The best filter

[400dabuser]

For producing more colour, but not to much colour (i.e. over saturation) and one that would produce no vignetting?

TIA

[SkipD]

No filter will do what you are asking. Proper exposure and (possibly) either setting the camera (for .JPG files) or post-processing are what you really need.

That said, a polarizing filter can help to control reflections and (sometimes) enrich the colors in outdoor shots. The effects of a polarizing filter depend greatly on the lighting qualities (they are usually used in sunlit scenarios) and where the lighting is coming from relative to the camera-subject positioning.

[egordon99]

No filter needed. Just a lens with great color rendering and great light (and a nice subject too....)

[Ook]

Some photoshop practice will be infinitely cheaper than more gear.

[DrPablo]

The biggest cause of "washed out" colors is overexposure of midtones. Deep, rich colors are darker than light, pastel colors. You can prove it to yourself in Photoshop just by looking at the RGB (or in Lab space the Lightness values) of various colors.

So if you want rich, vibrant colors, you need to make sure they are exposed properly. That typically means placing them equivalent to middle gray or 1 stop darker than middle gray. So you need to meter and expose accordingly. As mentioned a polarizer may help by decreasing highlights and reflections on colored surfaces, and it will certainly enrich the color of the sky.

In Photoshop the trick is to apply curves in a way that decreases the value of the midtones, i.e. darkens them. Don't even think about touching the saturation slider until you've optimized midtone contrast, or you're going to end up with cartoon colors.

[400dabuser]

No filter needed. Just a lens with great color rendering and great light (and a nice subject too....)

Which are the best lens for that then?

Some photoshop practice will be infinitely cheaper than more gear.

Yeah, but Photoshop cost alot of money, unless you are talking about Elements

The biggest cause of "washed out" colors is overexposure of midtones. Deep, rich colors are darker than light, pastel colors. You can prove it to yourself in Photoshop just by looking at the RGB (or in Lab space the Lightness values) of various colors.

So if you want rich, vibrant colors, you need to make sure they are exposed properly. That typically means placing them equivalent to middle gray or 1 stop darker than middle gray. So you need to meter and expose accordingly. As mentioned a polarizer may help by decreasing highlights and reflections on colored surfaces, and it will certainly enrich the color of the sky.

In Photoshop the trick is to apply curves in a way that decreases the value of the midtones, i.e. darkens them. Don't even think about touching the saturation slider until you've optimized midtone contrast, or you're going to end up with cartoon colors.

I am very lame at Photoshop levels, because I don't tend to see what others do, for some strange reasons. I see other people's photos, ok, most of them don't use filters all the time, but I question some of them, because of their vibrant colours, mainly shots of africa or colourful places

[egordon99]

Pretty much any L lens should produce great color. I'm a big fan of the color rendering of my 70-200mm f/4 IS and my (non-L) 85mm f/1.8.

[400dabuser]

Pretty much any L lens should produce great color. I'm a big fan of the color rendering of my 70-200mm f/4 IS and my (non-L) 85mm f/1.8.


Do they do f/2.8 on the 70-200mm?

EDIT: Ouch, they do, and it is a bit pricey

[tonylong]

Do they do f/2.8 on the 70-200mm?

EDIT: Ouch, they do, and it is a bit pricey

Yep, you can get one with or without IS. As you said, they're pricey. I wouldn't get one just for the color/contrast qualities because, as others have said, those qualities are typically enhanced in your software or, if you are shooting jpegs, in your camera.

If you don't already, try shooting in RAW (if you have a version of elements that supports your camera's RAW files). You can do a lot with RAW adjustments to give you a good starting place for your images in contrast, saturation, and sharpening -- in fact, I typically don't go beyond my RAW processor (Lightroom) unless I need to fine-tune an image for printing.

In the film world, things like contrast and saturation were a product of the type of film you used, so you made those creative choices prior to taking a shot. With digital, a digital capture is somewhat "flat" compared to high-contrast or high-saturation films and we make the creative choice of these things either by camera settings when shooting jpegs or with our software after taking the shot.

[DrPablo]

Pretty much any L lens should produce great color.L-series lenses have superlative color, but it doesn't have to be an L-series lens -- and I think it's generally not a good idea to convince people that they need to outlay that kind of money for shots that they can get with good technique. I'd say that 95% of the answer is choosing the right scene, choosing the right lighting, and choosing the right exposure. Your lens choice and post-processing are very minor contributors.

This first shot was using the $70 Canon 50 f/1.8. I didn't do a bit of editing of the RAW file other than sharpening, didn't even touch levels or curves. It was a matter of scouting the scene for a few days, then taking the picture when the light was perfect.

The second shot was with the Canon 18-55 kit lens that came with my 300D. I shot that one in JPEG and didn't edit the file at all.

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/60697310.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/60886201.jpg

[400dabuser]

L-series lenses have superlative color, but it doesn't have to be an L-series lens -- and I think it's generally not a good idea to convince people that they need to outlay that kind of money for shots that they can get with good technique. I'd say that 95% of the answer is choosing the right scene, choosing the right lighting, and choosing the right exposure. Your lens choice and post-processing are very minor contributors.

This first shot was using the $70 Canon 50 f/1.8. I didn't do a bit of editing of the RAW file other than sharpening, didn't even touch levels or curves. It was a matter of scouting the scene for a few days, then taking the picture when the light was perfect.

The second shot was with the Canon 18-55 kit lens that came with my 300D. I shot that one in JPEG and didn't edit the file at all.

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/60697310.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/60886201.jpg


Wow, looks like my technique will have to vastly improve then, got both lenses

[400dabuser]

Yep, you can get one with or without IS. As you said, they're pricey. I wouldn't get one just for the color/contrast qualities because, as others have said, those qualities are typically enhanced in your software or, if you are shooting jpegs, in your camera.

If you don't already, try shooting in RAW (if you have a version of elements that supports your camera's RAW files). You can do a lot with RAW adjustments to give you a good starting place for your images in contrast, saturation, and sharpening -- in fact, I typically don't go beyond my RAW processor (Lightroom) unless I need to fine-tune an image for printing.

In the film world, things like contrast and saturation were a product of the type of film you used, so you made those creative choices prior to taking a shot. With digital, a digital capture is somewhat "flat" compared to high-contrast or high-saturation films and we make the creative choice of these things either by camera settings when shooting jpegs or with our software after taking the shot.


I tend always to shoot in RAW these days, because there are better controls than the JPG editors

[MrsKitty]

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/60886201.jpg

That's gorgeous. And people dislike the kit lens... I've gotten good shots out of mine but nothing like this!