Can I get strong colors without using PS or LR?

[miina]

<p>I've been lurking around in the Galleries here for some time now, and I've noticed that some photographers get really colorful pictures.</p>

<p>I myself always end up having to use Lightroom or PS to make the colors in my pictures stronger. Is there a way to get strong and bright colored pictures without adjusting much afterwards?</p>

<p>Here is a before/after picture I've made in PS (maybe a bit over done..) : <a href="http://miina.mindre.net/fancy/comp4.jpg">http://miina.mindre.net/fancy/comp4.jpg</a> Would it be possible to take a shot like that to beging with, and what would I have to do to make it like that?</p>

<p>And an additional question:<br>

I know that here on PN it's not defined as manipulation to adjust colors and curves. Is this how most photographers outside of PN sees it too? I've tried asking people before if they manipulate their colorful pictures, and they usually say no. Now I wonder if they meant that they don't adjust anything in their pictures afterwards, or if they too consider adjusting colors and curves as unmanipulated.</p>

<p>-Miina-</p>

[williamting]

<p>Usually within your DSLR you have different default color profiles. Nikon cameras typically have a Vivid or More Vivid setting that you should try out.</p>

<p>Likewise, you can go into custom color profile and mess around with the settings. You probably would want to up the saturation to max, use Color Mode III, automatic tone compensation, automatic contrast.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>It helps to shoot in light that is not flat and diffuse. Your Photoshopped example looks over processed to me</p>

[miina]

<p>Thanks to both of you. I'll try that.</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>Here is an example of a raw file that's as unprocessed as I could get. This is out of the camera, straight into ACR with everything set to zero or neutral. This is how the camera (5D) sees the world (wb on auto).</p>

<p><img src="http://henrypeach.com/gallery/albums/2009/proc%20article/raw.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="600" /> </p>

<p>Here is the same photo processed by Canon DPP to duplicate the in-camera software set to standard jpeg.</p>

<p><img src="http://henrypeach.com/gallery/albums/2009/proc%20article/standard.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="600" /> </p>

<p>Here's what I came up with when I took charge of the processing.</p>

<p><img src="http://henrypeach.com/gallery/albums/2009/proc%20article/Matts.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="600" /></p>

<p>I adjusted the color to be more pleasing (standardly done by lab techs when film is dropped off), tweaked the tone curve, sharpened, cropped, and did a tiny bit of local adjustments. It is standard to apply some sort of tone curve adjustment to all digital photos. Film has higher midtone contrast built in. Raw files don't. If a digital camera is set to jpeg it's done automatically by the in-camera software. Most out-of-camera software allows for auto or manual adjustment.</p>

<p>Everyone uses processing, because there are no photographs without it: daguerreotype, collodion, dry plate, film, Polaroid, and digital must be processed in order to see an image. Some folks drop their film off for uniform, automated processing and printing. Other people work in the darkroom customizing the processing and printing. It's the same with digital. Some folks like the simplicity of the in-camera processing. Others want to take charge, and custom process each photo individually, and out-of-camera software usually offers more precise control and options.</p>

<p>You should be able to adjust your in-camera software to give you more contrast and saturation. A polarizing filter also might help. But there is no shame in actually taking control of such a vital part of the creation of a photograph as processing. Once upon a time to be a photographer meant being involved in the entire process from exposure to print. Only with the introduction of film does the importance of processing get swept under the rug. "You press the button - We do the rest." And they do it in the dark behind closed doors, so it's easy to pretend that nothing important is going on back there. It's funny; every once in a while someone suggests Adobe Photoshop should be given credit along with the photographer's name. I say what about all those anonymous lab techs that have been polishing up peoples' photos for the last 100 years? Giving Adobe credit is like giving the builder of the darkroom/lab credit, but those lab techs actually had a hand in the appearance of individual photographs. </p>

<p>Is there a significant difference between loading a roll of Velvia and increasing saturation and contrast in Photoshop? The big difference I see is that in Photoshop the photographer is in control, and with Velvia Fuji is in control.</p>

<p> </p>

[pete_harlan1]

<p>Miina,</p>

<p>Your example is not a good example of color adjustment; rather it is a example of a improperly exposed image. The shadow areas are clipped severely in the processed image.</p>

<p>To answer your question, we must look at what you really want. Some images are not suited to wild vivid colors, while others are. Many films will accentuate certain colors and mute others..contrast, overall tonality as said was in the film makers power; now it is in the photographers power if they know how to Post Process.<br>

Weather one shoots RAW or JPEG, color channel editing is of great value to a photographer. In other words, I may be pleased with the overall color of a photo, but find that the RED channel is too hot, so I turn it down to achieve a better balance.</p>

<p>I'm not a big advocate of in camera processing as I can do that later in Post Processing. Some would argue they desire to do less PP, not more. I am of the same philosophy; but if I am post processing anyway, I may as well PP the entire image as I see fit. Nearly every out of the camera digital image I've seen can benefit from SOME post processing, be it unsharp masking, contrast adjustment, color sat or whatever..They all need something.</p>

<p>Pete</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>I agree with Matt!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've been lurking around in the Galleries here for some time now, and I've noticed that some photographers get really colorful pictures.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Brief reality check: almost without exception, the photos in the galleries have at least some PP work done.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Is there a way to get strong and bright colored pictures without adjusting much afterwards?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For the capture, you can choose subjects to shoot that have strong colors (unlike your example), use filters, and shoot in light that lends itself to better color and 'punch' (unlike your example). Example: had you shot the Ferris wheel near dawn or dusk on a clearer day, during the day on a partly cloudy day, or at night, you'd have gotten much stronger colors. An overcast day might be a good day to shoot in the woods. For shooting jpg, you can use the in-camera adjustments to boost color and contrast. RAW intends the use of PP manipulation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know that here on PN it's not defined as manipulation to adjust colors and curves. Is this how most photographers outside of PN sees it too? I've tried asking people before if they manipulate their colorful pictures, and they usually say no. Now I wonder if they meant that they don't adjust anything in their pictures afterwards, or if they too consider adjusting colors and curves as unmanipulated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Who cares? It's no big deal, unless you're a news or police forensics photographer. Ansel Adams did it, and even wrote a few how-to books on the subject. IMO, asking photographers how they get their pics to look a certain way is a lot like asking a fisherman where the fish are biting and what bait to use: you'll get varying degrees of the truth, from 0 to 100%, or anywhere in between. Your photographs should reflect YOUR concept of what the image should be. How you get there doesn't matter.</p>

<p> </p>

[miina]

<p>Thank you all for being so helpful. I feel like I learned a lot. I failed to see the link between Photoshopping and darkrooms, but of course you are right.</p>

<p>Matt: That's exactly what I wanted to know. Your example picture is just what I had in mind. Thank you.</p>

<p>Pete; I see that my example wasn't that good after all^^; I just felt it would be better to take one of my own pictures than to take somebody elses as an example. I'm pretty new to colorful picture taking so I haven't got the hang of it just yet. Hopefully I'll improove :)</p>

[nathan_meador]

<p>As others have said, you can get good results with good lighting...the lens can also affect the clarity and color sharpness. Shooting in RAW makes it much easier to 'tweak' the colors as needed, just don't go overboard. I personally don't have either PS or LR2..but have been considering getting LR2 for greater control.</p>

[nathan_meador]

<p>This sample from a recent zoo trip was shot on an overcast day (even lighting), only had to adjust saturation slightly using DPP, cropped down a bit too.</p><div></div>

[johnny_anderson]

<p>I'm going to get flamed for this but here goes anyway, shoot in jpeg. As mentioned earlier change to vivid, play with saturation, contrast, whatever your camera allows you to change. Get the effect you want and shoot away. Not all pictures need to be shot in RAW and you won't have to spend all that time is post processing.</p>

[silvermeat]

Space is cheap. It's easy to just shoot JPG+RAW if shooting anything but total throwaways -- then if a shot is worth the effort but falls a little short, you can go back and fiddle with it.

 

As a broad response to the OP, I'm a lot of bit tired of the homogeneous results people end up with with USM/HighPass/Vibrance/Saturation/Curves. The world is more subtle than this, and of the above posted pictures of the girl, only the unadjusted original is appealing to me. She looks like just another strung out advertising image in the others, especially the "take charge" shot with the "healthy" skin tone.

[francie_baltazar]

<p>you can get very vibrant color straight out of the camera and then do very little in PS - you have to be spot on with lighting and camera settings - and you can enhance your setting in camera... here is an expample straight out... shaded area... I shoot canon and enhance my lumonicity with in the camera - sharping and color... so this save me from having to do it in post production - but be sure to try these out because they can jack with your end result if it's too much...</p><div></div>

[francie_baltazar]

<p>also one other thing - lens make a real difference I think in your end result - the higher end lens produce a more vibrant photo and have a higher leve of sharpness...</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>I went through this some years ago when I was with a co-op art gallery. When I started showing some digital work with Photoshop adjustments, a couple of the "pure" artists (painters, both of them) railed on me for "manipulating" my photos. My response was, and still is, that I use every tool available to me to make a better photo - just as a painter would use the most up to date paints, etc. The bottom line is that it's MY damn photo, and any PS manipulation done by me is (as stated above) no different than Ansel Adams doing his darkroom thing. </p>

[wade_roth]

<p>Exposure settings will effect the color saturation that you get. I took these yesterday trying to understand this for myself. The only thing I changed for these 7 frames was my flash output. Each one is one stop from the other. I don't think color saturation would be much different if I changed the light but manipulating aperture or shutter speed instead of the flash output. My conclusion is that if I want more saturated colors, I need to underexpose a little.<br>

--Wade</p><div></div>