What have I been doing wrong?

<p>...or what have I NOT been doing?<br>

I'm using a canon 450d and most of the time 50mm 1.8 and usually use the "P" on the dial (whatever that means). Last weekend, we went to a gorgeous resort. I was so excited and took a lot of pictures at exactly noon so the lighting was intense.<br>

I notice that all my shots (even at home) are not as colorful as I want them to be.<br>

Here is the untouched photo:<br>

I had to edit it using Photoshop to achieve this (the color that I want, and I think what I saw that day):<br>

My pictures always seem to have that thin sheet/film over them that hinders the true colors.<br>

When I browse other galleries, I see that their photos are untouched (no software used). My question is, how do I achieve those colorful shots just with my SLR without editing?</p>

 

<p><em>and usually use the "P" on the dial (whatever that means).<br /></em><br />I promise, it's right there in your owner's manual!<br /><br />What sort of files are you getting out of your camera? Are you having it produce JPGs, or are you working with RAW files? I'm going to guess, from other clues, that you're shooting right to JPGs.<br /><br />When your camera creates a JPG file, it <em>is</em> doing some image processing, right then and there. Things like contrast, color vividness (saturation) sharpness, etc... you have the ability right in your camera's menu system, to tell it how to do those things.<br /><br />You also have to think about technique. In your example, the image appears to be a bit overexposed, which will contribute to that washed-out feeling you're getting. You need to read your manual about how to choose from your different metering methods, and learn how to select which part of the scene in front of you should be what the camera uses to gauge the exposure. When you're in "P" mode, you're basically leaving it all up to the camera - and it's making a guess.<br /><br />The camera has no idea if that large object in the foreground is supposed to be bright or dark. It has no idea if that distant interior area at the top of the frame is supposed to look shady or like daylight. It has no idea that the colorful plant is the thing that you're compositionally interested in. <br /><br />What it DOES know is that the large area at the bottom is taking up a good part of the frame... and so it's averaging the exposure around putting that large area roughly into the middle of the range, light-wise. Hence the middle-toned outcome in that area. For all the camera knows, that large light-brown area is actually someone's face in a possible portrait. The plant you're showcasing is only occupying a tenth or so of the image - and isn't what the camera is mostly thinking about.<br /><br /><br /></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>When I browse other galleries, I see that their photos are untouched (no software used).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't get too disheartened; if you look on the gallery page at the definition of 'unmanipulated' you will see:</p>

<blockquote>

<h2>Unmanipulated</h2>

<ul>

<li>a single uninterrupted exposure </li>

<li>cropping to taste </li>

<li>common adjustments to the entire image, e.g., color temperature, curves, sharpening, desaturation to black and white </li>

<li>dust spots on sensor cloned out </li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>So yes, they may well be (probably are) maniulated as long as the change is made to the whole image.<br>

But nothing beats getting it right in camera first time (for me, it is personal satisfaction as well as less computer work). I think your original shot is a wee bit overexposed and is nothing that experience won't cure, but it is potentially a tricky one - you have got the reflective surfaces of the plant and the varnished wood, with the dark areas of the roof, plant pots and tree. One thing you can try on sunny days is to fit a polariser that can help to increase saturation of colours.</p>

<p>Looking at the two sample photos you linked to, the original version looks good. Very natural colors. The second version appears "overcooked" to me - the boost in saturation and contrast appears unnatural.</p>

<p>Is it possible your monitor isn't showing you the full potential of your photos? Without a properly adjusted computer system it's difficult to evaluate editing decisions. For casual use it doesn't necessarily need to be calibrated, but should be adjusted well enough to be able to evaluate photos for web display. If your computer is used by the entire family it's possible other folks are changing adjustments to suit themselves, making it difficult for you to evaluate your photos.</p>

<p>You know what, as I get better at photography, I am finding that I am no longer satisfied with the look of my pictures right out of the camera. I find the colors are not how I am seeing them. I used to not notice these things... now I do. I think to some extent you have to do some PP to your photos otherwise you may never be satisfied. With colors, I find it's as simple as adding some saturation. </p>

<p>As Matt Laur pointed out, it depends on what the camera is seeing, which area in the picture is used for expsoure setting and the dynamic range of light in the picture. However, that white thing is the digital noise which will always be present in CCD or CMOS cameras. You cannot avoid it. Good cameras will have less of it. Thats the process anyway even with film. you can also see the same noise when you scan a film/slide or photograph. Anything digital you get this noise. As Mike pointed out, all pictures go through basic image processing, before they come online. :).....thats my opinion.</p>

<p>"I was so excited and took a lot of pictures at exactly noon so the lighting was intense."<br>

If you do some reading, you will find that high noon is probably the worst time to take photographs in terms of reproducing vivd colors. The intense light creates shaodws and glare that will obscure what our minds recall as vivid colors.</p>

<p>Before going down the PS route did you (or have you) considered a polarising filter?</p>

<p>Did you have a (? quality) UV filter on. From the histogram, your picture did show a sign of veil flare. Perhaps it is from over expose as Matt suggested or may be not. I would take off the filter (if you have one) and/or put on a hood next time and see if it improve.</p><div></div>

<p>One point that hasn't been mentioned is that bright, clear sunlight at noon will often give somewhat washed-out looking colors. Bright, directional light tends to give specular highlights. Specular highlights are places that you're getting basically a direct reflection of the light source off the surface of the object. In the case of leaves, flower petals, etc., that can happen areas ranging from quite large to extremely small spots -- the tiny places that the texture happens to give exactly the angle to reflect the light source. In your picture, there are some pretty large specular highlight areas, where there's little or no color showing at all.</p>

<p>Strange as it may sound, you'll often get the brightest looking pictures of flowers under the dullest looking lighting conditions. A dull overcast day and careful exposure can give nice, bright colors. If you want even brighter colors, wait for a day that's not just overcast, but drizzling a bit of rain a well.</p>

<p>As Lex's post suggests, however, this can also lead to colors that look overcooked and somewhat unrealistic -- even if you minimize processing to the point that they're quite accurately rendered for the conditions under which you took the picture, that's not when most people look at flowers and such.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, I have to disagree with Umesh: while it's certainly true that digital photographs inevitably exhibit some noise, I don't think noise is a significant factor in <em>these </em> photographs. Noise is most problematic at high ISO equivalents, and as you noted these were taken under intense light, so the ISO equivalent should have been (and appears to have been) quite low, so noise isn't really a contributing factor.</p>

<p>I've enclosed a marked-up version of your picture, outlining a couple of spots that are in direct sunlight and spots of similar leaves that are receiving more diffuse lighting -- the diffusely lit areas look a lot more saturated to me...</p><div></div>

<p>The best thing would be to learn more about exposure and general photography techniques (including how to use polarizing filters), and to shoot in RAW and learn postprocessing. But that's a lot of learning to do and maybe this is not what you are after.<br>

The fastest way to get your in-camera JPGs to come out more like the 'edited' image, is to create a 'picture style' in your camera that does the editing for you. Start from the 'landscape' picture style, and increase both contrast and saturation. Save it, and use this picture style for future photographs. See the manual if needed.</p>

<p>I think it might also have something to do with color profiles and color management. Is the first file uploaded straight from the camera, or was it post-processed? If straight from the camera, is your camera configured to use sRGB or Adobe RGB? (You'd want it to be sRGB for this purpose.)</p>

<p>And what tools are you using to view the files? Are those tools color-managed?</p>

<p>@Evan, wow! I never thought that noon is the worst day to take photos. I just thought it would compensate for my lack of external flash.<br>

@TommyLee, yes you're correct I had a UV filter on. I'll consider taking that off next time. I realize I should study how to look into histograms....<br>

@MattLaur... and to read the manual before anything else (Geez, I was hoping that I don't have to even if I know I should). I'll practice shooting in raw, and try to adjust some things on the camera.<br>

@Mike, you're right. it's probably personal satisfaction that I want.<br>

@Lex, my husband (who's not into photography, not even interested to hold or pose for the camera) has the same opinion. that the edited ones look unnatural<br>

@Jerry, I hope I understand you well. that ideally I only have one direction of the light source. Since it was noon, the light were bouncing from all around, that's what you meant, right? so again, I have to refrain from taking pictures at noon. Geez, I always thought lack of light (e.g. night shots) is always my problem, now it's too much light.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the replies.</p>

<p>I'm not sure what the problem is. Is your monitor calibrated?<br>

Have you checked which of the six pre-sets you're using?</p>

<ul>

<li> <strong>Standard</strong> – for crisp, vivid images that don’t require post-processing</li>

<li> <strong>Portrait</strong> – optimises colour tone and saturation and weakens sharpening to achieve attractive skin tones</li>

<li> <strong>Landscape</strong> – for punchier greens and blues with stronger sharpening to give a crisp edge to mountain, tree and building outlines</li>

<li> <strong>Neutral</strong> – ideal for post-processing</li>

<li> <strong>Faithful</strong> – adjusts colour to match the subject colour when shot under a colour temperature of 5200K</li>

<li> <strong>Monochrome</strong> – for black and white shooting with a range of filter effects (yellow, orange, red and green) and toning effects (sepia, blue, purple and green). </li>

</ul>

<p> It looks like it may have been 'neutral'.</p>

<p> Do you have your white-balance fine tuned? Where's your color saturation set at (-4 tp +4)? Or the Color Tone? Your camera gives you an extensive amount of controls so that the file as it comes out of the camera is a lot closer to what you want than you are presently getting. Personally, your final image seems, as many others have said, to be overcooked. Don't feel like you have to change that. The picture should look exactly as _you_ want it to look. I'd say that approximately 60-70% of what I see here and on the web (not to mention camera edvertising) is also 'overcooked', so you'll have plenty of company.</p>

<p> As far as shooting at noon, Helmut Newton made a point of doing just that, because no one else did. His colors lacked nothing. It's good to know all the cliche's in photography, less good to be enslaved to them.<br>

Unless you're working for someone else, the best time to go photographing is the same as going fishing: When you can. Learn to work with all kinds of light.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>@Allard, thanks, I'm planning to install picture style (basic ones from the canon site). Although I'm not sure if it would give me exactly what I want. But it would probably help. e.g. Autumn hues - can give the reddish hue but I want the greens to be really greens too.<br>

Hmm, I just want my pictures to look like it's bursting with colors like my old photos taken from inexpensive non-SLR film cameras with Kodak Gold film when I was younger. I know I know. I shouldn't compare film with digital.<br>

@Mark, yes the first file was uploaded straight from the camera. I have to check the configuration though, it's my first time to read about sRGB and Adobe RGB. I'll be researching about this. Thanks.</p>

<p>@Luis, I think I was on standard. But good point, I'll consider Landscape next time (2 weeks from now) we'll go back there. I guess the reason I want magazine-sharp looking pictures is I like doing photobooks for the family. Ideally, I want the photobooks to look like it's professionally done.</p>

<p>Hi Thea,<br>

<br /> No, what I'm advocating is just the opposite of what you understood: light that's reflected from all directions minimizes specular highlights (and black shadows), leaving color as most of what's shown. At noon you tend to get nearly all the light coming in a straight line from the sun.<br>

<br /> Simple test: stand outside and look at your own shadow. If your shadow has a sharp "edge", the light vs. shadow is what's going to dominate in pictures, so you'll see shapes well, but colors relatively poorly. If the shadow has a relatively "soft" edge, you'll get something of a balance between shapes and colors. If you can't really see a shadow at all, you'll mostly get colors with less information about shape.</p>

<p>A digital SLR is a complex piece of machinery. It requires some investment in things like reading the manual to make the most of it. You really sound like you should be using what is called a "point and shoot" camera like one of the Canon <a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=113">Powershot cameras</a> which are specifically designed for people who don't care to use the sort of controls that make a dSLR useful. There's no shame in it; not everyone wants to be a quasi-professional and bother with the minutiae. Even with the P&S cameras, you will get nicer and snappier results if you read the manual.<br>

Otherwise, since you've already got the SLR, just set it on the green rectangle or one of the picture modes (like portrait, which is represented by a little head, etc.). Each of the modes, as you have been told, have specific settings for the subject matter that will considerably improve the results. P (<strong>P</strong> rogram, of course, a term that goes back to before 1986) defaults to "Standard" in styles which is not as zippy or sharpened as some other styles.</p>

<p>Am I not seeing the photo correctly? It does not look as if it were taken in direct bright sunlight at all, it looks like it's in the shade, to me. I don't see any harsh, direct shadows that sunlight would produce.<br>

Anyone else see it this way?</p>

<p>Jim Marby</p>

<p> Thea, put your camera on a tripod and without changing anything else, run through *all* the pre-sets in bright light, then on an overcast day. Check them all out, see which aids and abets your vision best. Experiment! And do so at home, before you're on holiday or at a family event, so you can calmly analyze the results and see where you want to go.Same with all the other controls.</p>

<p> Don't make the mistake of adopting cliche's, just because that 'looks professional'. You have the luxury of making your pictures of your family exactly the way you want to. They should look as only Thea's pictures could. You've got the toughest photo-job in the world: Family journalist. You don't have the option of telling your loved ones: "It's noon, so don't be cute, memorable, entertaining, until the Golden hour". Work with what you have. Learn how to use fill-flash. Again, experiment over and over until you get it --and can do it in your sleep.</p>

<p> The advice on point & shoots is right on, btw.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>Allard, thanks, I'm planning to install picture style</em><br>

If your 450D is anything like my 40D you don't have to install them from the canon site. The basic presets like 'neutral' , 'landscape' etc. (not on the mode dial where you set 'P', but somewhere in the menu) are also picture styles. You can select one, edit it and then save it as a 'user' style without even connecting it to a computer. On the 450 you use the 'down' button on the 4-button control to select picture styles, I think.<br>

<em><br /> </em></p>

<p>I think that digital photography is gradually leading a lot of people down a difficult path. We are becoming so used to seeing extremely sharp (and sharpened) photographs with strong, saturated colours. Yes they have a great impact visually but have to ask in many cases whether we are often fooling ourselves that that is how it should be <em>and that was how it was</em>. So the impact of the image overrides the memory of what we actually saw.<br>

I agree with Lex in that I think the orignal looks quite natural. Tomy Lee's tweaks maintains the flavour of the original but recovers some of the detail in the highlights (which the eye-brain does without us noticing). That does not mean the second one is bad, just different and it all comes down to personal preference. </p>

<p>Jim Marbly,<br>

I agree 100% thats the first thing i thought when i saw it. Glad i wasnt the only one! :)</p>

<p>Sorry.... Marby!</p>