Beginner Photos lacking in contrast and colour

Messages
207
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
I own a 40d and my lens is a sigma 17 80. I am finding that my photos seem to lack colour and contrast crispness. I always seen to have to use levels and contrast adjustment in photoshop to bring them to life. I normally have the polarised filter attached, could this be causing the problem. I know that it knocks 2 stops of light off, do I need to adjust the exposure to plus 2 stops or should the camera adjust to the filter? Or could it be that the lens just isn't preforming correctly?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Why are you keeping the polarising filter on all of the time?
 
Are you shooting RAW files they always look flat?.
 
no just jpeg

I'd strongly suggest switching to RAW then. If you're already using post processing, there's no extra step involved for you (apart from exporting to JPG at the end). The difference in ability to extract hidden detail, especially from shadows, is night and day. If you're already losing stops, that could be pretty important.

If you always find yourself making similar changes, you can apply a preset (e.g. contrast) to your imports...
 
I would replace the filter with a UV/Skylight filter. You can increase the saturation for the cameras jpeg settings in the menus I believe. But as said above shoot RAW and edit accordingly you should achieve better results.
 
I would suggest that the first picture is generally what most people would expect straight from camera, and I would process just the way you have.
 
I have to say, I don't think the first is particularly flat. Sure, it can benefit from a lift here and there but I think it looks Ok as a starting point...
:agree:
 
Have you calibrated your monitor screen ... it may be misrepresenting the image to you?
 
That image is fine. In fact, I would go so far as to say its pretty good.
I wonder if your monitor is the issue here?
 
Thanks guys for your help, the photos probably weren't the best example and I've processed all the others. I will post again in this thread if it happens although I will try what you have suggested. thanks again for your help.
 
I usually under expose my shots by around -0.3 to -0.7 you may find this gives a richer image and you can easily recover any shadow details in camera RAW if you decide to shoot RAW that is.
 
That image is fine. In fact, I would go so far as to say its pretty good.
I wonder if your monitor is the issue here?


Good point. The monitor is always an afterthought for most people. Spec a new computer, then buy whatever monitor they can with teh change.. :(

Either this, or you're just being influenced by the huge amount of over-processed imagery saturating the internet.

That straight from camera shot looks absolutely fine to me. I'm not saying it doesn't look good after you processed it, but reality is reality... it will capture what's there.
 
I normally have the polarised filter attached, could this be causing the problem. I know that it knocks 2 stops of light off, do I need to adjust the exposure to plus 2 stops or should the camera adjust to the filter?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

if you adjust the exposure to plus two ,after the ttl metering has done its job ,then it will be two stops overexposed ,,and the image will be less saturated ,( as well as overexposed ) and is it a circular polariser ? linear ones can sometimes be a problem with some cameras . try underexposing by a third or two thirds of a stop for a bit more saturation colourwise
 
... I normally have the polarised filter attached, could this be causing the problem...
We'll stop it!

Seriously, whilst there's nothing wrong with the images above, a polarising filter has a specific purpose, keeping it on is as smart as leaving your trailer attached to your car, when it's not required it's just slowing you down and making things less pleasant.
 
We'll stop it!

Seriously, whilst there's nothing wrong with the images above, a polarising filter has a specific purpose, keeping it on is as smart as leaving your trailer attached to your car, when it's not required it's just slowing you down and making things less pleasant.

(y) I think the OP has confused the polariser with the advice to keep a UV /skylight filter on to protect the lens (not a debate we need to have here)

but yes take the polariser off - its purpose is to cut reflections, and deepend coolurs and it works best when at 90 degrees to the light , you also need to roatate it (assuming its a circular not linear polariser) for best effect - but it should only be used in very specific situations

With regard to picrtures looking flat or washed out the usual causes are either over exposure , or shooting in very bright light (like in the middle of the day)
 
Yes, do change to the RAW format. You'll be able to do more with RAW than JPEG.

You don't need a poloarizing filter on all the time. Maybe if you're working with water or other reflective surfaces then do use it, and don't forget it will only work at 90° to the sun. As the others said, a UV or skylight filter will the best option.


Edit - Oops, just read what Moose said lol
 
I don't know the 40d, but it's likely to have a number of options for how it renders the jpegs, e.g. 'vivid' mode which may be more to your taste. It's also worth checking which colour space it's set to - ProPhoto and Adobe RGB can look awful in some image viewers, while sRGB is fairly universal even though it contains a lot less colour information and has reduced scope for editing.

I'm a big advocate of raw files but I'm not sure I'd recommend shooting in raw to a complete beginner when there's so much else to get to grips with.
 
You don't need a poloarizing filter on all the time. Maybe if you're working with water or other reflective surfaces then do use it, and don't forget it will only work at 90° to the sun. As the others said, a UV or skylight filter will the best option.

A CPL will work at angles other than 90° to the sun, it is just that the effect is strongest there, which is not always what you want.
 
Back
Top