What makes photos "POP"

gte357s wrote in post #10493773
Hmm .. actually, it looks ok on my screen, and the environment is quite dark, so, I want to preserve the mood. However, I also realized sometimes when I print out the picture, it is too dark. So, I actually have 2 profiles on my screens, one for normal viewing, one for printing. For those I am going to print, I will change my screen to another profile and do some minor adjustment like increasing the exposure or brightness, or changing the WB. I think this is the reason why you think it is underexposed. Actually, is there a better way to handle this? Because if I tuned my pictures with the printing profile, then when I look at it on other screens, like when I send the pics to my friends, the WB is too cool.

looks underexposed on my screen as well, so it may be that your "normal" profile is just way too bright. if you would like to keep the normal bright, then you can run some scripts or preset outputs to brighten an image by a certain amount prior to printing. you still i would still swtich to your print profile to verify it looks good.. but after a few successful runs you may be able to just run the script without verifying.

I agree with most here, the pop can come from one or more factors, I usually like where one item is in focus (which means recomposing or using all those AF points at a large aperture or getting closer than normal), as well as good lighting and color.

I think these have a bit of pop, but again, it is pretty subjective isn't it? I have found what seems interesting to me or seems to pop just doesn't for others, and vice versa. There have been times where I have had others just stare at a picture and shake their head wondering how I was able to take it, and I look at it, it doesn't seem special or pop to me. Strange...

One of these made it into the POTN Photo Book! The last pic just seems a bit 3d-ish to me. It was with the 55-250 of all lenses.

versedmb wrote in post #10489502
I've posted this link here before. Most of these were taken wtih a 300D and the 18-55 kit lens or a cheap Olympus C-4000 point and shoot...

http://robertmekis.dev​iantart.com/gallery/

Great pictures there, but there is so much post processing done to it.
I can tell that this guy is good at post processing as well as composition.
Expensive lenses will cut a bit of time doing post processing, (sharpening, contrast, etc.) but if you are good at editing, a great composition and technical ability to set the camera right, like this guy did, the kit lens can be deadly good! I wonder how much time this guy post processed a single picture? Seems like layering was done too....I think I saw his secret weapon on one of the pictures from the link.--- It`s the great TRIPOD!

I think image tend to "POP" with great composition and lighting combined. It doesn`t matter if the image is slightly soft etc.... As you can see with the link provided, a point and shoot camera + experienced shooter+ great compostion= POP!

BTW: I`m selling all my gears below. =)
I`m getting an Olympus! LOL!

this is from when i just picked up my 24-70mm L.
Just about straight out of camera.
i was surprised that i did not have to use vibrancy or saturation in LR.
a little clarity if i remember.
a little 'pop' if you will - taken on a cropper at that.

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

versedmb wrote in post #10489502
I've posted this link here before. Most of these were taken wtih a 300D and the 18-55 kit lens or a cheap Olympus C-4000 point and shoot...

http://robertmekis.dev​iantart.com/gallery/

these are great shots. these are pp'd right? or just filters used?

1Ds MkII

Nice shots Rich!

Thanks....

Yep ... Rich always has good stuff.

You talking about me!!!!

Its all about the right lighting, composition, plus a little PP to bring out the colors and contrast...

Try viewing your own photos on a black background like the Kodak site provides.. I suspect that is half of what makes those (mostly pretty ordinary) photos seem to pop.

I think what you should do is spend $5-10K on equipment then when your photos don't pop you blame the equipment.

just kidding.


Your friends pictures are correctly lighted, exposed, and focused. I suspect, since you say she uses green box, that she doesn't do much processing. Shoot in green box for a while if you want, or use P. See what you come up with. Take note of exposure, etc on your good shots and try learning from that.

Personally, when I started out in digital with a Rebel I thought I got some really good stuff. When I upgraded and started worrying too much I don't think I had as much succcess. Finally I just quit trying to second guess myself and stuck to the basics. Works for me now. Mostly I shoot in Av or P, which is what I always did.

gte357s wrote in post #10493773
Hmm .. actually, it looks ok on my screen, and the environment is quite dark, so, I want to preserve the mood. However, I also realized sometimes when I print out the picture, it is too dark. So, I actually have 2 profiles on my screens, one for normal viewing, one for printing. For those I am going to print, I will change my screen to another profile and do some minor adjustment like increasing the exposure or brightness, or changing the WB. I think this is the reason why you think it is underexposed. Actually, is there a better way to handle this? Because if I tuned my pictures with the printing profile, then when I look at it on other screens, like when I send the pics to my friends, the WB is too cool.

Are you working on a laptop? Those screens are horrible for representing true exposure. You can either get a good monitor and calibrate it, or rely on the histogram. Printer profiles don't help very much if your monitor is not calibrated.

Sharpness, contrast, saturation and well exposed images gives the feel of "pop" most of the time.