Can't seem to get colour into landscapes

[Ms Monny]

Hi all

I couldn't think of a better title without it being very very long!!

I am finding that when I am shooting a landscape, the colours are dull and lacking in oomph unless shot is bright sunlight. So I go to my trusty LR and try to add more oomph there but it just doesn't seem to work. Take today for instance... it was cloudy, but not too bad I thought. I took quite a few photos with different angles etc. When I was in LR no amount of saturation, contrast, luminance, fill light and blacks would help this image (or the others)....here's the original....

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5063/5615587913_7f81d61357_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/36941020@N04/5615587913/)
IMG_1279 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/36941020@N04/5615587913/) by Miss Monny (http://www.flickr.com/people/36941020@N04/), on Flickr

So, where to from here???

:confused013

I know maybe elements would probably benefit...I have that but I am also still working out how to save properly with it (wish it was just a simple as LR!).

Any ideas or help would be eternally grateful. :D

This is totally original RAW saved as JPEG - no sharpening etc has been done.

[DAdeGroot]

Check your shooting menus in the camera and see that your Colour Space is set to sRGB (NOT AdobeRGB1998).

[DAdeGroot]

Ok, I've had a quick play with it in LR3.

Here's what I did:
70759

And the results:
http://vikings.homeip.net/stuff/MissMonny.jpg

Clearly I only had a low-res JPG to work with and this is just a very quick edit, but given you have LR, you should be able to get at least as close as this.

RAW files straight from the camera are indeed flat as no in-camera processing is applied to them.

[Ms Monny]

Thanks...I did get close to this and I don't like it! Don't know why?? Maybe cos there is too much yellow??? Maybe it is just a crap shot and I was hoping to get more out of it than I can! :(

I checked the colour space and it is sRGB.

[share50]

Hello
There are a few free presets on the internet for JPG in LR which enable you to enhance hope that helps
cheers
Shareen

[Flesh]

Maybe try a bit more Vibrancy or saturation? I have found that sometimes just a small shift gives the colours a wee tweek :) I would also check the curve and make some adjustments.
http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/5180/56155879137f81d61357o.jpg
http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/643/captureqy.jpg

I have taken the Vibrancy up very high there but you will be able to have a better play around ;) Hope that helps.

[Michaela]

I found this yesterday and thought you might find it helpful - Landscape Photography Post Processing Tutorial in Lightroom (http://mansurovs.com/landscape-photography-post-processing-tutorial-in-lightroom). Worth a try? :confused013

[Ms Monny]

Thanks so much everyone!! I will check out the link Michaela and also, I think that what I see in my head when I take the photo is probably not what I can achieve on the computer. I need soooo much more practice with landscapes. Hmmm, might just try B&W to see if I can achieve what is close to what I am thinking.....either that or it is just a crap photo!! :(

[achee]

One challenge you have in the example photo is that naturally the sky is a lot brighter than the foreground. You've shot it at a compromise - the sky is a bit overexposed and the foreground is a bit underexposed... well, quite underexposed IMHO. You can tackle this problem by post-processing, HDR, or shooting in the early morning or late evening, when landscape photographers are their busiest!

[Ms Monny]

Yep, achee, I think if it was closer to later in the day it would work better BUT I think the whole look of the photo just doesn't work. I also will get myself some filters I think....and get out to do alot more practice NOT just as a secondary thought while travelling from A to B!!

[Kym]

HDR with a 2 or 3 image blend would help... Or invest in some ND grad filters to tame the sky

[Ms Monny]

Hi Kym
can I do a HDR from a single image? Make one exposed for the sky, one the darker areas and one for midtones???

Hmm, looks like I might be infront of the computer again tonight (when am I not! LOL! Need an ironing lady hahahaha).

[arthurking83]

Check your shooting menus in the camera and see that your Colour Space is set to sRGB (NOT AdobeRGB1998).

If the original is in raw format, the colourspace is of no consequence.
Only the colour profile of the output format may have some consequences when displayed.


One challenge you have in the example photo is that naturally the sky is a lot brighter than the foreground. You've shot it at a compromise - the sky is a bit overexposed and the foreground is a bit underexposed... well, quite underexposed IMHO. You can tackle this problem by post-processing, HDR, or shooting in the early morning or late evening, when landscape photographers are their busiest!

if the foreground looks under exposed or the sky looks over exposed, it could be your monitor calibration achee! Histogram reveals that brightness levels are well within the extremities.. ie. neither under or over exposed(in this image).

But, achee hit on an important point, when you're trying to capture more vivid colours.
Even tho many people will advise to expose to the right(ETTR) for a better digital image, when you do this, the extra brightness levels in the file, usually make for slightly duller colour rendition.
Slightly less exposure will produce more colour into an image(whether digital or film) naturally. From there it's then easier to add more subtle colour increases, without making it too obvious(that the colour has been tweaked via software).

The problem here, in this image, is that the cloudy conditions naturally mute the colour in the scene. Cloudy conditions are some of my favourite conditions to shoot in, but not overcast conditions. There has to be a small amount of sunlight peeking through to get good colour.

I think with a tweak of curves and levels and whatnot, you could(or should) be able to bring out a bit more colour from the image, especially from the raw file(whereas our tweaking of a jpg file is not going to produce the same level of quality).
I generally don't use levels and curves, but sometimes I use the 'set black point' tool, where you define where the black is going to be in an image like this. Histgoram tells us that there is no black point in the image. The darkest point in the image seems to be in the 10, 10, 10 range(maybe slightly more.. sorry I can't remember :o) but all I tried was to set a blackpoint, where I thought was the darkest part of the scene. But the blackpoint level I chose was not 0,0,0(not a good idea to do actually!), so I used the values of 5,5,5 instead. I pointed the blackpoint tool at the base of the post in the middle of the foreground(and then tweaked it's position a bit to suit).

70796

(actually, I apologise. I did also spot brighten the central portion of the image by 15% to compensate for the darkening when I'd made the blackpoint setting. This also produces a slight vignetted look to it .. but that's not the point of this thread!)

For 99% of my images and hence my general workflow, my main priority (when trying to capture more vivid colour) is to tend to under expose the image by a small amount. That is, not underexpose the image and lose pixel data in the shadow range. choose a particular colour in the scene(generally the greens), spot meter and not try to capture that brightness level at 0Ev, but instead also shoot it at -0.7Ev.

[Ms Monny]

Arthur, I think you may have nailed it too!! Yes, it was overcast, which did mute the colours, and it was slightly overexposed because I read somewhere that it is easier to recover highlights but harder to get detail out of underexposed blacks......thats all good if the image was taken in the middle of the day in bright sunlight which may have created very dark shadows or if I was in a cave with a brightly lit cave entrance!! Thanks for the tips!

There is so much to learn and remember when doing landscape photography. I also am just getting the hang of hyperfocal distance too, which I didn't do here....I used a large f/stop and focused on the tree....which seems to have worked but probably not ideal!

[fillum]

Nice scene you've captured here Ms Monny.

I agree with achee here. Even though your camera has given you what it determined is a 'good' exposure, from an image point of view it's not ideal (IMO of course). I see the image as having three key elements: the netting, the tree, and the sky. The sky is over exposed for what I'd want, the tree is under exposed for what I'd want, and the netting is exposed ok (probably a little bit under in fact). If you try to apply global adjustments in LR it's unlikely to be successful because fixing one part of the image is going to make another part worse. (e.g. increasing exposure to get more detail in the tree blows out the sky, etc).

So each element of the image needs to be handled separately. The Adjustment Brush can be used to do this. What I'd do is use global adjustments to get the netting and foreground looking as I'd want it. Then select (paint in) the sky with the Adjustment Brush reducing the exposure and adjusting the saturation, contrast, etc to taste. Then create a new selection for the tree, this time increasing the exposure and adjusting other attributes as desired.

If you are not familiar with the Adjustment Brush there is a good tute here (http://www.laurashoe.com/videos/adj_brush/adj_brush.html).

Having said all that, the gloomy conditions here are not going to give you a lot of colour to play with, however I think there's plenty of scope to make the image more dramatic. Here's a quick rework showing the direction I'd take...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5066/5619909810_811ff10d85_o.jpg



Hope this helps...


Cheers.

[geoffsta]

Buy a Nikon. :lol:

Another thing to try, is to get as little of the sky in as possible.

[ricktas]

I decided to do some PP to give it a different look, and change the seasons, I noticed the grapes had some yellow/orange tones to the leaves, which is appropriate for this time of year. I also wanted to enhance the feeling of morning/evening in the result. Working on a small filesize image, you have to be careful not to push it to far or the small filesize resrictions come into play, with artifacts, etc appearing., Working on the full sized file will render better results to any edits done.

* I made a selection of the main tree and then changed the colour balance to modify it to a more autumnal toning, by increasing the colour balance in the red/orange/yellow spectrum.
* Then using the Nik Software Color Efex plugin, I used the lighten/darken centre to brighten the centre and darken the edges, creating a vignette of sorts.
* Used a 'paint with light' technique to adjust that darkening and lightening till I was happy with the result, using a small brush set to 7% opacity, so that the strokes were built up, rather than each one making a huge visual adjustment to the photo.
* Levels adjustment and saved

[Sueann]

This edit is really stunning. Did you do all this in lightroom?

[Kym]

This edit is really stunning. Did you do all this in lightroom?

I'm 99.9% sure Rick used Photoshop CS5 :)

Re: HDR - usually you take 2 or 3 images at +/0/- exposures (maybe 1 or 2 stops) and blend them in software.

[ricktas]

Yes in Photoshop, but all the Nik Software Plugins are available for Lightroom

[Ms Monny]

Thanks Phil....you are right about adjusting one thing in LR which only makes another worse...thats what was happening...I was trying to add more blacks into the image but only to certain areas. I will definately check out the tut on the adjustment brush...I have used it before but not that good at it!! Your edit looks great...it has brought the sky back, made the tree have more colour and depth and I am a fan of the vignette too. Much appreciated in what you did.

Geoff....LOL....I won't get into that debate!!!

Rick....Thanks also for the editing...it certainly has brought out the autumn colours....there is so much to learn...this luckily is only down the road so I am going back this weekend to see if I can improve on it. I actually wanted to get another area up the road but as I drove past there was someone else there with a very very big lens, so I kept driving on! I want a more abstract one with the netting.

Kym....thats what I thought but unfort I only have the one image. Maybe next time.

THANKS EVERYONE FOR HELPING ME OUT!! :D

[ricktas]

There is also an almost hidden feature in lightroom that should do with more publication, yet it is hidden away as a small dot. It is called the targeted adjustment tool (TAT). Have a look here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/lightroom-tat.shtml) to see where to find it, and what it does.

[geoffsta]

Nik software has some brilliant filters. I personally like "Glamor Glow", "B&W Conversion", and sometimes the gradual filters. Burnt sienna is great for giving images that dirty look.
Nik and CS5 is a great combination. :th3:

[Ms Monny]

Nik software is only for Nikon users, yes?? Mind you once it is in the computer, the computer doesn't really care if it came from a Nikon, Canon or Fuji. Is that true?

[ricktas]

Nik software is only for Nikon users, yes?? Mind you once it is in the computer, the computer doesn't really care if it came from a Nikon, Canon or Fuji. Is that true?

No, not for Nikon users. Nikon and Nik are two completely separate companies ; www.niksoftware.com

[Ms Monny]

Rick....I have used this tool (TAT) before but didn't know what it was called!! LOL. Yes, it is a great tool to use but I just didn't think what I was doing to the image was giving it more oomph that it needed.

As they say, you can't make a bad photo better just by post processing it! I have to learn to get it near perfect sooc first!!

Ah, I thought it was more for Nikon users....I am def going to check out the plugins when I get home tonight.
Thanks.

[soulman]

I think you have quite a few things working well in this shot and one huge thing working against you - the light. Regardless of the post processing, you have a very flat image where one of the major features - the tree - is in shade and nearly everything is muddy. No matter what you do, this shot still has unfavourable light.

The solution to this is not to get better at pp, but to get better at being in the right place when the light is better. Look at any picture by any landscape photographer - dtoh's work (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/member.php?3223-dtoh) is a great example - and you will find that the light is always at least good, if not magnificent.

[Ms Monny]

Soulman - thanks! so very very true. The light was coming from the left of the image (3.30pm) and it was a very dull dull day....can't get vibrancy out of dull!!

[Dylan & Marianne]

thanks for the TAT link ! I had been doing it all with layers in CS5 but this looks like it could be a huge time saver!

[ving]

gday plenty of advice here. I had a go at work but there is little i can do here. to get the tree and plants looking right i had to blow out the sky... at home i could mask the sky and end up with something close to what you are after... maybe even more!

[Ms Monny]

Ving...I wouldn't bother! Not that I don't appreciate what you would do - actually the complete opposite BUT it has started out as a flat, dull, overcast image and I don't think that no matter what you do it isn't going to look a million dollars. I am lucky and thankful of all the other edits and all the people helping me here.....I have learnt heaps. Thanks for looking and responding anyway...:o :)

[geoffsta]

I must admit.This has been one of the best threads I have read in a very long time.
Thanks to Ms Monny for starting it, and to everyone that has added there two cents worth.
Love to see a lot more of it throughout the whole site. :th3: :th3: :th3: :th3: :th3:

[Ms Monny]

Well, thanks Geoff!! Mind you I only put it up here cos I was frustrated with the image and hoped to get at least one feedback on it!! There should be more people putting up their 'OMG, WHAT TO DO NOW?' photos as it would definately help alot of people including themselves!!

[Steve Axford]

I have to agree with you that the image is unlikely to ever really pop. The lighting is just too flat. I think that most of the problem is recognising when the lighting is really good. Early morning or late afternoon is usually good, as is mist or fog. Overcast in the middle of the day isn't.

[achee]

can I do a HDR from a single image? Make one exposed for the sky, one the darker areas and one for midtones???

Hmmm... I've read that you can, but never tried it, as I'm usually taking 3 images if I'm planning to do a HDR. So, as I've read, (particularly if you have a RAW file) you can save 3 copies of the file, darken one, brighten the other, then combine the three into a HDR image. I'm not sure if that would achieve much... Maybe I'll try it someday! :confused013

[achee]

...it was slightly overexposed because I read somewhere that it is easier to recover highlights but harder to get detail out of underexposed blacks......

I think it is the opposite - you can bring more detail out of under-exposed areas than over-exposed areas, I reckon. I've heard (and practice) as a general rule of thumb you can increase the exposure of an image by about 2 stops, or decrease by about 1 stop, before it starts getting really nasty.

So if I'm shooting an image with a lot of dynamic range, and I'm after the details in both the brights and the shadows, I'll usually underexpose. Or shoot HDR.

[ricktas]

Yes you can make an HDR from one single RAW file. In your RAW processor, open your RAW file and adjust the exposure down a one or two stops. save a copy. Go back to the original RAW file and adjust the exposure up one or two stops, save a copy. Go back to the original RAW file and save it with the default exposure setting. There you have it, three copies of the one RAW file at different exposures. All ready to be merged into an HDR. You can experiment with more copies, or different exposure adjustments etc, just remember to save each one with a different name so you have them, ready for HDR.

[CAP]

Great thread, very interesting and informative.
Amazed at the different results obtained in some of the edits.

[Ms Monny]

Cool, thanks Rick, I might just try it. :th3:

[johnske]

Another approach, using Photoshop CS2 ...

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_li9fDeHfcSA/TbIv9g1sUrI/AAAAAAAACvw/iw-KPaOnXhk/s800/5615587913_7f81d61357_omodified.jpg

Method
1) Curves: Autocurves

2) Shadow/Highlight Tool settings - this tool is often neglected, play around with the settings, this is what I used here ...

Shadow: 66%
Tonal Width: 50%
Radius: 30px

Highlights
Amount: 0
Tonal Width: 50%
Radius: 30px

Adlustments
Colour Correction: +75
Midtone Contrast: +20%

2) Unsharp Mask (regional/coarse sharpen) this can give a pseudo HDR "look", play round with it also and try bumping radius up even further, but back off if you get excessive halos
Amount 50%
Radius 10px

3) Unsharp Mask (local/fine sharpen)
Amount 50%
Radius 0.6px

[nixworries]

you could always change/modify the picture style to landscape or create your own variation

[jgknight]

Here is my play with it. I used a little plug-in call Redynamix to give it some fake HDR effect.

http://jgknight.smugmug.com/photos/1262252496_TdJVMJS-XL.jpg

[jgknight]

I'm sorry, I duplicated the last message and couldn't delete it.

[Mark L]

Great thread Ms Monny. Sometimes it's better to revisit what you can actually get out of what's availably in any given photograph. Someone mentioned less sky, and that's what I thought as soon as I saw your original. So taking Daves rework with cropping and.....now it needs more pp, but you get the idea, I hope:confused013
71216

[Ms Monny]

I am thrilled that sooo many people are getting so much out of this thread! I also love what you have done Noddy! It is so crisp and realistic! What did you do apart from Redynamix?? anything else?

Thanks also to Mark - it is great to get another composition from the image.

:th3: :th3: