Lifeless, dull photos

jank

I seem in my mind anyway to take dull and lifeless photos lacking any striking colour. When I look at other photos from other people on this site or flickr they seem to have much more striking colour and depth in their photos. Any hints or tips. I suppose I should post up an example or two to illustrate what I mean.

oshead

learn how to use photoshop and/or lightroom. Simple as that really.

jpb1974

Colour and depth wouldn't be the sole ingredients in what might be perceived as a good photo. I'd like to see a few examples before attempting to answer.

kelly1

jank wrote: »

I seem in my mind anyway to take dull and lifeless photos lacking any striking colour. When I look at other photos from other people on this site or flickr they seem to have much more striking colour and depth in their photos. Any hints or tips. I suppose I should post up an example or two to illustrate what I mean.

Probably something to do with the quality of the light. Yes, post a few examples. Very often, lack of contrast is a problem too.

K_user

Getting your photographs to "pop" is an art forum in itself.

Finding the right location/subject.

Getting the lighting right.

Catching the right moment.

Many of the photographs that you are comparing yours to are probably the work of much trail and error. The photographer probably approached the image in many different ways, with different lenses, with filters, from different angles, at different times. Had practiced the technique over and over again in the past. Used programs like photoshop to really bring out the best in the image.

Photography, like with any hobby, produces a lot of dud examples before you hit that sweet spot.

jank

[IMG]http://www.flickr.com/photos/23766707@N04/5471014746/" title="DSC_0393 by ulto, on Flickr[/IMG]







These are taken in RAW and completely untouched by an PS software.

jank

Can I not post flickr photos anymore?

K_user

I fumbled around and found the images.

So what do you see as the problem?

punchdrunk

Raw files normally look crap in comparison to Jpegs if they haven't been edited
with RAW some post production is a must

jank

I want the image to "pop" as someone said.

What should I fix the link to?

velopeloton

Original above and below after 20 seconds in light room. With the original raw you will get much better result than the jpeg. Raw files almost always need to be processed a bit. A polarising filter would also be a help here as it will enhance the blue in the sky and remove the reflection s on the water. I'm no expert by the way but that's how I would do it.

challengemaster

jank wrote: »

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23766707@N04/5471014746/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23766707@N04/5471012446/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23766707@N04/5470428421/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23766707@N04/5471014746/

These are taken in RAW and completely untouched by an PS software.

Here's the links anyway :P

If you don't process RAW photos in any way, then yes, they are going to be dull. I hope you won't mind if I edit some of the images?

Thecageyone

They're not nearly as flat as you made out in the first post. They just need a Kick of contrast and clarity.

challengemaster

Orig:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23766707@N04/5471012446/

edited version:


Some cloning, b&w filter (high contrast blue) set to multiply, brightness/contrast and some desaturation of the mountains

kelly1

There's no hope for those photos. Dull isn't the word!! :pac:

jank

Cheers for the comments.

@kelly1: What am I doing wrong here and how can I go about fixing it.

@challengemaster: Thanks for that. I think I remember the folliage on the hills being a bit greener than my original hence why I looked at it again when I was finished I was a bit dissapointed. Then again, it was a hazzy-ish day in Tasmania.

@velopeloton Cheers, I was actually using a PL filter there but I think the light let me down plus the photo is a bit meh, its really a photo of nothing and lacks composition. Did you up the saturation and increase the warmth of the photo in PS?

AnCatDubh

Sometimes, you need to understand that there just aint a vibrant picture in the scene that you are looking at. Yes, i know that sounds simple but it can actually be as simple as that. Just casually glancing through some of your flickr images, many appear to have been taken during really 'dull' days where there was poor light and there is little that you can do about such weather assuming you really wanted a photographic record of that scene. The light evident looks poor and light can play a big part.

Next, and i'm not 100% sure of the science behind it but the optics of whatever lens is attached to your camera can play a big part in producing an image which is rich in colour and full of aesthetically pleasing contrast -- this assumes the scene is in nice light. I have particular lens that I just know when I get the image into post-processing that I will have to bump the contrast significantly to get an image that i'm happy with.

A raw image will tend to be flat as its only a representation of what was on the sensor as opposed to a jpg which is the data taken from the sensor and processed somewhat. You will notice a significant difference if you shoot an image in raw and then switch into an 'auto mode' and take a jpg - then examine them both on your PC screen. The reason being that the 'auto mode' is a series of processing instructions applied to the sensor data -- yes, it has been photoshopped kinda, in your camera. So your camera may have a portrait mode for example which may attempt to enhance skin tones or a night mode which will 'expect' lots of darkness and apply a set of settings appropriate to such a scene.

In post processing, often less can be more so apply alterations in small doses is my recommendation.

Typically (and depending on what post processing software you are using), the basic 'fixes' are brightness and contrast, curves and/or levels - google a S-Curves and photoshop - infact here's one which whether you use photoshop or not gives a reasonable account. You may also set about bumping the saturation within your post processing software or play with various slider controls of your post processing software. Also, the blacks slider in something like lightroom (also achievable with levels in most other packages) tends to be something which lots of people find can give a nice depth to the image - reinforcing the shadows within the image.

So, don't lose the faith - seek out a day where there is really good light (bright but not harsh). Seek out a vibrant scene. Capture it in raw and jpg. Compare. Process the raw having researched some of the concepts mentioned and I think you'll find the end product/output will be far more satisfying.

jank

Cheers for the detailed reply. Yea most of the photos on flickr were taken while I was travelling so the ability to wait for good light on a particular time of day was a bit curtailed but I take the point. I just need to get out there on certain days and look for the good light.
Also those photos that I have just posted up have been the first I posted with my Nikon D90 the rest were taken with a Lumix Z28 in jpeg.
I suppose I need to be more patient and always go over the basics.


Edit, can you edit the "curves" of a photo using lightroom?

AnCatDubh

jank wrote: »

can you edit the "curves" of a photo using lightroom?

Yes. Most post processing software will have curves manipulartion available. The Gimp is an alternative to photoshop which is free to download/use (albeit a little quirky eh..... fun)

magicbastarder

challengemaster wrote: »

If you don't process RAW photos in any way, then yes, they are going to be dull.

i don't see the sense in this comment. RAW is not an inherently 'dull' format.

kelly1

Jank, sorry for being facetious. Have a look at the attached and see what you think?

I reduced the exposure, increased the black slider, boosted contrast and in the curves in increased Lights and decreased Darks. Then added a slight vignette.

Thecageyone

That is too contrasty IMO.

AnCatDubh

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't see the sense in this comment. RAW is not an inherently 'dull' format.

RAW is pretty neutral though? Loading a RAW into RAW processor software with no settings will lead to a pretty neutral image - to some this might be considered dull perhaps. To my thinking RAW is data about what made up the scene as it hit the camera sensor rather than what we commonly know as a digital photograph ie. a jpg file - The raw processed in some way yields the jpg (digital photograph)

Thecageyone

I always look at RAW files as the digi-equivalent of film negatives. Both requiring processing of some sort.

velopeloton

jank wrote: »

Cheers for the comments.


@velopeloton Cheers, I was actually using a PL filter there but I think the light let me down plus the photo is a bit meh, its really a photo of nothing and lacks composition. Did you up the saturation and increase the warmth of the photo in PS?

In Lightroom3.
I gave a little warmth.
Used recovery & blacks slider to give it a bit more detail and used fill light to brighten it up and then increased the vibrancy a bit to bring out the colour. I did not change the saturation.

PopeBuckfastXVI

AnCatDubh wrote: »

RAW is pretty neutral though? Loading a RAW into RAW processor software with no settings will lead to a pretty neutral image - to some this might be considered dull perhaps. To my thinking RAW is data about what made up the scene as it hit the camera sensor rather than what we commonly know as a digital photograph ie. a jpg file - The raw processed in some way yields the jpg (digital photograph)

Untouched raws from my camera are always 'flat', and always need contrast adjustment, always.

magicbastarder

sometimes i have to take contrast out (e.g. boost shadows), sometimes i add it in. sometimes i don't really play with the contrast at all. i wouldn't say there's any obvious trend.

sineadw

@OP, personally, I've been moving further and further away from images that "pop" (or the ones that people seem to refer to as popping anyway). I think it's important to see your images as yours, and not try to make them look exactly the same as the 6 squillion other images uploaded to Flickr etc that have the same Lightroom presets or Guy Gowan actions applied to them and all look as overdone as each other. That's a very personal thing and a matter of personal taste though.

That being said, you can achieve a lot with a simple levels layer: open the image (Gimp is free if you don't have photoshop You'll need UF raw or similar for raw images) and apply a levels layer to it. Then go in to the red channel in the levels layer and make sure the little arrows are pointing to the edge of where the graph starts to show detail, and that the arrows in the slider under it are at 0 and 255. Like this:



(although that one is only in the main RGB level - you need to go into each - and the right hand arrow needs to be pulled to the left a little - hopefully you see what I mean though). Do the same to the green and blue. This will increase the 'vibrance' of your image without overdoing it as long as you don't clip any of the detail in the graph out, and will also get rid of any funny colour casts on your image). If this isn't enough, then a gentle S curve on a curves layer usually does it. I usually go very softly on this or you lose all the detail in your blacks and whites. In general I just do that, clone any nasty dust marks or anything, resize and sharpen. I think 99 times out of a hundred that's all that you need to do.

Hope that helps

pixbyjohn

jank wrote: »

I seem in my mind anyway to take dull and lifeless photos lacking any striking colour. When I look at other photos from other people on this site or flickr they seem to have much more striking colour and depth in their photos. Any hints or tips. I suppose I should post up an example or two to illustrate what I mean.

You could try changing the settings in camera for a start, below is your present settings.
Contrast Normal
Saturation Normal
Sharpness Normal

sineadw

I think they're just settings for the jpeg preview in camera?

pixbyjohn

sineadw wrote: »

I think they're just settings for the jpeg preview in camera?

No they affect the jpg output .

Thecageyone

I don't think giving images a little depth, or "pop" is a trend. Flat is just ... flat. This can often mean bland.

I think everyone should have their own style of processing along with overall style of photography. But I know I pass over most flatter images unless they have something else to compensate for lack of "pop"

For a little more depth to your jpegs off cam, try the Vivid setting and push the contrast and sharpness up a tiny bit. Should help. Or just get used to shooting RAW and post-processing.

sineadw

pixbyjohn wrote: »

No they affect the jpg output .

But the OP is shooting RAW, so they only affect the preview.

Thecageyone

Yeah, for raw files it doesn't matter what in camera processing you do.


I used to sketch a lot. When I did I'd use shading to give a drawing apparent depth. I view photos the same, they don't have to be all out punchy, but a little depth can lift an image off the screen/paper. When I think flat, direct grey scale conversion springs to mind.