Dull Pictures

This is a fruitless attempt if you're not going to post samples. "Dull" is about as subjective a word as they come.

And aimlessly chasing the suggestions from people on here who haven't seen your examples-- and therefore have NO IDEA what the problem is-- is a wild goose chase. You might luck out, but you'll more likely get enough random... and wrong... advice to simply confuse matters.

justrussfm wrote in post #8492649
This is a fruitless attempt if you're not going to post samples. "Dull" is about as subjective a word as they come.

And aimlessly chasing the suggestions from people on here who haven't seen your examples-- and therefore have NO IDEA what the problem is-- is a wild goose chase. You might luck out, but you'll more likely get enough random... and wrong... advice to simply confuse matters.

+1....

justrussfm wrote in post #8492649
This is a fruitless attempt if you're not going to post samples. "Dull" is about as subjective a word as they come.

No, it's pretty simple really. If your pictures are too "dull", just add some "pop"!

Coca-Cola or Pepsi?

bacchanal wrote in post #8493100
No, it's pretty simple really. If your pictures are too "dull", just add some "pop"!

Snap, crackle?

Can you increase pop by reducing mom?

While we are w.....a.....i.....t...​..i.....n.....g.......​yawn! for dull pics to be posted, I thought I would provide one of my own dull shots. That's not to say my shots are dull - just about 98% of them.

ISO32000, f/1.8, 100mm (home made lens of toilet roll and magnifying glass taped to the end). What do you think of the noise levels? What about composition? I thought the contrast was OK - but what do you think? Should I upgrade to a 350D?

"Grey Day on Hampstead Heath."

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i250.photobucke​t.com …wen/forum/grain​-tm400.jpg HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

Elvis has left the building.....

shooterman wrote in post #8493667
Elvis has left the building.....

I'm not at all surprised. It looks as if it's falling down.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i250.photobucke​t.com …regwen/forum/_M​G_0063.jpg HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

nemo man wrote in post #8493627
While we are w.....a.....i.....t...​..i.....n.....g.......​yawn! for dull pics to be posted, I thought I would provide one of my own dull shots. That's not to say my shots are dull - just about 98% of them.

ISO32000, f/1.8, 100mm (home made lens of toilet roll and magnifying glass taped to the end). What do you think of the noise levels? What about composition? I thought the contrast was OK - but what do you think? Should I upgrade to a 350D?

"Grey Day on Hampstead Heath."

I quite like it; however, I probably would have shifted the building at the edge of the skyline a tad more to the left. That being said, I was so impressed by this capture that I have printed it poster-sized and hung it in my office cubicle. Nothing but compliments on it so far.

qwerty42 wrote in post #8493815
I quite like it; however, I probably would have shifted the building at the edge of the skyline a tad more to the left.

Typical! Obsessed with the 'rule of thirds'

qwerty42 wrote in post #8493815
That being said, I was so impressed by this capture that I have printed it poster-sized and hung it in my office cubicle. Nothing but compliments on it so far.

Won't it get mistaken for a partition?

I think that one person has subtly hinted that the image color profile is important, but it need to be stressed that it is critically important for accurate color reproduction. Since the images are being sent out for printing, it is necessary to find out what profile they need because their equipment quite possibly does not perform conversions from one colorspace to another. Even though the images were shot in RAW which means that they do not have a color space associated with them at that point, when the images are processed and then saved as JPG or whatever, it is normal to have some standard profile attached to the image. If the dealer doing the printing expects sRGB and your images have AdobeRGB as their profile, the images will indeed look very drab. Another thing to consider is that when an image is printed it loses a considerable amount of sharpness for several reasons. Therefore, the fix is to sharpen images differently if they are to be printed. In fact, an image that is to be printed will look somewhat oversharpened when viewed on a monitor, but will look just fine when printed. When performing this "output" sharpening make it the last step of post processing and also make sure that the ppi of the image is the same as what is sent to the printer. Worrying about ppi is irrelevant when viewing images on screen, but it is important for printing.

nemo man wrote in post #8493627
While we are w.....a.....i.....t...​..i.....n.....g.......​yawn! for dull pics to be posted, I thought I would provide one of my own dull shots. That's not to say my shots are dull - just about 98% of them.

ISO32000, f/1.8, 100mm (home made lens of toilet roll and magnifying glass taped to the end). What do you think of the noise levels? What about composition? I thought the contrast was OK - but what do you think? Should I upgrade to a 350D?

"Grey Day on Hampstead Heath."

A little too aggressive noise reduction for my taste.

how do I post a picture? i want to show everyone how dull my pics are! i tried to attach a picture, but i'm not sure if it's working. thanks for everyones response. i'm sooo glad i found this site.