Seeking for specific post processing photo character

[Ozi]

Hi,

I am advanced begginer nature photographer, but still not very much into post processing. I did some stuff in Lightroom with good results, but mostly with presets. Now I am looking and trying for months to get this kind of photo character which is very clean and every color is clearly defined. What is impressive to me here on this samples is that these look very much different than whatever I tried. This samples what I found elsewhere are made with EOS 5D and Canon 24-70mm 2.8. I am using EOS 6D and Canon 40mm 2.8. I guess that it's possible to edit pictures made with my set to have this kind of character where green is so freshly green to the level that you can feel the moist on the leafs. There is no sign of any haze or slight grey patina above.

I saw on Flickr many similar photo character like this on many photos, but I don't have some experienced person in photo editing that I know.

Anyway, could you please comment if this pictures are actually edited or not. From my humble experience it can be that they are edited as 5D does not made photos like this by itself.







I would really appreciate your advice.

Thank you.

[Shadowman]

Hi Ozi,

On overcast days play around with the white balance on the camera, try shade or cloudy and you can get some vivid colors prior to taking the photo into Lightroom. I think the colors in the photos shown could've been done without too much editing, perhaps the DOF effect was stretched a bit in processing.

[Ozi]

Thank you John, much appreciated. So you believe that this photos are definitely post processed?

[Shadowman]

Thank you John, much appreciated. So you believe that this photos are definitely post processed?

Ozi,

Not necessarily to obtain the vivid colors, perhaps a bit for the effects but this look could also be obtained with certain lenses. For my particular artistic tastes it really doesn't matter if the imagery was created using post processing, if the capture is done well and is visually pleasing then I can enjoy the piece for what it represents.

[rpcrowe]

Welcome aboard to CiC...

One thing that confuses some folks is that images shot with a point and shoot camera sometimes seem sharper and more vibrant than those shot with a DSLR camera. That is because the default settings on a P&S are sometimes sharper, more contrasty and more saturated that the default settings on many if not most DSLR cameras.

I think perhaps, you may be asking if a JPEG straight out of the camera can look like this. The answer is that do have you have quite a bit of control over what your JPEGs turn out to look like. The control that you have depends on the camera you are using.

If you shoot with Canon and especially when you use Canon software to open your images, you have even more control over what the SOOC JPEGs look like by using the Canon provided picture styles and by taking advantage of other controls such as Auto Lighting Optimizer.

Here is a YouTube video about preset picture styles and custom user picture styles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI2cwyIW1eU

YouTube video on Auto LightingOptimzer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH4SUynmtRM

We basically accomplish the same things in post processing (especially if we shoot RAW) as the camera does with picture styles applied. The big difference is that we have more control when finalizing an image in post processing than when we let the camera do it for us...

Perhaps you could post a couple of samples of the images that you are not quite satisfied with, then members might be able to give you better feedback. Your combination of 5D Classic and 40mm pancake lens is certainly a most capable combination...

[Ozi]

Thank you guys.

I made couple of shots from my window.
I tried every combination of white balance, tone priority, picture style and auto lighting optimizer. No matter of settings combinaton I get overal poor quality of the picture. I believe that this setting are very useful once when you have general quality, but my pictures are realy awful. Especially as they are bland, flat and dead like. It is not much difference between my first Nikon D3200 and now EOS 6D regarding this and this is what really make me said as I believe that D6 must provide much better results immediately after the shot.

Here are my photos. All made in aperture priority. First one at f4 standard picture style, second one f6.3 standard picture style, third f7.1 with landscape picture style with slightly boosted contrast and saturation as on default landscape settings it is very little difference than standard style. Possibly beacuse of general poor quality of the picture. Fourth picture is at f9. No need to say that I also previously tested this in RAW and these now are made as highest quality JPEG which of course I needed to resize a bit for forum purpose, but even orignal sizes looks just like this.









Thank you very much for your help in order to prevent my photo adventure to be a hell.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Ozi, and welcome to CiC.

These pictures were shot at around 10:30 in the morning on what appears a sunny day. This is just about the worst, boring, flat lighting you would want.

If I shoot images such as these in the daytime during a bright day with either of my cameras or any lens I will get similar results.

They are not poor quality pictures as you suggest, they are "what you shot".

Edit : I would also suggest that if this image was shot with either an entry level, or, top of the range DSLR the results would be the same (barring resolution used loosely)

Here is an example of what can be achieved with your No 1 test shot above in post processing and I suspect that you have the facility within your camera to achieve similar without the need for post processing;

Exposure dropped by -1 stop roughly
Contrast increased +
Shadows opened (I suspect your Canon has this function/option)
Saturation not touched

[george013]

I'm not sure if this will help but you did shoot in AdobeRGB. What happens if you use sRGB?

George

[Shadowman]

This is an example of the colors you can get, SOOC except for perhaps some picture control adjustments. I used flash, reflector.

_DSC1973 SOOC by JOHN, on Flickr

[Cogito]

Anyway, could you please comment if this pictures are actually edited or not. From my humble experience it can be that they are edited as 5D does not made photos like this by itself.
Thank you.

All 3 were processed in Lightr00m 5.3

[rpcrowe]

IMO, you are losing much of the advantage of using a DSLR (especially a full frame DSLR such as the 5D) and a good prime lens such as the EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake if you do not post process your images.

There are many post processing programs available at all price points (from free to the approximately $10 per month for a subscription Adobe CC).

Lightroom has become an excellent post processing program and has grown in leaps and bounds from what was originally a image cataloging program. Photoshop CC is probably the standard of the industry. I would say one of the greatest advantages of the Adobe programs (Lightroom, Photoshop and Photoshop elements) is the profusion of instructional media available for these programs on the Internet - free of charge.

Just about every program has similar capabilities. Some have a bit more capability than others and some are easier to use. I would recommend that you install one post processing program and use that to the exclusion of others until you have established a proficiency with that program. I think that once you become adept at using one program, it is easy to switch over to other programs.

Here is a way that you might also get some more vibrant images in camera. The use of a CPL (circular polarizing filter) will if the light is at the right angle; reduce reflections, darken the sky and cut through haze a bit. It will generally provide a more vibrant image.



Here is just one of the many YouTube videos on polarizing filters...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz6i548ljCE

Your pancake lens would take a 52mm screw-in filter. I would recommend getting a name brand CPL such as Hoya or B&W because the "no-name" Chinese filters often cause more problems than they solve...

[Ozi]

Thank you very much. I really appreciate your time for giving me advices on this. It really means much to me not just from photo paerspective, but my new set represent realtively serious investment for me.
I will give my best to keep positive and correct my learning curve regarding post processing. I understand that making photo is just a half way. The other half is post processing.

Grahame, thank you for your effort to show me how you did it with my photo. Will keep on mind what you commented.

George, it is just that I switch from sRGB to AdobeRGB today as I found out that I have slightly livelier colors with Adobe.

John, thanks for the photo. Very nice. I understand that for this good result it is imprtant how do you play with the light source.

Tony, thank you for checking the EXIF of other guy photos. I also saw that they were somehow processed in Lightroom, but I am not sure if they are actually post processed and all that, or they are just resized or something to be internet friendly.

Richard, thank you for pointing out post processing. I already use Lightroom 6.1.1 and Canon DPP 4 (although I cannot find whites and blacks in Canon DDP). I will give my best to improve myself as a user of this programs.
I noticed your signature. Very nice, we also have a maltese dog, a six year old boy called Beni. I will post a photo of him (made with Samsung mobile phone )

I played around in the afternoon and I have two new photos of the same scene. First one is with polarised filter, but I must admit not expensive one. It was just a spare which I left after I sold Nikon D3200 couple of years ago. Anyway, this experiment gives me more optimism. Second picture (also with aperture priority setting like first one), but without polarised filter. I believe that filter would bring more results if I made a photo earlier during the day, but even like this it brings some benefit. I will play with this two pictures in Lightroom, but posting for you to see what my camera actually can, or cannot.

[rpcrowe]

Your last image of the cute dog is quite underexposed as is indicated by the histogram siding to the left...



I used NIK Viveza to correct this with the levels/curves adjustment in Viveza



This is the result after the levels/curves adjustment...



You can see that the histogram has evened out



I use the NIK software as a Photoshop Plug-in for most of my processing. I use all of the components of NIK but, my favorite is Viveza. Viveza doesn't have presets like many of the other NIK components but, I have found it very good for multiple tasks.

NIK collection was once owned by Google and was offered at $250 USD and then reduced to free. It has been purchased by DXO software and now costs $69 as a plug-in for Photoshop, Lightroom and Photoshop Elements.

https://nikcollection.dxo.com/

It can also be used as a plug in with DXO Photo Lab.

https://nikcollection.dxo.com/download/

[pnodrog]

A quick Photoshop edit on smallish jpg file so I have not tried to avoid minor artifacts etc. The main difference between your photographs and the examples you provided is the mid tone contrast and saturation. I suspect the examples you provided have had a strong amount of "S" curve adjustment applied to them or local contrast adjustments made either by using adjustment layer masks or local dodging and burning applied to selected areas.(Note: highlights, midtones or shadows can be targeted when burning or dodging)

Using lightroom the adjustment brush can be used to boost highlights, reduce shadows, increase contrast or modify exposure in selected areas.

[george013]

I'm still playing with the idea of a wrong color space.

George, it is just that I switch from sRGB to AdobeRGB today as I found out that I have slightly livelier colors with Adobe.

If correct you shouldn't see much or any difference. Play with the different profiles in this link http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/color-spaces-page2. It looks color profile is your problem.

In the FF exifviewer I read color space: uncalibrated, under camer info color space: AdobeRGB(2).

Using Exiftools it says Color space: uncallibrated.

To me it looks as if pixel values belonging to a wider color space is used for a smaller color space. Seen at my sRGB monitor.

George

[Stagecoach]

I guess that it's possible to edit pictures made with my set to have this kind of character where green is so freshly green to the level that you can feel the moist on the leafs. There is no sign of any haze or slight grey patina above

Ozi, another thought. With respect to the three images in your post No 1 looking at the camera settings these were all shot in fairly low light, possibly full shade so colours such as the greens will look richer than when they are lit by direct sunlight.

[Ozi]

Thank you guys.

George, I changed color space to sRGB and EXIF says the same "WARNING: Color space tagged as sRGB, without an embedded color profile. " I tested this for RAW file. As I understand, colour profile is not up to the camera, but up to the software. As I didn't previously processed picture in Lightroom, therefore it couldn't have colour profile.

I did this a moment ago https://photographylife.com/how-to-g...s-in-lightroom and import RAW sRGB files, but still the same poor picture quality. My main problem actualy is that my pictures are elementary poor like I use very cheap camera. When I shoot grass (in a shade) in front of my legs and zoom that picture on computer for 50%, I get satisying colors, but even focused are is somehow hazy and steamy. Maybe 40mm f2.8 is simply not enough quality lens, but on the other hand I saw elsewhere fantastic pictures with this lens and my camera. I found bad pictures with this lens around, but no matter if picture is not taken as it should, you can always see that picture have it's basic quality.

I must admit that I am lost and worried.

[Stagecoach]

Ozi,

My main problem actualy is that my pictures are elementary poor like I use very cheap camera.

I take some pictures with my very expensive camera and lens that are very poor, but on the other hand, some pictures with my very cheap P&S are excellent

When I shoot grass (in a shade) in front of my legs and zoom that picture on computer for 50%, I get satisying colors, but even focused are is somehow hazy and steamy. Maybe 40mm f2.8 is simply not enough quality lens, but on the other hand I saw elsewhere fantastic pictures with this lens and my camera. I found bad pictures with this lens around, but no matter if picture is not taken as it should, you can always see that picture have it's basic quality.

I must admit that I am lost and worried.

Ozi, this is where I'm confused. You say that when you shoot grass in shade you get satisfying colours but they are "hazy and steamy"

To me it's unclear what you mean by hazy and steamy, can you post an example of a specific 'grass' shot that clearly demonstrates this description.

[rpcrowe]

Ozi,

Shooting with a DSLR camera can be quite frustrating at the start since DSLR cameras, in general, rely on post processing to bring out the best in the images. This may seem like a contradiction in that the expensive DSLR needs more PP than the cheaper P&S. However, shot correctly and post processed correctly, the DSLR will produce images usually quite superior to the P&S camera.

It's just that DSLR shooters generally automatically post process their images to one degree or another and very often shoot in RAW.

Getting used to shooting in RAW you can do a lot to enhance your images either in Lightroom or in Adobe Camera Raw. Getting to know your histogram and also becoming familiar with the levels and curves adjustments will do much for the images that you shoot.

Additionally, editing with a calibrated monitor can put you ahead of the game.

There is a plethora of instructional information regarding Lightroom and Adobe Camera RAW (actually the enhancement techniques of both of these programs are virtually the same) on the Internet, especially on YouTube. Here are a selection of YouTube videos concerning Lightroom...

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...for+beginners+

One that I specifically like is Scott Kelby's Photoshop for Travel Photographers. This, despite the title, is not restricted to trave images. At 1:05 of this video, Scott talks about editing with Adobe Camera RAW which is basically the same as the Lightroom Develop Module...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIt1cDw5lLI&t=241s

The pertinent point is that you don't have to be shooting in RAW to process with Adobe Camera RAW. You can open the ACR filter in Photoshop...

Although this video deals with CS6 much of the information can be applicable to Photoshop CC and ACR/Lightroom

[DanK]

Ozi,

I hope you will find this post helpful. I think the thread has a lot of good information, but I think the discussion has to start at the beginning. Please pardon me if you know more than I am guessing you do.

Anyway, could you please comment if this pictures are actually edited or not.

ALL digital photos are processed. Until they are processed, you can't view them. One option is that you shoot jpeg, which means that you pick a picture style and let the camera's preprogrammed editing do the work. A second option is that you shoot raw, which means that the camera does not do the processing; you do it yourself. The final option is that you combine the two by shooting JPEG and doing additional editing yourself.

I did this a moment ago https://photographylife.com/how-to-g...s-in-lightroom and import RAW sRGB files, but still the same poor picture quality. My main problem actualy is that my pictures are elementary poor like I use very cheap camera

Raw files imported directly into Lightroom will typically look worse than JPEGs because very little processing has been done to them. For example, Lightroom will not apply a contrast adjustment, and it will apply very little sharpening--unlike the picture styles in your camera. Lightroom is waiting for you to do the work.

I tried every combination of white balance, tone priority, picture style and auto lighting optimizer. No matter of settings combinaton I get overal poor quality of the picture.

If you are shooting raw, none of this matters. None of it affects the contents of the raw file. Lightroom will read the camera's white balance setting and use that for an initial rendering, but you can change it to whatever you want when you edit the image.

So step one is deciding whether you are going to shoot JPEG or raw. JPEG will do more processing in the camera, but it leaves you will less flexibility for editing yourself.

Step two is to learn, step by step, what the various editing options do. Trying various combinations without knowing what each edit does isn’t likely to work. Unless you are a much faster learner than I am, this takes a long time. for example, you need to learn how to control contrast, sharpness, and vibrance or saturation. There is no one combination that works for all photos. Your goal should be to be able to look at one of your images, decide how you want the appearance changed, and then know how to use various editing tools to produce this.

What I found is that when I teach people, it is easiest to take one piece at a time. For example, take a few sample images and then use them to learn how the various tonality adjustments work--the "basic" and "tone curve" panels on the right-side pane in Lightroom. While learning that, forget about the rest--for example, sharpness and saturation. Just focus on learning what each of the controls does. Then, move on to one other piece.

There are many sources for learning the basics. You might start by reading the "Editing and Postprocessing" tutorials on this site. Then post questions here about things that aren't clear to you.

Dan