions, I prefer Philips, more neutral. Just out of curiosity, check your tv settings.

 

[zarray]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SonyNex5Nex3/page15.asp

You can try this. Side by side comparison, with colour chart included. Just select the camera model, but some not available.

wow cool. I just checked it out and seems like the 50D's colour is less saturated than the Nikon D300s and D3s.
The 1D4 is on par with the D3s and slightly more saturated that the D300s

 

[nightpiper]

I am using LR to manage and do minor adjustments, instead of Zoom Browser, then DPP. So you are saying that LR is not optimize to handle Canon raw files. Anyway, I will do a comparison using DPP and LR to manage the raw file.

U shud try out DPP & compare the results with similar settings on LR. U'll be surprise to see how much hue LR can't reproduce correctly & instead, juz replaced with a block of color.

Ok, here's my take with a before & after:

No matter what brand of camera & model, there'll be some PP required. Whether u want to do it or not is another matter altogether.

Here r a few more, w/o adjusting sat, contrast, etc. All i did was juz reduced false colour on the 40D.

I think its vibrancy & sat is good enuf. :lovegrin:

 

[unseen]

camera style do not apply to raw files. Also I know good lighting will give you better colours. What I am asking is when I look at my photo and the scene. Sometimes the colour is off/muted. Shouldn't it be WYSIWYG? If going by the theory that DSLR colours are muted to retain details, then all photos have to be either

1) apply camera style and capture in jpg
2) capture in raw but must pp to boost up saturation

It will never be WYSIWYG, isn't it? How to maintain realism?

dSLRs are never meant to be WYSIWYG. It is a tool that allows you to capture the image, and let you adjust it later on to show others what you want them to see. If you need the richer colours, go with the auto mode. If i'm not wrong it does do some basic pp on the images. Alternatively, use a PnS.

Not a very good analogy, but it's akin to saying that a F1 car doesn't drive very well on a normal road.

In summary, other than good frontal lightings and proper exposure. The other factors that will affect colours are

- lens;
- colour space - Adobe RGB or sRGB;
- calibrated monitor;
- environmental such as location, the grass is always greener overseas;


Of interest to me will be to find out if Canon sensors are more muted in colours. I will do a test using a different FF camera body later after the world cup. So will keep this thread open. In the meanwhile, If someone can do a Canon vs m4/3 raw comparison to see if there is any difference between the way the respective sensor affects the colour, it will also help.

You can go test ANY dSLR, unless it's preset to increase saturation, they'll give you more muted colors. Perhaps bar the Fuji dSLRs.

Why waste time do comparison? So what if you find that 1 camera is less muted?
Given a fixed colour space, given a calibrated monitor, the colour can almost always be compensated for in RAW with respects to environmental, lens, equipment (bar polarizer).

Time to use a dSLR like how it was meant.
Of course, if I'm not wrong, you can upload profiles into the camera so that part of the post processing is already done inbody.

 

[zarray]

I also found the colors from my 50D w/ tamron 17-50 to be rather muted.

In the end I discovered that it was a combination of 2 causes, one of which is that the 17-50 didn't produce colors as rich compared to my 50mm F1.8. The 2nd reason was because i was using Standard picture style mode. I tried landscape by accident and WOW...the colors feel nice and rich now.

Since then I exclusively shoot using Landscape picture style for everything except Portrait mode for portraits. Also looking to sell my 17-50 for a Canon 24-105 F4

Also its personal preference, but i prefer to PP out colors that are slightly over saturated rather than have to increase saturation.

 

[DarkPa1adin]

I may try the Sigma with its Foveon sensors if Sigmacumlaude managed to convert the SD15 to Ef mount.

I would too if they come out with an EF mount SD15 or sell an adapter.

 

[Wai]

By being over saturated/ too vibrant, details can be lost. So, DSLR tend to be more muted in colour compared to P&S. I have noticed that Nikon camera tend to produce photos that are more vibrant. A photograph is not necessary better when it is more vibrant, I believe the true color is very important.

That's the reason why i choose Canon. Others brand may give you more saturation and vibrancy out of the camera, which make the pic looks good at first sight....but IMO, the color will be too unnatural and fake to my liking.

 

[DarkPa1adin]

TS see this comparison

 

[betta01]

For me its the Vibrancy of the Nikon colours that made me part ways with Canon. Dun noe how to put it in words but the vibrant and lively colours produced by a Nikon never fail to bring a smile to mine face.

 

[nitewalk]

dSLRs are never meant to be WYSIWYG. It is a tool that allows you to capture the image, and let you adjust it later on to show others what you want them to see. If you need the richer colours, go with the auto mode. If i'm not wrong it does do some basic pp on the images. Alternatively, use a PnS.

Not a very good analogy, but it's akin to saying that a F1 car doesn't drive very well on a normal road.

Initially, I wished to do this when I bought a dslr. However, with the dslr, I started to cherish my eyesight. The thing is, the camera no matter what is just a device, it can never replace your eyes.

To me, WYSIWYG can in some sense be attained with PP. What you vision of the shot you took can be attainable in PP. However, perhaps the colour range of a dslr is still not as complex as that of a human eye (don't know! I don't do biology or something!).

IMHO, the shot need not be alot of saturation. In the beginning I always tuned the saturation until the photo became very "colourful". Soon I found it an eye sore and it doesn't feel authentic, nor does it feel like the shot belonged to me. I can't make comparisons as I've not used more than 1 makers of camera, but to me canon has what I wanted of a dslr. You could say a lifelong vegetarian would say the same of vege against meat.

 

[ManWearPants]

TS see this comparison

Wow...nice colours from the SD14, but this is jpg and probably processed by the processor. But Sigma does claim that it produces true colour and the only camera that tells the truth. Whether it is marketing hype or the truth, I will sure like to see for myself. I will wait for SD15.

http://www.sigma-sd.com/SD14/feature/index.html

 

[neech7]

For me its the Vibrancy of the Nikon colours that made me part ways with Canon. Dun noe how to put it in words but the vibrant and lively colours produced by a Nikon never fail to bring a smile to mine face.

You could've just changed the picture style setting on your Canon and get the same thing. Switching over to another system is a little extreme.

 

[neech7]

That's the reason why i choose Canon. Others brand may give you more saturation and vibrancy out of the camera, which make the pic looks good at first sight....but IMO, the color will be too unnatural and fake to my liking.

A.k.a. Mickey Mouse colour.

 

[daredevil123]

3) For the recent generation of Nikon camera , D300, D90 onwards, the colors are a little warmer and saturated

2 person agree with me it may be a Canon thingy

If you are talking about RAW output, I find the colors out of a Nikon RAW file is dull looking as well IF you open up the file in any non-Nikon software. It opens up beautifully in ViewNX/CaptureNX2, but being a Nikon software, it will read all the JPEG/Picture style settings and apply it when opening the RAW, making your starting point looking exactly the same as your in-camera JPEG.

In the end, it is all about how your RAW view/convertor presents the picture. If it just opens the RAW files and keeps all values flat, it will look flat. If you do not believe me, open your RAW file in DPP, and Lightroom. They will look very different when just opened.

Seriously, RAW is dull to begin with. It is just RAW sensor data.

 

[betta01]

Hi bro: I did experiment with changing picture style however the result is never similar to that of a Nikon in terms of colour. Canon and Nikon reads, process and output colour differently.

 

[neech7]

Hi bro: I did experiment with changing picture style however the result is never similar to that of a Nikon in terms of colour. Canon and Nikon reads, process and output colour differently.

Fair enough. Last time I used a Nikon was 30 years ago, so I don't think I can say anything definitive about it.

 

[devilcup]

I also found the colors from my 50D w/ tamron 17-50 to be rather muted.

In the end I discovered that it was a combination of 2 causes, one of which is that the 17-50 didn't produce colors as rich compared to my 50mm F1.8. The 2nd reason was because i was using Standard picture style mode. I tried landscape by accident and WOW...the colors feel nice and rich now.

Since then I exclusively shoot using Landscape picture style for everything except Portrait mode for portraits. Also looking to sell my 17-50 for a Canon 24-105 F4

Also its personal preference, but i prefer to PP out colors that are slightly over saturated rather than have to increase saturation.

i got the same situation as you, my tammy 17-50mm and my sigma 50mm F1.4. my sigma able to get more color then my tammy on my 500D. especially at low light condition.

guess it is the limitation of the lens. but this tammy is still good at outdoor shoot.

oso planning to get 24-105mm

 

[ManWearPants]

Wow...nice colours from the SD14, but this is jpg and probably processed by the processor. But Sigma does claim that it produces true colour and the only camera that tells the truth. Whether it is marketing hype or the truth, I will sure like to see for myself. I will wait for SD15.

http://www.sigma-sd.com/SD14/feature/index.html

Canon rumour has a CR0 that 3D is based on Foveon sensor...hmm...