DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> vibrancy of photos
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 13 of 13, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/23/2004 11:00:15 PM · #1
Hello,

I hope I'm able to convey my question effectively. I've picked up a Canon 20D camera as a big step in my quest to become a better photographer. I realize that the equipment is only one part of the equation.

One of the things that I've noticed when looking at photos I have taken is that they seem to not have the vibrancy that I've seen are possible. I'm not sure how to describe it, my pics often seem very flat to me. Sort of like if you scan a glossy photo they can lose that "more real then reality" kind of feel.

So what I'd like to wonder, is this vibrancy something that is related to my shooting and lighting conditions or is it somethign that is brought out through subtle enhancement in post?

I realize that it will be hard to give a diagnoses without me posting anything, I just don't have anything yet that I'm not overly embarresed to post. :)
Thank you!
11/23/2004 11:02:42 PM · #2
How about posting a photo- perhaps from the site- that has the look you want?
 11/23/2004 11:09:17 PM · #3
I understand what you are saying. I feel the same way. I'm fairly new to photography, and DPC has got me working pretty hard at fixing my deficiencies of my pics, including vibrancy. I work pretty late, so most of my shots are done at night in my room. Right now I'm blaming lighting as one of my drawbacks. I may be ordering some kind of amateur photo lights sometime soon. I've go a four day weekend, and I'm dedicating it to addressing this vibrancy thing.
 11/23/2004 11:17:39 PM · #4
I'm in the same boat.
Here are some photos from someone that seems to have tremendous talent.
His photos are all so sharp and vibrant - and just grand. I don't know how else to describe it. Not sure if this is what the original post was referring to.
//www.pbase.com/darter02/pennsic33
It's something I only aspire to - and wonder if upgrading my camera would help.
 11/23/2004 11:21:52 PM · #5
Hmmm
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=111547

//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=1677

Is a good example I think. I'm quite sure that there's no way I could manage to produce anything with the richness of those pictures right now.

Maybe as a better description I feel like everything I take on screen so far is like if I printed a photo on plain paper versus one printed on photo paper...kinda dull and lifeless ya know?
11/23/2004 11:25:40 PM · #6
Originally posted by colema19:
Hmmm



Is a good example I think. I'm quite sure that there's no way I could manage to produce anything with the richness of those pictures right now.

Maybe as a better description I feel like everything I take on screen so far is like if I printed a photo on plain paper versus one printed on photo paper...kinda dull and lifeless ya know?

to reference an image, click the far right button above where you're typing and key in the image #

Message edited by author 2004-11-23 23:26:32.
 11/23/2004 11:31:57 PM · #7
Sometimes we are are own worse critques.

Dont ever be embarrassed about posting a shot. No one will laugh, and you may get some great advise !

11/23/2004 11:38:46 PM · #8
When you are doing the post processing on your photos - you want the room around you to be pretty dark. When there is too much light in the room around you - you can't see what you are doing well enough. And yes, digital photos come out of the camera with a "flat" look. You need to do layers and/or curves to bring out the three dimensional look.
 11/24/2004 01:21:08 AM · #9
Originally posted by colema19:
Hello,

I hope I'm able to convey my question effectively. I've picked up a Canon 20D camera as a big step in my quest to become a better photographer. I realize that the equipment is only one part of the equation.

One of the things that I've noticed when looking at photos I have taken is that they seem to not have the vibrancy that I've seen are possible. I'm not sure how to describe it, my pics often seem very flat to me. Sort of like if you scan a glossy photo they can lose that "more real then reality" kind of feel.

So what I'd like to wonder, is this vibrancy something that is related to my shooting and lighting conditions or is it somethign that is brought out through subtle enhancement in post?

I realize that it will be hard to give a diagnoses without me posting anything, I just don't have anything yet that I'm not overly embarresed to post. :)
Thank you!


Jason,

Welcome to the world of digital SLR.

Digital SLR's are designed for and targeted to professionals and serious amateurs who desire a great amount of flexibility in their photography. As such, very little in-camera processing is done on the images produced. On the other hand, mome non-SLR cameras are targeted at consumers who want usable photographs straight from the camera. Those cameras will do much more post-processing in the camera -- sharpening and a saturation boost, for example. Producing the best possible images from any camera, but especially a dSLR, requires post-processing to produce an image consistent with your vision.

It is also worth noting that what you are seeing on this site are final, finished images. In most cases, especially among the top finishers, considerable effort has been put into post-processing to produce an image consistent with the photographer's vision.

-Terry
 11/24/2004 01:26:58 AM · #10
Speaking of vibrancy, this image took a few hours of cleaning up to get it DPCPrint ready:

(Vibrant enough?)

As is with digital images, the blocky look (jaggies) can be difficult to deal with and often have to be smoothed out in PS (or similar),
at a magnification upwards or 300%. In preparing this for print quality at 3000x2400, 300dpi, zoomed in at 300% will take time to "finesse".

11/24/2004 01:38:32 AM · #11
Proper use of the Curves tool in Photoshop has proven, to me, the most effective method for achieving photos that snap, Jason. I now adjust Curves in *every* shot and often also adjust saturation, color shift (using the channel mixer), and Levels.

You also have to learn to just let go and reshoot sometimes. That's my biggest problem. I too often try to "save" an image in Photoshop, when I just need to go get it right in camera first.

Message edited by author 2004-11-24 01:39:00.
 11/24/2004 01:39:23 AM · #12
Originally posted by skiprow:



so far is like if I printed a photo on plain paper versus one printed on photo paper...kinda dull and lifeless ya know?


i think one key issue is that in images directly from the camera there is usually very little real black ... in the image above for example, the shadowy area on either side of the face originally probably had a greyvalue of about 20 ... you need to adjust this (with adjust levels in photoshop, for example) to take full advantage of your 256 bit depth (you want blacks to be close to 0 and highlights close to 255, at least in one color channel ... never trust what you see on the screen ... look at the numbers)

t.
 12/02/2004 09:04:12 PM · #13
You might want to read this. Works very well to bring some Ooomph to your photos.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 01:10:52 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 01:10:52 PM EDT.