How to capture vivid colours?

[anthony_gatti]

<p>So the other day I went out for a two hour hike into the regional park near me and took some photos using the lovely golden light that lingered in the air just after the sun sank below the horizon.<br>

<br /> In my attempt to capture the golden grasses and the hues of pink and blue in the sky I got a few good frames but many of my shots were rather dissapointing in terms of the vibrancy of the colours.<br /> So my question, what methods/techniques/settings do you use to get those sort of vivid colours?<br>

<br /> Any white balance tips? Ive heard of people shooting with it set to the warmer white balances, but with a bit of experimentation ive found that usually a few shots suit it but the rest need their white balances altered in RAW if I shoot that way. Any word on custom white balances?<br>

<br /> Also read about people setting their cameras to vivid colour and such, but wouldnt this have a negative/irreversible impact on image quality? Generally I try to capture accurate colours when the available light is appealing.<br>

<br /> Any other methods? I also use a circular polarizer when it seems suitable.<br>

Thanks.</p>

[mtk]

<p>Fall is a great time to be a photographer! A couple of my thoughts, first the "Golden Light" that you describe (and we all love it!) actually comes and goes very quickly and changes faster than you may think. You may only have a few minutes where all of the colors that you want to represent in a picture are actually "there" I know exactly what you are describing!<br />So being prepared for that small window of time is helpful. Try to underexpose by a stop or two, that will intensify your colors. I shoot Jpeg only simply because it works for me in terms of time behind the computer. What have you got to lose by going with the vivid setting on your camera? You mention a negative/irreversible impact...I don't see any issue here, you either like the photo or you don't, switch back and forth and see what you like! Same thing with white balance, for me personally, custom WB settings are a pain, but utilizing the provided options on my camera for WB are easy and fast to experiment with (I shoot with a D80 Nikon) Choose one of the settings that warm things up and see what you like, I wouldn't pay any attention to "cloudy,sunlight,flourescent, etc. try 'em all and see what you like.<br />I'm not sure using a polarizer late in the day, unless the light is very intense is really going to add anything to your pictures...it's primary function actually is to reduce glare.<br />You still can punch up the colors post production as well.<br />I also would consider using a tripod, stop down your lens, use a remote/release as this technique will only enhance those Golden Light pics.<br />One last thought, (please no big debate here) try some Velvia with a film camera on a tripod, might give you another method that you may like. Any old film camera with a 50mm or wider is cheap to try for a roll or two.<br />Enjoy your autumn!<br />Mark</p>

[martin_howard1]

<p>I disagree with Mark and would advocate exposing to the right to make full use of the dynamic range of the sensor. Adjustments can then be made in post processing to adjust colour intensity to taste. This would include tweaking the WB to achieve the desired 'warmth'.<br>

I normally leave my camera set to neutral or standard (Canon terminology) and adjust everything in PS.<br>

I agree about the time of day though, the golden hours become more accesssible once winter approaches!</p>

[anthony_gatti]

 

 

<p>Its more a question of capturing the colours accurately than capturing just any vibrant colour.</p>

<p>I shoot in 14 bit RAW in auto white balance and then apply different white balances to certain sequences of photos depending on location/time/mood.</p>

<p>I used to do alot of post processing work to do this sort of stuff, but id rather minimise my time spent on this as I already do spend alot of time behind the screen as it is haha. Id much rather capture the colours accurately on the camera, but i found that what i see vs what i captured was that the shots i got seemed much more subdued. Overexposing was out of the question because I was shooting directly into the sun, so the vibrant sky would have been washed out.</p>

<p>I was going to do some HDR shots, but my tripod is terrible (parents dont want me spending any more cash as ive been on a bit of a gear buying spree lately), Im looking into getting a Manfrotto 055XB soon.</p>

 

 

[david_henderson]

<p>It does kind of surprise me when people indicate that they are shooting in raw, find the images a bit dull out of the camera, but don't want to do any work in post. If you don't want to do at least some work on the images later, why are you shooting raw? Or alternatively why don't you use a processing method that allows you to apply preset adjustments to your raw files rather than doing the same things repeatedly?</p>

 

[martin_howard1]

<p>A ND Grad filter will help tame bright skies.<br>

You could try bracketing WB, although really I find it easier to set in PS when I can see the details on my monitor. <br>

Some people like WB cards/widgets, I find these OK for controlled lighting situations (i.e. in a studio or under artificial lighting) however their use in rapidly dimming light outside is questionable.</p>

[anthony_gatti]

<p>

 

<p>I shoot raw for flexibility because I have the card space to do so and because if I want to work on a lossless file I can do so later for my design work or whatever.<br>

My intention is not to cut out post processing altogether, my intention is to find out how I can get the most accurate colours from my shots in camera so that I can spend the time that i usually spend fixing colours etc on other work/applying the images to my design projects.<br>

<br />Im merely trying to discover <em>why </em>the camera doesn't capture the colours that I see, and discover trips/tips on how to most effectively counter this. Im trying to narrow the gap by which I need to push the image in post processing to get it to meet the original scene.</p>

<p>Obviously not all my shots are going to be like this, "Xeroxing nature." But just in this instance I wanted to know what impacts on the colours of an image (whether it be the colour space the camera is set to, the exposure or whatever). I want to know what variables effect the scene so I can control them.</p>

 

</p>

[Two23]

<p>I almost always use a polarizer, they do help a lot. The rest is tweaking in post.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[SCL]

<p>If you're not going to get your hands dirty in post processing, you're missing the boat. First shoot in RAW so at least you have the potential to pull stuff out of the capture. Second, the polarizer idea is a potentially good one if you are shooting in a situation where the light is polarized...often it is not, so you just have to check this one out in a case by case basis. Next, and my favorite is to bracket your shots (just like you did for film)...most modern DSLRs have the capability to bracket in a variety of increments and number of shots...this almost always ensures you will have the best starting point for post processing, and may give you the range to do HDR, if you so desire. Lastly, think a little about slightly increasing the saturation and/or contrast in post processing. I fooled around with these tools a couple of years ago on several hundred nature macro shots, which I turned into screensaver slideshows for friends...and they are blown away with subjects which are clearly differentiated from backgrounds...but not in an abnormal manner.</p>

[zack_lau]

<p>Sometimes you can use flash to balance the foreground against the bright sky. This works best when you have something relatively small that can be illuminated effectively by your flash.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>For these situations I DO put my 5D2 in "Scenic" mode, but shoot in RAW at the rated exposure, unless there's some complication requiring + or -. Be aware of where the sun is and that you'll get the best result if it's to your back (unless you're shooting up through the leaves with backlight from the sun). I use DxO's Optics Pro 5.x a look at each shot for Saturation, Contrast, Vibrancy, Blown out detail, etc. I'll make small adjustments to almost every image and then run them in batch mode. PS4 only comes into play on less than 1% of my workflow.<br>

As mentioned in one of the first responses, the light can change really fast. On partially cloudy days you may need to wait a few minutes to get full sun and full vibrancy. Even without clouds, the results can vary a lot from minute to minute as the sun falls.</p>

[randywilson]

<p>There have been some useful tips listed here, but we're all flying a little blind and giving scattershot advice because without seeing examples we don't really know what you don't like about your images and what we might be able infer from the images themselves about how they came to be the way they are and what might be done to get them closer to what you want.</p>

<p>One note about the "vivid" and similar settings on your camera: those refer to processing that is done in camera on jpeg files and have no effect on the RAW files.</p>

 

[elf]

<p>Every once in a while I see something out there that's actually vivid, like in Velvia. </p>

<p>But most of the time the vivid resides in the eyes of the beholder.</p>

<p>In that case the Saturation slider of ACR helps a lot, as does the Black slider, and the Contrast slider.</p>

<p>Since your memory of accurate color is non-existent, unlike perfect pitch, I suggest you take advantage of the capacity to shoot RAW and adjust the colors to what you recall, in so far as what you recall will be different from what it looked like by the time you hike on to the next shot.</p>

[anthony_gatti]

<p>Ah darnit, I wrote a detailed report and refreshed the page after I copied the text but I just copied the link to the image upload I made, effectively overwriting everything I wrote!<br /> I hate when that happens!</p>

<p><a href="http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=79acd48b144382c9d8f14848abf485ddecf2087b0d0b8316e91dc00c2f906379">http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=79acd48b144382c9d8f14848abf485ddecf2087b0d0b8316e91dc00c2f906379</a><br /> You can find some examples there ^ (the photos I took were just intended to be reference material/record of subject matter/available light etc for when I go back there in a few days with the rest of my gear).<br /> I think a quality tripod, a ND and some bracketing would be the best way to approach the problems I ran into. Would a GND be useful in DSC_1736 or does the objects eclipsing the sky make this a bad idea?</p>

<p>Oh and apologies for the bad composition/flare in some of them. I was just walking through to get an idea of what to shoot this week and wanted to visit all the locations before the 'magic hour' was over.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Anthony, almost all of those were into the sun, which is the toughest possible condition. Why not shoot some with the sun to your back?</p>

[anthony_gatti]

<p>I did shoot away from the sun, those shots INTO the sun were the only ones I had trouble with gauging on how I would set up for them. Hence the post for help here.<br>

<br />On top of that, the areas to the rear are in heavy shade (tree cover + the hills block the light as well as long distance - making it difficult to get good focus/exposure, the colours were also much less pronounced in that direction [pollution perhaps from the main road in that direction]).<br />A housing estate down 90 degrees to that direction also makes it difficult to compose.</p>

<p>I might try walking even further in and shooting back on the top of the hill that I composed from in 1736. I think those areas are fenced off though/dangerous to travel through with lots of gear (barbed wire and thick/tall grasses).</p>

<p>I will scope it out tomorrow.</p>

 

[elf]

<p>Clearly the camera can't see into that murk, while the human eye can. One standard cure, but problematic where there is no unobstructed horizon, is the neutral density grad filter.</p>

<p>Another way to manage this situation is to expose for the midtones or darks, and then another shot for the sky. Then process the darks to get the colors you like. Then process the sky. Drag the darks on top of the sky. Then erase the overexposed sky from the darks so the good sky shows through, flatten and be thankful. </p>

<p>You definitely need a tripod for this solution, or need to be prepared to crop and level along the way.</p>

<p>I find my digital capture in low light to be very forgiving. One time the compensation dial on my camera got set 3 stops underexposed and I shot a sunset at South Beach on Point Reyes. The adjusted result was completely satisfactory. Ånother time I pulled two shots out of one with this sort of contrast problem. One shot needed a great deal of pushing, the other needed some pulling. That almost worked, but the noise wasn't real good.</p>

[elf]

<p>Here's a sample of trying to extract both versions from your single image and then combine them.</p><div></div>

[elf]

<p>Whoops, wrong image, let me try again.</p><div></div>

[anthony_gatti]

<p>Hmm seems to be the only way for this specific shot...</p>

<p>I will definately be needing a tripod. As underexposing for the foreground here left the shutter at around 1/20. I had to wait for a lull in the wind to get the foreground sharp.<br>

Tripod + ND and a remote cord (or just a timer delay), seems to be the way to go.<br />Otherwise im just underutilising my other equipment (D700, 24-70 2.8, 80-200 2.8). </p>

[elf]

<p>You need a tripod anyway, because that sun blast needs at least f/18 to tame it a bit into a sunstar.</p>

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>I've spent a lot of mornings this year getting up well before sunrise and setting up at Bluffers Park waiting for the sun to rise over Lake Ontario. I've found out that I'm far from the only one that does that. I've used my digital (Konica Minolta Z10) to catch the colours with the EV dialed down 2/3 of a stop to really bring out the orange against the blue of the sky. When the sun starts peeking over the horizon, I meter away from the sun. I've also burned a good number of rolls of film getting basically the same subject (a variety of cameras including a Nikon FT2, Fed 5C, and Chinon CS with different lenses). Although I currently don't have a graduated ND (I have one on the way), I have been using a 3 stop ND to really stretch out my exposure times and smooth out the waters (often one second or longer). I've metered the sky just above the horizon and the black rocks in the foreground make a nice silhouette. I found that I haven't really had to mess around with the colour balance much. Some shots were taken with the sunlight preset WB, and some were taken with the cloudy preset. A 50mm lens gives enough of the sky that you get the full range from purple to blue to orange. I set the digital camera for normal colour. For me, the vivid setting starts looking a little phoney. As far as film, I've gotten surprisingly good results with a dollar store film called Likon. Sometimes I add an 81A, but it doesn't make as much of a difference as underexposing by half a stop. I've currently got a roll of Velvia in the FT2 which I'm going to take out Monday morning for a try. They don't all come out, but the ones that do are worth it. I've also experimented a bit with a remote flash trigger for lighting up the foreground a bit farther up the beach. I don't see the point of using a polarizer at this time of the day. The tripod is a must.</p>

[randywilson]

<p>As pointed out in an earlier post, you're trying to photograph scenes with a greater range of tonality than can be recorded on film or a digital sensor. There are ways to finesse this problem under certain circumstances. Learning how to use a GND is the old-fashioned, pre-digital way, but still a practical approach to the problem, even when you're faced with a relatively uneven horizon. Using bracketed exposures of the same scene combined in software such as Photoshop using blended layers or HDR processing is another approach. </p>

<p>However, I don't know of any way to have a sun in the frame that is that high and hot that doesn't make hash of the image, except under special circumstances. To have a decent sun under the conditions you're shooting in, you need to have either significant amounts of haze or a sun very close to setting, or both. Even stacking multiple GNDs might not get the bright and dark parts of the scene to co-exist happily in the frame. </p>