Beginner Help with colour in dull conditions

Messages
3,616
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello all,

I've just returned from a short break where I took many photos on both Digital and film. I've now looked at the digi photos to find them very washed out with some of them appearing black and white. the few photos I managed to take in good light are great, this seems to happen on both of my digi cameras and I was wondering if there was any of the settings I could alter that may help under these conditions. I of course realize this is going to happen to some degree in poor light but it really seems much worse with the digi cameras compared to film putting me off using them.They were took using the cameras in auto. One is an Olympus point and shoot and the other a Kodak bridge camera.

Thanks for any advise.
 
Based on a previous picture you shared I am going to say that the main problem is that you have cheap digital cameras with small sensors.

This means dynamic range at anything other than base ISO will be very poor and you will lose colour saturation too, you can boost this with software but it will look pretty naff.

On the other hand, you are also shooting 35mm film which will have fantastic, non-linear dynamic range and the large area means you are capturing a lot of light. These shots are bound to look miles better than those from your digital cameras.
 
As above, we need to see examples. Good digital kit is as good at rendering colours in poor light (if not better) than film like for like, though it does sound as if your digital kit isn't that great (to put it politely), and as such I take it you are shooting jpegs rather than raw and not processing in anyway?

Can you post some examples?
 
I would be happy if the photograph represented reasonably well the colour and light that were there that day. I would not expect nor want the camera to reproduce something that was not there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nog
Thanks for all the replies much appreciated,in all fairness the point and press is quite old and the Kodak is pretty much the cheapest in it's range the Pixpro A401 with a 1/2.3"/6.17X4.55mm CCD sensor (not sure if thats big or small) . I think I will stick with the 35mm as even the very basic manual cameras I have seem to produce more reliable results whilst only using the sunny 16 rule. Luckily I also did a lots of film photography so should still have some good memories of our trip. Here is a photo I would say is just passable (the red bridge is really bright in real life !) The second is the same camera in good light. Unfortunately I have deleted the 50% or so of photos that were really poor so am unable to show you how bad they were!half.jpg half2.jpg
 
The first impression I get from #1 is that is slightly underexposed. On #2 the sun is clearly out so I am not sure it is a fair comparison.
 
TBH I don't think the issue is digital vs film, so much as low quality cameras vs a medium with a lot of tolerance built in and a camera with possibly better quality optics too.
 
The Whitby steps shot (#2) isn't too unrealistic, just needs a bit of further processing, even just accentuating the blacks works. :)
 
To my eyes they are both underexposed. Meters are calibrated to deliver correct exposures in average conditions - it used to be called Kodak 18% Grey . You need to recognise by eye when your subject is the equivalent of that "tone", or lighter, or darker.

if your subject is lighter you will need to let more light in by opening the diaphragm or by, say, 1 stop, or by doubling the exposure. If it is a dark subject you will need to let less light in by doing the reverse.

No camera will know what to do in such situations so you need to over-rule the automatic exposure reading. but it should be easy to make a very acceptable result from no2 in your software, whereas No1 is a bit of a dead loss.
 
It's not an old vs new camera thing, or cheap vs expensive, or film vs digital. It's simply good light vs crap light (plus under-exposure and a dull subject).
 
If the light's crap and you wanna go home.

Try shooting in monochrome.
If the light is crap then the light is crap. Monochrome does not improve the light. If anything, mono is harder in crap light as the tones (which are all you have) will be compressed.
 
I disagree and have had good results from a monochrome image when in colour was just a muddy mess.

TIP: Increase contrast to separate tones. Give it a go.
 
Confirming what has been said about the cameras lack of tonal range and the Point and press under exposing I did a contrast stretch and Brightened the images slightly which seems to have improved them.Although still not the best ! I spent ages doing this to a number of photos and can say I will not be doing it again. For me Photography and computers are two different things. spending time out with my camera is great time, chatting to people and seeing new places and things rather than being sat in a corner wasting time trying to fix photos that should have been right in the first place ! ( Rant over)
Heres the pics anyway first one is as it came out the camera the second has been messed with.messing with the image has brought the colours out better at the cost of bleaching out the sky.
untouched.jpg
modded.jpg
 
Confirming what has been said about the cameras lack of tonal range and the Point and press under exposing I did a contrast stretch and Brightened the images slightly which seems to have improved them.Although still not the best ! I spent ages doing this to a number of photos and can say I will not be doing it again. For me Photography and computers are two different things. spending time out with my camera is great time, chatting to people and seeing new places and things rather than being sat in a corner wasting time trying to fix photos that should have been right in the first place ! ( Rant over)
Heres the pics anyway first one is as it came out the camera the second has been messed with.messing with the image has brought the colours out better at the cost of bleaching out the sky.
View attachment 110861
View attachment 110865

You've wholly misunderstood what 'digital' is. It's just a different format. You only spend as much time in front of the computer as you want to. But I will say being able to process your own digital negatives (ie raw files), rather then have Boots (etc) do it to *their* liking is a huge advantage and something that is very much part of the photographic process (and always has been). And it's *not* about "fixing photos that should have been right in the first place", it's about developing the negative- as I'm sure you do with film unless of course you prefer to sit down and squint at negatives all evening long. The philosophy, principles and everything else is exactly the same, whether you're using a wet plate camera or medium format Hassleblad digital.

You're not even comparing like for like with the equipment you're using, but that's by the by.

As for the images posted here, they've simply been very poorly processed from a limited base image. You can dial up the shadows and dial down the highlights but you seem to have simply blasted up the exposure. However, with your digital equipment the sensors are pretty poor so they won't give you the range to do much processing wise in terms of balancing the exposure, which you would do in the dark room by dodging and burning etc.

But I return to this;

For me Photography and computers are two different things. spending time out with my camera is great time, chatting to people and seeing new places and things rather than being sat in a corner wasting time trying to fix photos that should have been right in the first place ! ( Rant over)

I've just spent five glorious days in the Scottish Highlands and enjoyed my time with a DSLR as much as any camera (more actually). And I was also even able to speak to people and explore new places with it! [emoji23]
 
Last edited:
Confirming what has been said about the cameras lack of tonal range and the Point and press under exposing I did a contrast stretch and Brightened the images slightly which seems to have improved them.Although still not the best ! I spent ages doing this to a number of photos and can say I will not be doing it again. For me Photography and computers are two different things. spending time out with my camera is great time, chatting to people and seeing new places and things rather than being sat in a corner wasting time trying to fix photos that should have been right in the first place ! ( Rant over)
Heres the pics anyway first one is as it came out the camera the second has been messed with.messing with the image has brought the colours out better at the cost of bleaching out the sky.
View attachment 110861
View attachment 110865
This seems to suggest that the photo was underexposed in the first place, which is not the camera's fault.
 
if you take an image that is too dark , no amount of processing will make it a great image , you may get an acceptable image at best. and even pro photographers have bad days
 
I am going to try some sort of exposure compensation ( I'm not sure what settings are available on the point and press) as I would also agree that the shots are under exposed. I may even try using the kodak bridge on manual using the sunny 16 rule settings I use on my manual cameras and adjust to suit, on auto it really is naff.It seems to under expose in poor light and over expose in very bright light. I realize the two formats are different but would expect a super wizo bridge camera to better my 1960's basic manual fixed lens cameras whilst only using the sunny 16 rule. I really would like to get them working better but as yet I have no confidence in them so tend to take important shots I may not get again on the film cameras whether that be my SLR'S or point and press's.
 
Hello all,

I've just returned from a short break where I took many photos on both Digital and film. I've now looked at the digi photos to find them very washed out with some of them appearing black and white. the few photos I managed to take in good light are great, this seems to happen on both of my digi cameras and I was wondering if there was any of the settings I could alter that may help under these conditions. I of course realize this is going to happen to some degree in poor light but it really seems much worse with the digi cameras compared to film putting me off using them.They were took using the cameras in auto. One is an Olympus point and shoot and the other a Kodak bridge camera.

Thanks for any advise.

Processing should be able to lift the highlights etc, with a bit of clarity etc. Probably better with RAW. You say no to "edit my images" so can't help or try (someone did tho')
 
I am going to try some sort of exposure compensation ( I'm not sure what settings are available on the point and press) as I would also agree that the shots are under exposed. I may even try using the kodak bridge on manual using the sunny 16 rule settings I use on my manual cameras and adjust to suit, on auto it really is naff.It seems to under expose in poor light and over expose in very bright light. I realize the two formats are different but would expect a super wizo bridge camera to better my 1960's basic manual fixed lens cameras whilst only using the sunny 16 rule. I really would like to get them working better but as yet I have no confidence in them so tend to take important shots I may not get again on the film cameras whether that be my SLR'S or point and press's.
As we've said, its not a 'digital' issue - you just need to get yourself better digital format cameras (if you want to use this format). The advantage of film, even with point and shoot cameras, is that the image quality will be (for all intensive purposes) guided by the film in the camera (and the lens), whereas with digital its the sensor and lens - you need to have a decent sensor, which you don't get with the cheap and very old small sensor cameras.
 
Just looked at sensor size between my Bridge and point press cameras and a modern DSLR I can now see there is a great size difference so can now understand what you are getting at a bit like going from 110 film to medium format . Unfortunately for me the price of a DSLR and lenses would be way out of my league as I have too many hobbies/responsibilities so I will have to make do with what I have to hand ie my film cameras and limited digital stuff.

Cheers all
 
Just looked at sensor size between my Bridge and point press cameras and a modern DSLR I can now see there is a great size difference so can now understand what you are getting at a bit like going from 110 film to medium format . Unfortunately for me the price of a DSLR and lenses would be way out of my league as I have too many hobbies/responsibilities so I will have to make do with what I have to hand ie my film cameras and limited digital stuff.

Cheers all

Yes, exactly that. Maybe consider looking at used equipment if you seriously wanted to dabble with a DSLR? You can pick up a used entry level APSC sensor body for a couple of hundred quid and a 50mm prime for peanuts :)
 
Just as a quick question I do have a Canon EOS10D DSLR which was given to me which I attempted to use with an adapter and manual film camera lenses but all it seemed to do was produce lifeless dull images in all lights, I eventually gave up at and left it in the cupboard I have since found that if I do a contrast stretch on the images they look much better has anyone any idea why this would be ? I've tried multiple lenses and used the camera in both manual and aperture priority. here are two examples of the photo from the camera and a processed photo The light again was the UK shade of dull ! Thanks all for your input.
IMG_0005.JPG
NNN.jpg
 
Last edited:
FWIW it's not essential to get the very latest full frame DSLR with fast lenses to get better pictures, although older cameras can struggle a bit with a lower dynamic range on their sensors than more modern stuff.

Was the original top image from RAW or .jpg output? RAW requires some processing to develop the image before it will sparkle, while a jpg straight from the camera can look more exciting. In the case of these, they both seem under-exposed again, and ion the very flat an uninspiring light would be difficult to rescue whatever the camera or exposure used. I don't know anything about the 10D so can't comment on that.
 
Thanks for your help, both photos are in .Jpg the camera has a habit of producing lifeless photos in dull light then over exposing in bright light , I've tried using the sunny 16 rule and a separate light meter but could never win. I think I will return it to it's retirement home (the cup board)

Thanks again.
 
Brad

I'd reset the Canon's settings and invest £80 in a decent secondhand Canon AF lens and sack the other two. Then you need to improve your processing.
 
Last edited:
... both photos are in .Jpg the camera has a habit of producing lifeless photos in dull light ...
Have you ever read the user manual (re jpg output modes, etc)? Or as a quick fix, what about doing a re-set to factory defaults (as Brad suggests)?
 
Last edited:
Two shots taken this Tuesday of a town house in Uppermill. I was waiting for the sun to find a gap in the clouds when a horse trotted by. Of course it came out dull as ditch water.
it was easy enough to brighten but it will never be the same as the one taken with sun as it has no crisp shadows. the white balance is also different as it was taken with sky light rather than direct sun. They could be brought to the same colour temperature easily enough, but when you do it looks wrong.

TA3X4941Xweb by Terry Andrews, on Flickr

TA3X4932Xweb by Terry Andrews, on Flickr
 
So let me get this right. You say you used the manual with sunny f16 rule. Why did you use sunny f16 when the weather conditions quite plainly did not suit using that rule. The pictures have turned out as most of us would expect, underexposed and full of camera shake.
The results from you film camera appeared better because the machine that processed and printed your film automatically compensated for your error.
 
Last edited:
...
The results from you film camera appeared better because the machine that processed and printed your film automatically compensated for your error.
This^
When lots of us switched from film to digital, there was a steep learning curve, people who'd shot print film had never realised that the latitude of the film and the auto processing labs had been covering their mistakes for years. Only the slide film users and those that did their own processing were fully prepared for digital.

So let me get this right. You say you used the manual with sunny f16 rule. Why did you use sunny f16 when the weather conditions quite plainly did not suit using that rule. The pictures have turned out as most of us would expect, underexposed and full of camera shake.

I'd assumed that by the 'sunny 16 rule' he'd been aware of the lower exposures for different conditions, looking at the full info graphic from the film box, rather than just sunny.
 
img_0005-jpg.111007


IMG_0005.jpg


You can pull out a decent image from the EOS10D even though your settings were incorrect
 
That looks much better Dcash29 ! This camera baffles me which is why it was chucked in a cupboard, using manual and it's in built meter (or any other meter) the camera over exposes in the small apertures and under exposes in the large apertures the best way seems to be to try and get it somewhere near right through the view finder. You can take 4 or 5 photos one after the other and they are all exposed differently from over to under. Using aperture priority has the same results. I have had a few photos which have turned out really nice but at least 10 times that are terrible The rest not much better.Quite often the focus seems just slightly out although it was fine through the lens. I was convinced there was some sort of fault so I took to using my many film cameras or my point and press digital. If it was a least reliably under or over exposing I could correct it easily.
 
That looks much better Dcash29 ! This camera baffles me which is why it was chucked in a cupboard, using manual and it's in built meter (or any other meter) the camera over exposes in the small apertures and under exposes in the large apertures the best way seems to be to try and get it somewhere near right through the view finder. You can take 4 or 5 photos one after the other and they are all exposed differently from over to under. Using aperture priority has the same results. I have had a few photos which have turned out really nice but at least 10 times that are terrible The rest not much better.Quite often the focus seems just slightly out although it was fine through the lens. I was convinced there was some sort of fault so I took to using my many film cameras or my point and press digital. If it was a least reliably under or over exposing I could correct it easily.
Are you shooting in full manual, because that sounds like nothing is being adjusted to compensate for the aperture changes.
 
Back
Top