Pictures come out bland from camera

[x_x42]

<p>My pictures come out bland straight from the camera. I know RAW files need some tweaking but my case is quite extreme. I didn't have these issues on the canon 5dmkii as much as I have on the nikon d700. Contrast and saturation are very low on the nikon.</p>

<p>Here are some examples taken over the weekend with early morning sun, the most pleasing time for landscape photography. Conditions won't get much better than this.</p>

<p>First is a RAW copy, second is processed in camera RAW. Colors still look iffy to me. What can I do?</p>

<p>Second example is processed in photoshop with layers. Better but colors look kinda greyeish. I realize canon is more saturated and more contrasty but I also realize there are plenty of great pictures taken with the nikon d700.</p>

<p>Any advice on exposure and post processing?</p>

<p>RAW:</p>

<p><img src="http://s16.postimg.org/qgwmtc8t0/20131111_8258_copy_1.jpg" alt="" width="1279" height="853" /></p>

<p>RAW processed:</p>

<p><img src="http://s21.postimg.org/jikafzerq/20131111_8258_1.jpg" alt="" width="1279" height="853" /></p>

<p>RAW:</p>

<p><img src="http://s16.postimg.org/f5tz4z1xw/20131111_8243_copy_1.jpg" alt="" width="1278" height="852" /></p>

<p>Photoshopped:<br>

<img src="http://s21.postimg.org/6sg22w6ti/20131111_8243.jpg" alt="" width="1278" height="852" /></p>

 

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>please check your input; the pictures don't show in any of the browsers I have tried (Win 8.1/IE, iPad and Ubuntu/Firefox). Did you add RAW's or JPG's to the thread?</p>

[tudor_apmadoc]

<p>Not showing for me either.</p>

[x_x42]

<p>Very strange, I can see them clearly. I uploaded them as jpg.</p>

<p>Do these links work?</p>

<p>BEFORE -> http://s16.postimg.org/qgwmtc8t0/20131111_8258_copy_1.jpg<br>

AFTER -> http://s21.postimg.org/jikafzerq/20131111_8258_1.jpg</p>

<p>BEFORE -> http://s16.postimg.org/f5tz4z1xw/20131111_8243_copy_1.jpg<br>

AFTER -> http://s21.postimg.org/6sg22w6ti/20131111_8243.jpg</p>

<p> </p>

[kerry_grim]

In both cases (links above) the BEFORE looks better to me than the after. But that could be this laptop

display. Or, perhaps my own preference. In the first photo (BEFORE), shadows look noticeably better than

the AFTER photo. Increased contrasts seem to degrade it, not help it.Not being there, it is very difficult to

tell how accurate the colors are. Likely, others will see the results differently.

[dcstep]

<p>In Raw conversion I'd apply a shallow S-curve, increase Contrast and sharpen a bit. You might have used a good UV filter to reduce the distant haze. I'd play with Vibrance, but you may be near the limit already.</p>

[Thomas J.]

I'm not familiar with the D700 as I am with the D7000 and

other Nikon models, but have you checked "image quality"

in the menu? There's color settings for "vivid" "normal" and

"portrait" as well as B&W settings. You can adjust contrast

sharpness and saturation levels right in that menu as well.

Maybe it's as simple as that to get the colors you want right

out of the camera. Nice pictures you took there, btw .

[dcstep]

<p>I don't think that the "image quality" settings have any impact on the Raw files, only JPEGs.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[i don't think that the "image quality" settings have any impact on the Raw files, only JPEGs.]]</p>

<p>If the RAW files were being viewed in software that honors those settings then one could be confused into thinking that was how they were shot, rather than simply: that's how they're being rendered with those particular settings. </p>

[dcstep]

<p>Raw "viewers" as opposed to Raw "converters" may, in some cases, pay attention to "image quality" settings. I use iranfanview as a viewer, but I don't pay attention to its rendition, since I'll not be keeping that as my final JPEG.</p>

[harold_gough]

<p>"Conditions don't get much better than this"? It looks like you used a telephoto where there was thin mist. The effect is much like doing so through a heat haze. In other words, the misty effect is compressed and thus more prominent.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Looking at the 2nd exposure, the only thing that looks "bland" to me is the white sky. The atmospheric light through the mist at the background look good. The front is colorful. Not sure what I am missing. Perhaps you do not like the sharp contrast between the front and the far distance at the back. If you exclude the back you get the golden leaves and the house. If you exclude the front you get the misty feel. Actually if the misty area is your main subject and you include just the diagonals (top of trees) as foreground, the contrast adds to the scene and the picture looks pretty good IMO.</p>

[themaz]

<p>Those images look like normal RAW files when viewed in Photoshop. Adobe doesn't apply D-Lighting settings that Nikon cameras do. I've found that I tend to get better results pre-processing files in ViewNX2 or CaptureNX and then exporting as a TIFF for use in PS or Lightroom. I really don't care much for Adobe's importer.</p>