flat photos

[matt_brown5]

<p>Hi:<br>

I have a D90 with a 1.8 lens and a 18-200 mm lens. Sometimes I feel like my pictures come out rather flat. I'm not sure what do do about them. <br>

Here is a recent photo that I took:<br>

<img src="http://matthewtbrown.com/keane_show/images/keane_showdsc_0033.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="531" /><br>

You can see the other photos here:http://matthewtbrown.com/keane_show/</p>

<p>I'm just wondering what if I could be doing something better. FYI, I do have a quantaray UV filter on my 18-200mm, but it's the expensive one, not the $15 one. Does that have something to do with it?</p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>Are you shooting RAW or Jpegs? RAW images have no post processing applied other than the process of changing light energy into a digital format, and almost always will need some post processing to be done by the photographer. If you are shooting Jpeg format, I have found that the default settings that Nikon uses gives images that are rather flat. You will need to go into the menu and adjust saturation and contrast to your liking. I can't tell you how to do that since I don't own a D90, but it should be in the manual somewhere.</p>

<p>Personally, I shoot RAW and most of my post processing involves setting a white and black point to increase contrast to my liking, then adding a little saturation.</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>About the UV filter...No.</p>

<p>Flat photos is mostly due to flat lighting. Start to study the photos that you see that you like and learn what it is that makes them great photos. Things such as lighting, depth of field, composition, and so on. Then start to learn what it take to acheive those elements.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>I forgot to mention that filters and lenses both can have an affect on the appearance of the final image. Most of it has to do with the coatings of the lenses and filters and how well they reduce flare. Older lenses without the benefit of modern coatings tend to produce images with slightly less contrast and saturation because internal lens flare is not as well controlled. As for whether or not your filter is the culprit, just take some shots with it off and see if it makes a difference. If it is a quality filter, you probably won't be able to tell the difference with it on or off. </p>

[anthony_bhe]

<p>You can always increase contrast in a flat photo, but it's hard to dial it back in a contrasty one.</p>

<p>I usually adjust the white and black point for starters, sometimes the midpoint, and usually put in a little bit of an S-curve when it helps. You can also try a local contrast enhancement via unsharp mask (20%, radius 50) and see if that helps. </p>

[paddler4]

<p>cheap filters are a bad idea because they are prone to flare and are often not optically very good, but neither of these has anything to do with the problem you are discussing.</p>

<p>Photos look flat unless something makes them not look flat, like contrast, intense colors, etc. Sometimes, lighting and the scene give that to you. Often, they don't. In this case, the lighting is not particularly good, because there appears to be no lighting that highlights the face. The first two shots in the second row of your gallery are better examples than this one, because they don't have the problem of being bisected by the contrast between white and black walls.</p>

<p>In a situation like this, fill flash is often a good way to go, to get some detail, shadow, and contrast into the face. One way to do it would be to point a flash up and use a reflector, like a Demb flip-It, which is cheap and very flexible.</p>

<p>Apart from that, as Anthony suggests, you need to learn how to postprocess, if you don't already. I would start by setting the white and black points to maximize the dynamic range of the image. Contrast might help, but you would have to be subtle, because high contrast--and high local contrast, which is "clarity" in lightroom-speak--is not nice with faces. You need to learn to manipulate contrast, exposure, mid-point (often called gamma, and called brightness in lightroom), sharpness, vibrance/saturation, etc. It takes a fair amount of time and practice, but it is really the only way to go.</p>

 

[paddler4]

<p>cheap filters are a bad idea because they are prone to flare and are often not optically very good, but neither of these has anything to do with the problem you are discussing.</p>

<p>Photos look flat unless something makes them not look flat, like contrast, intense colors, etc. Sometimes, lighting and the scene give that to you. Often, they don't. In this case, the lighting is not particularly good, because there appears to be no lighting that highlights the face. The first two shots in the second row of your gallery are better examples than this one, because they don't have the problem of being bisected by the contrast between white and black walls.</p>

<p>In a situation like this, fill flash is often a good way to go, to get some detail, shadow, and contrast into the face. One way to do it would be to point a flash up and use a reflector, like a Demb flip-It, which is cheap and very flexible.</p>

<p>Apart from that, as Anthony suggests, you need to learn how to postprocess, if you don't already. I would start by setting the white and black points to maximize the dynamic range of the image. Contrast might help, but you would have to be subtle, because high contrast--and high local contrast, which is "clarity" in lightroom-speak--is not nice with faces. You need to learn to manipulate contrast, exposure, mid-point (often called gamma, and called brightness in lightroom), sharpness, vibrance/saturation, etc. It takes a fair amount of time and practice, but it is really the only way to go.</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Flat photos is mostly due to flat lighting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. If the lighting is flat, find some way to modify it.</p>

[jason_hall5]

<blockquote>

<p>Flat photos is mostly due to flat lighting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good grief....I should proof my post more carefully. Let me reword that...</p>

<p>"Flat photos are typically a product of flat lighting"</p>

<p>Ok, now I feel better. :o)</p>

<p>Jason</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Also, the image that you posted looks like it was taken with a relatively long focal length. This also tends to flatten images.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>