Camera Issues!

i dunno, i'm beginging to hate my camera, but am trying to be patient....

why are my colors coming out dead lookjing, lifeless color etc.... here ar a few examples...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

What white balance setting are you using? What are your in camera settings for saturation?
Are you shooting RAW or JPG? If RAW, what are you using to convert the images?

nikon... well, we could say thats your problem in a nutshell... sorry, obligatory. I think the problem is that your wishing for beautiful pristine results right out of the camera...and the conditions your shooting in doesn't lend itself to great color... postprocessing software is your friend.. every shot that I post has been tweaked in some way.. it's just part of the digital age of photography... but, the great part is that you CAN adjust and improve photos...

Oh i see... I'm here thinking that i just take the pics and that's that, i have photoshop CS.

I have a canon digital rebel XT, i was planning on getting a polarizer, would that help out a bit.

I guess i'll mess with photoshop a bit....

thanks guys!

i need a budget polarizer, any idea which one would be great?

Your first shot - well, it was shot in cloudy conditions, with a dark subject which doesn't make for eye-popping colour. The only really bright colour in there looks to be the marker tape, but the vegetation looks realistic. The second is a bit underexposed, at least in part because of the reflection of the flash from the wall behind. That'll also kill colours. The comparison photo looks well-exposed, which helps add punch. I'd also guess that the photographer may have used fill-flash which will also brighten colours and boost contrast.

But as Toogy asked - what settings are you using on your camera?

Polarizers - there's no such thing as a good budget polarizer. And in cloudy conditions, one won't help much. Shoot your histogram to maximize the tonal range, and shoot RAW if you expect to need to boost contrast in post-processing. You'll get more colour detail that way.

I'd recommend a B+W MRC or Hoya SMC multicoated polarizer over other, less expensive, brands. You'll get better glass which won't distort your picture and less flare-causing reflections because of the multicoating.

It's tough comparing the Nikon to the Canon with the pictures you show.. You'd have to shoot the same scene to make a good comparison. The family photo taken indoors with a flash has no relationship at all to an outdoor shot taken on a partly cloudy day.

If you're shooting JPEG, you can tweak the contrast, brightness and saturation settings from the camera menu. If you increase these values, you should be able equal what the Nikon produced. I believe the 30D has the ability to choose picture styles as well. Try some of those

P.S.. What lenses were used on the Nikon and Canon cameras ? A lens can make a difference as well.. Some lenses have noticeably more contrast than others.

the family shot has it all there, i put it in photoshop and its fine,cant post it as you dont have edditing on .
Rob

I was thinking that same thing after getting my XT last year. I was told by one of the long-time regulars on the forums here that even the most professional photos use some kind of post processing workflow. After hearing that, I was not worried as much.

It is very rare that I take a photo that I do not adjust in some way in Photoshop Elements. At least I know with some minor tweaks, I can get what I originally saw before taking the shot.

When I shot some MTB races recently, I didn't have too much problem with the colours etc by shooting raw and doing some (very) light PP with canons own software, and that was in TERRIBLE conditions...! My advice would be to shoot raw and play with the files afterwards. I found the greatest improvement comes from simply selecting the correct white balance...

examples...
http://www.deviantart.​com/deviation/31281491​/
http://www.deviantart.​com/deviation/31281647​/
http://www.deviantart.​com/deviation/31281140​/
http://www.deviantart.​com/deviation/31281230​/

I would like to point out that these were some of my first efforts with the 350d and also I hadn't a clue about proper PP, I've learned fast! So these images could look a lot better (I love to cover my back :P)

I have the same problem with my xt....it's all about photoshop:p

OK, first shot is, except for some highlights, a bit underexposed. I'm guessing that you're using evaluative metering. In this situation, in order to get the primary subject exposed well, you may want to use partial metering, which concentrates light-sensing to the center of the frame. The combination of a cloudy, dull day and a dark primary subject can combine for a dull image.

The second shot appears to be underexposed. This seems to be common with Canon flash. In my opinion, the system errs on the side of underexposure to prevent blown highlights. I'd try adding +2/3 of a stop of flash exposure compensation - that should brighten things up a bit. Also, watch the reflections - that light reflecting off of the semi-glossy wall behind your subjects can fool the metering.

Also, play around a bit with the in-camera settings for sharpening, saturation, and contrast. It's good to get a feel for what changes when you make certain adjustments.

Here is a quick color adjust in CS2

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

The first shot seems a bit overexposed and the second on seems underexposed. Correcting for that in camera and in postprocessing would fix the color/contrast issue a bit.
Also, don't be shy about increasing contrast and color saturation as well.
Good luck.

thanks guys, you guys are always great with details, and helkp, i will try everything and then repost some new ones this weekend....