Please help with new camera and Lightroom

[pasusan]

Hi folks...

I'm hoping some of you with Lightroom 4 would like to play around with my image to see if you can make it look more natural, and then tell me what you did.

I got a new camera and the images it creates are much more saturated than my old camera. I have to say that my old camera produced images pretty much exactly as I remember my eye seeing the scenes. Strangely, I almost never had to fool around with White Balance.

I'm having trouble getting some of my new images to look right with LR. And I think I am losing my objectivity as I am getting used to what I see coming out of the camera. I'm told by some others that what they're seeing doesn't look real even after I've fooled around with the images in LR.


Here is one SOOC:



I would really appreciate some help...

[gredawarha]

Hi folks...

I'm hoping some of you with Lightroom 4 would like to play around with my image to see if you can make it look more natural, and then tell me what you did.

I got a new camera and the images it creates are much more saturated than my old camera. I have to say that my old camera produced images pretty much exactly as I remember my eye seeing the scenes. Strangely, I almost never had to fool around with White Balance.

I'm having trouble getting some of my new images to look right with LR. And I think I am losing my objectivity as I am getting used to what I see coming out of the camera. I'm told by some others that what they're seeing doesn't look real even after I've fooled around with the images in LR.


Here is one SOOC:



I would really appreciate some help...

Hi Susan

I'm no expert but if you are shotting RAW then often leaving the camera in auto white balance is sufficient (unless you start using flash and gels for example) as you can change it in LR if you need to.

Maybe you could tell us what camera you are currently using and what you used before. Maybe then some other members may have experience with what you are going through.

As for your picture I am looking at it on a laptop but to my eyes it does not appear to be over processed in any way.

[davidedric]

Hi Susan,

In all honesty I can't see a lot wrong with the image (of course I don't know what you saw in the first place).

I did a few tweaks in Lightroom, but nothing much and I don't know if you prefer the look?

[deetheturk]

Hi Susan,i'm with Dave and dont see a great deal wrong with this image,but i've tweeked a bit in L.R also.
I've cropped a bit from the bottom and left hand side,gave it a grad filter and basically pushed a few sliders.
What do you think?
Cheers David...

[inkista]

Um, guys... didn't Susan say she wanted less saturation?

The Fuji XS-1 is what I'm seeing in the EXIF. It has a substantially bigger sensor (2/3" format) than most 1/2.3" format P&S cameras, so the dynamic range of the sensor is probably bigger than what you're used to, and you may just be seeing overall more (macro) contrast in your images. What settings are you using in the camera for processing? And are you shooting RAW or JPEG? For the film simulation option, are you set to Provia (normal), Velvia (saturated), or Astia (muted)? [I'd suspect Velvia if there's waaay too much saturation, but that image doesn't look that extreme].

[pasusan]

Darren - Hi, I think I will try more RAW shots to see if that helps. Thanks.

Dave - Thanks for jumping in and giving it a go. I can see you upped the exposure and that was certainly needed. What else did you do - you're supposed to tell me what you did. Still not exactly happy with the overall colors....

David - Thanks also for jumping in. I agree it needs a crop, I was just trying to let folks see it SOOC. The colors still seem too saturated to me.

Kathy Li - Thanks for your input. I have not set any internal camera processing as I do like to decide things for myself. I am used to jpeg and so far haven't seen that much difference with the RAW images, but will certainly do more testing with that. BTW, this camera is no more a P&S than the DSLRs I tried and rejected while determining which camera was right for me.

[inkista]

Kathy Li - Thanks for your input. I have not set any internal camera processing as I do like to decide things for myself. I am used to jpeg and so far haven't seen that much difference with the RAW images, but will certainly do more testing with that.

The thing is that no matter what you set, it'll be cooked into a JPEG file. If you want more neutral colors, it sounds like the Astia setting is the way to go. If you start with a RAW file, only the preview will have the settings cooked in, and you'll have a lot more flexibility in post for adjustments like color shifting and exposure correction, since you won't be discarding any color information the way you would with JPEG compression. You can, in essence, choose your white balance AFTER you shoot, if you use RAW. The XS-1 doesn't use an X-Trans sensor, so Lightroom/ACR shouldn't have an issue with the RAW files of your camera.

BTW, this camera is no more a P&S than the DSLRs I tried and rejected while determining which camera was right for me.

No slight was meant. I shorthand to "P&S" when talking about any fixed-lens camera with a smaller-than-1"-format sensor. The XS-1 is more properly called a bridge camera, but to me that's still s subset of the larger group of "fixed-lens cameras with smaller-than-1"-format sensors" (see why I use P&S instead?). And it's not a dSLR (can't swap lenses, 4x crop factor vs. 1.5x crop factor and no mirrorbox/OVF). I have a P&S--excuse, enthusiast compact--that has full Manual mode, RAW capability, a flash hotshoe, a metal body (Canon Powershot G9) and had a $500 pricetag, and I still call it a P&S, too.

[geoz]

To me it looked like the white balance is off. Even the green has bluish tint. I have LR5.2 and applied a +10 to the Temp. You live in the general area as me (relatively, within a couple hundred miles I guess) so the sky and water in this one are closer to what I usually see.

[dje]

Hi Susan

I had the same thoughts as George ie the WB just needs to be warmed up a bit. This also seems to eliminate that "over-saturated" look too.

Dave

[deetheturk]

Sorry Susan,Kathy Li is right (you said less saturation) note to self,must read post correctly before reply lol

[Glenn NK]

Um, guys... didn't Susan say she wanted less saturation?

That's pretty well how I read it too.

But, it isn't completely clear to me either if the original was RAW or JPEG.

Glenn

[Dave Humphries]

But, it isn't completely clear to me either if the original was RAW or JPEG.

Looking at the (detailed) EXIF data and reading the thread, I am 99% certain it was jpg Glenn.

Upon first opening the thread, the most obvious thing that struck me was the WB being too blue, which concurs with what many others have said. Further analysis (in Photoshop) shows this to be the case primarily for the white of the clouds though, the white parts of the ship are different (a tad more green).


Regarding using RAW in future (recommended), if Susan is using LR4, I wonder if that 'understands' the RAW files from a Fuji XS-1, possibly a newer version may be needed, if the XS-1 is a fairly new model. Please, if someone knows this is incorrect guessing, tell me.


Susan, If the jpg images are coming out "much more saturated", I would double check you have no profiles or scene modes in use, also (if the XS-1 has it), that there are no off sets applied to the standard profile that are bumping up the saturation. That said, all these issues should become irrelevant if you shoot RAW and use LR to develop.

My advice: don't analyse, test or think about it - Just take the plunge and shoot RAW - if you're already using LR, it won't even impact your processing workflow, but you'll be working on a file with far more latitude to fix things without causing other problems (assuming you switch to 16 bit in LR - in ACR this is shown as a hyperlink below image, not sure what LR does)

HTH,

[pasusan]

Hi George, Dave and Dave - yup - it is the blue overtones that I find overwhelming. I wanted to see if that's what you folks see and it looks like it is. I have been playing with the image in LR and when I move the temp slider towards yellow to tone down the blue in the clouds the water looks pretty dead. It really was quite blue. I've been trying to compromise and this is what I came up with:



That's Temp +5, Exposure +.95, Highlights -24

How does this one look to you?

And Dave H - I agree I should just go raw and get used to it - meaning I won't be able to see the images until I open them in LR. And yes, my version of LR does recognize the X-S1.

Glenn - yes, jpeg

Kathy Li - thanks for your explanation.

[pasusan]

I'm making an online album of the tall ships and I really want to do a good job, so was hoping to get more input. Hopefully I've got it figured out - thanks much to all who contributed.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Susan,

yup - it is the blue overtones that I find overwhelming. I wanted to see if that's what you folks see and it looks like it is. I have been playing with the image in LR and when I move the temp slider towards yellow to tone down the blue in the clouds the water looks pretty dead. It really was quite blue. I've been trying to compromise and this is what I came up with:

Can't you do a graduated adjustment in LR to apply the 'anti-blue' to the sky (and masts) only?

See if you can find a video online to show how it is done - I didn't 'get it' from book descriptions, but recently signed up to Lynda.com and have learnt so much on how to use ACR (= LR) tools and Photoshop from watching it being done.

That would leave you with a different white balance for the trees and water, hopefully not as 'dead'.

Cheers,

[davidedric]

Dave - Thanks for jumping in and giving it a go. I can see you upped the exposure and that was certainly needed. What else did you do - you're supposed to tell me what you did. Still not exactly happy with the overall colors...

Hi Susan,

I didn't follow this up because it seemed from subsequent posts that it was going in the wrong direction for you.

However, FWIW I didn't change the colour temperature, because the whites in the ship looked OK to me. I increased the exposure by about 3/4 stop, and slightly increased the contrast. I moved the black slider down to get a better black point, and added a bit if Clarity and Vibrance (no point in saying exactly how much, because I am using LR5, and they seem a bit different). Having pushed the exposure up I thought the sky too light and so used a graduated filter on the sky to pull the exposure down again by around half a stop.

The other thing I did, to increase the blue in the water, was to use the Targeted Adjustment Tool (TAT) in the HSL panel. I think that is a better way to selectively change the colours in an area, though you didn't mention using it (I think I may have overdone it a bit, though).

Cheers,

Dave

[geoz]

Hi George, Dave and Dave - yup - it is the blue overtones that I find overwhelming. I wanted to see if that's what you folks see and it looks like it is.....

Seems to me one of the things photographers decide is whether they want an image as close to natural as possible or to make as good an image as possible and not be tied to reality. Usually its a combination of the two.

To me this image is a bit washed out. The hull looks like it should be black. One way to view it is to look at it as a B&W and look at the tone range Or, look at the histogram to see if it spans the range and is not bunched up to once side (unless you want that). Keep posting and asking for advice you will surely get it.

George

[MrB]

Although, of course, I wasn't there, the image looks much more natural to me without the blue cast. In fact, I'm quite surprised that some of the edits seem to have enhanced the blue. It seems likely from my experience that really blue water is the result of a relatively calm surface reflecting a cloudless blue sky, otherwise the water tends towards a mixture of greenish-blue tones.

I do not have Lightroom but ACR might be similar, so the originally posted Jpeg was loaded into ACR via PS Elements, and the following applied - White Balance: Temperature +15, Tint +15; Exposure: +0.33. The image was transferred to Elements and some local contrast then applied (to make the details pop a bit more) using Unsharp Mask: 20%, 50 pixels, 0 levels.



Philip

[pasusan]

Hi Susan,



Can't you do a graduated adjustment in LR to apply the 'anti-blue' to the sky (and masts) only?

See if you can find a video online to show how it is done - I didn't 'get it' from book descriptions, but recently signed up to Lynda.com and have learnt so much on how to use ACR (= LR) tools and Photoshop from watching it being done.

That would leave you with a different white balance for the trees and water, hopefully not as 'dead'.

Cheers,

Hi Dave - good idea! I have gone through lots of tutorials on LR and do know how to use the Graduated Filter tool - I just never thought about it in this instance. Thanks for coming up with it!

[pasusan]

Hi Susan,

I didn't follow this up because it seemed from subsequent posts that it was going in the wrong direction for you.

However, FWIW I didn't change the colour temperature, because the whites in the ship looked OK to me. I increased the exposure by about 3/4 stop, and slightly increased the contrast. I moved the black slider down to get a better black point, and added a bit if Clarity and Vibrance (no point in saying exactly how much, because I am using LR5, and they seem a bit different). Having pushed the exposure up I thought the sky too light and so used a graduated filter on the sky to pull the exposure down again by around half a stop.

The other thing I did, to increase the blue in the water, was to use the Targeted Adjustment Tool (TAT) in the HSL panel. I think that is a better way to selectively change the colours in an area, though you didn't mention using it (I think I may have overdone it a bit, though).

Cheers,

Dave

Thanks Dave for posting what you did. It all helps me learn how to handle things in LR. Like that TAT idea - sometimes I need to be reminded of what is possible.