Landscape

I once happened upon this landscape and was so sad I could not quite capture how beautiful it really was. The picture (and this is in general a problem with many shots I take) seems very flat, especially the colours and not quite 'breathtaking' enough to do that place justice. Could you give me some advice as to how I can improve it, beside waiting for the 'golden hours'?

When an image comes out of the camera looking a little flat and lifeless the only thing you can do is play around with it in editing software to make it look a little better. Sadly, sometimes the available time you have to shoot is NOT the ideal time of day so you just have to make-do.

If you can give us some idea of the software you have for editing, and the level of expertise you have, someone that is better at explaining this stuff than me will hopefully give you some pointers, but a little more warmth maybe, pull out the details in the shadows, add some polarisation....lots of things you can do

This is just a very quick play

My notion is that a little contrast helps flat pictures. This is a standard histogram tool, this one is Adobe Levels, in both Elements and Photoshop. Other good editors have it too. I moved both Black Point and White Point inward a little. This does cause clipping, here just in the sky and white waves (and the darkest areas), but the added contrast (blacker blacks, whiter whites) compensates in value. In Adobe, you can hold the Alt Key while moving the end sliders, and it shows you which pixels are being clipped. Nothing else was done here, but a bit of sharpening can help too.

I checked what was possible and pushed it quite a bit color and contrast wise. I also played around with shadow, highlights, lights and darks. It doesn't need to be like this but it shows there's plenty you can do with the shot.

joghurt said:

I once happened upon this landscape and was so sad I could not quite capture how beautiful it really was. The picture (and this is in general a problem with many shots I take) seems very flat, especially the colours and not quite 'breathtaking' enough to do that place justice. Could you give me some advice as to how I can improve it, beside waiting for the 'golden hours'?

Click to expand...

Start by using a CPL. A circular polarizer will help eliminate what I call "adverse, reflective light" and will make your landscapes "pop", even in poor light. They're not a cure-all but they're an excellent starting point. All of my lenses wear a Hoya HD polarizing filter most of the time.

Secondly, wait for the Golden Hour, seriously. The reason the colors look flat in that shot is because of the light you took the shot in and there's only so much you can do in post' to correct poor light. As a photographer light is your medium, your photographic "paint" and direct, overhead sunlight tends to make color look faded and washed out.

....

Thank you, this does look a lot less flat, and I especially like WayneF's version. I'm sad now I never really gasped the levels tools. Vixen, I usually use GIMP for all the very simple photo manipulations (a bit of contrast, saturation etc - but it still never really ends up looking quite right).

Do you guys have any advice on what to do to avoid taking flat colours/pictures in the first place by playing with camera settings?

Sorry didn't see your post before you replied Horoscope Fish! I do own a polarizing filter as of not too long ago, but I've not really become fully comfortable in understanding how/when to use it. (also takes ages to screw/unscrew from the lens, hence it was down at the bottom of the bag at the time - what a shame!)

If you shoot RAW, the settings matter less since you can adjust most in post. You have to get the most out of the scene which requires a good exposure without too much clipping. Like Horoscope said; if you shoot with good light and a CPL, it's so much easier getting a great shot.

Then all it takes is some fine-tuning in post. Just watch out with the saturation slider, it quickly becomes unnatural.

joghurt said:

Sorry didn't see your post before you replied Horoscope Fish! I do own a polarizing filter as of not too long ago, but I've not really become fully comfortable in understanding how/when to use it. (also takes ages to screw/unscrew from the lens, hence it was down at the bottom of the bag at the time - what a shame!)

Click to expand...

One of the best videos I've seen on using a CPL: How to Use a Polarizing Filter

....

I've never shot anything in RAW.. I've never felt confident enough with my post-processing skills/nor do I really understand it :/ This might come off as a completely silly question, but is it hard to do all that?

joghurt said:

I've never shot anything in RAW.. I've never felt confident enough with my post-processing skills/nor do I really understand it :/ This might come off as a completely silly question, but is it hard to do all that?

Click to expand...

It's getting used to but the better your shot is, the easier the processing afterwards. It can be a bit much in the beginning but once you understand the basics of the RAW editors, you'll be surprised how quickly you get the hang of it.

joghurt said:

I've never shot anything in RAW.. I've never felt confident enough with my post-processing skills/nor do I really understand it :/ This might come off as a completely silly question, but is it hard to do all that?

Click to expand...

No, good results are easier (but is slightly more work). Raw is a philosophy, and it does require some understanding and some getting used to it. And the willingness to do it, and then the appreciation of the difference.

We make various settings in the camera OTHER THAN exposure... Like white balance, contrast, vivid or standard, etc. The camera performs those settings (that we probably made the month before), and outputs a JPG. But often, the results are not just right however. Not just right for this current scene in front of us.

But Raw files do NOT contain any of those camera settings. Camera settings are ignored (other than exposure). So they are not OK as output (the camera settings do affect the preview shown on the camera rear LCD, and the histogram, but do not affect the Raw file data).

But the great beauty of Raw is that we can make those setting adjustments, AFTER we can see the image, and KNOW what it needs, and what will help it. We see and KNOW what we are doing. The camera settings were probably not right anyway. We can also adjust exposure result (brightness) over a much larger range than JPG files allow. In some cases (of multiple images in the same lighting situation), we can make ONE adjustment that applies to ALL files, so it can be real fast. But individual images do require individual attention. The pleasure is in getting it right, so easily (we can see it).

The other great beauty is that we have Raw tools, designed expressly for the camera images. Tools like White Balance and Exposure, simply sliders for the specific job. Photo editor tools are rather poor in that regard. so this is NOT at all the same job as editing a photo editor. It's easy, and the good final results become the thrill of the hobby.


You're invited to view Why shoot Raw?

There is a video near page top. If too short on minutes, at least start at minute 7:40.

after reading/watching the video.. RAW is pretty mindblowing stuff! I knew it was good, but never seen how good with my own eyes. A raw editor has been now added to photography-associated expenses list, hope you're proud guys.