How To Get Great Color & Contrast With Landscape Shots (not HDR)

[winterminute]

I'm still in the stage of taking photos of everything and haven't really found what I like or what I'm good at, but my landscapes are getting better (I think) in terms of composition, but I can't get great color out of them. They seem muted. Is this a problem with the way I take my shots or is this a post production trick?

Here are two examples where all the colors just don't pop out. I'm a very very green (no pun intended) behind the ears when it comes to post-production, so I have to admit these have had the "Auto" treatment from Microsoft Digital Image Pro, so the images are slightly better than the unaltered image, but not by much. I know what HDRs are and I'm not looking for that kind of effect. I'm not sure how to describe it, but I'd like the sky bluer, the grass greener, etc.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1251/563368274_d457f733e8.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1190/563729815_df3049fce6.jpg

This isn't a critique topic, but if you have feedback on either photo I'm always up to hear feedback.

[Jargon]

My camera has a "Landscape" picture style setting that makes blues bluer and greens greener. Maybe your camera has a similar setting.

[Nicole]

Have you tried a circular polarizing filter? Since both of these are landscape shots that were taken during the bright part of the day, you might find that using a polarizer is useful. What polarizing filters do is darken the sky, reduce reflections, and generally increase contrast. You can read some more about polarizers here (http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?article=100305&op=academy_new) or here (http://www.great-landscape-photography.com/polarizing-filter.html), and there's a good example (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tedadnan/156370943/) of the difference a polarizer can make that I found over at Flickr.

I'm in a bit of a minority I think, that I prefer filters over photoshop, so I will say that it is possible to replicate some of the effects you can get using photoshop, but not all ;)

[matthewchj]

Using filters is better than photoshop, as you'll spend less time at your computer, giving you more time to shoot, etc.

[ELAY]

I defer to those who went before on the use of filters...but if you want to/have to give it a go in post-processing, here are a few things to try:

1. Judicious increases in global contrast and saturation can help.

2. Local contrast enhancement helps too -- there are a few ways to do it, but the easiest is to use unsharp mask (lots of tutorials out there -- here's one (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/local-contrast-enhancement.htm)).

3. If your software supports layers and blending modes, then doing a duplicate layer and blending down on multiply can work wonders -- you can use the opacity slider to fine tune the effect. There is a variation on this, which some people call the Orton Effect, which involves blurring your duplicate layer a bit first, thereby creating a bit of a glow around your subject).

4. If your software supports decomposing into LAB space, then you can try this trick (http://www.flickr.com/groups/photoshopsupport/discuss/72157594302440961/), which I find works really well. Don't worry, you don't actually have to understand what LAB space is to make it work. .

5. You can also use the Channel Mixer, like so (http://photoshoptutorials.ws/photoshop-tutorials/photo-effects/velvia.html).

You can also tweak the individual channels in levels and curves, but I have not had a lot of success with those approaches -- requires too much skill maybe. Here's a tutorial (http://www.flickr.com/photos/soffia/505766043/) from a photographer who seems to have mastered this technique.

Good luck,

EL

[Nai no Kami]

By using the Lab color correction (enhancement) technique, I achieved this results:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a213/nai_no_kami/563368274_d457f733e8.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a213/nai_no_kami/563729815_df3049fce6.jpg

[Teewinot]

ELAY, just poking my head in...nice tutorial links. Thanks for sharing!

[winterminute]

Nai no Kami >> Now we're talking! Those look so much better. When you say LAB color correction are you referring to #4 in ELAY's list or something else?

I haven't tried a polarized, but I just bought an adapter for my P&S which allows me to use standard filters and (not suprising, my wife has a good polarizer). Would it help to use a UV filter and a polarizer?

[Nai no Kami]

Sorry for the delay. By Lab, I'm referring to this post: http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/a-color-correcting-and-sharpening-tutorial-in-photoshop/ which links to a youtube video anyway. Nevertheless, as you said, #4 of ELAY's list covers the subject (I just checked to see if it was the same technique). The reduced images you provided, as you can notice, suffered from some "artifactism" in the sky. You should always check how subtle color transitions in great "surfaces" (such as a sky) behave.
Try and experiment with your photos.
Another tip: If you are on a Mac and use iPhoto, the Adjustments palette can be of great aid to do some color correction (I have rescued very bland colored photos with such a toolset).
Best of lucks.

[Nicole]

I haven't tried a polarized, but I just bought an adapter for my P&S which allows me to use standard filters and (not suprising, my wife has a good polarizer). Would it help to use a UV filter and a polarizer?

Just noticed this. If you meant using both at the same time, no. It is not a good idea to stack filters because it gives more of a chance for funny things to happen, like light reflecting and refracting between the filters and leaving bizarre bits of light on your pictures. So, it's best not to use multiple filters if you can avoid it. :)

[winterminute]

Will a UV filter do anything to help these types of shots? Or is the polarizer still king?

[Nicole]

The polarizer is still king :)

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UV_filter):
The UV filter absorbs ultraviolet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet) rays without changing the exposure. With most images, most people will not see a difference when a UV filter is used.

The UV filter is most useful for protecting your lens from scratches and dust and stuff :)

[aji23]

Hi all,

I'm new to this forum, and after reading through some posts I thought it might be fun to join in.

I've been shooting for several years now, and while I shoot pretty much everything and anything, landscapes are my favorite. I do a lot of post-production work in Photoshop, and I use a Wacom Graphic Tablet (the Intuos3 for those in the know). I thought I'd dabble with the pictures on this thread and see what you guys thought.

The one thing I have to say about those who feel 'altering' photographs is somehow ignoble or 'cheating', I would like to quote Adams, "You don't take a photograph, you make a photograph". The initial capture is just the first step, in my opinion. The fun really starts once you are sitting down at the screen!

Here are my 5 minute tweaks (not perfect, but hopefully the idea gets across).

In these, I tweaked saturation (do a Ctrl-U and bring the master sat to +15-30); increased the exposure on the tree/bushes (it was slightly underexposed in the original); adding some minor vignettes to bring the eye closer to the subject matters; and did some subtle dodging and burning and each of the three categories (shadows, midtones, highlights), using the pressure sensitive stylus of the graphic tablet (it's almost like painting, those who haven't tried it I encourage you to! It's very enjoyable).

http://picasaweb.google.com/AJIppo/OnlineForums/photo#5078897865775127986

http://picasaweb.google.com/AJIppo/OnlineForums/photo#5078897887249964482

Not sure why these are red-Xs in my preview post. If these still don't show up, go to http://picasaweb.google.com/AJIppo/OnlineForums/

PS There might also be attachments -- still figuring out how to present pics...

[ladytx]

I am not sure about Digital Image Pro but I think it supports layers and blending modes. I use Paint Shop Pro. In the image below I converted the original image to a layer, duplicated layer with a blending mode of "dodge" set at 16, duplicated again with a blending mode of "luminance" set at 92, duplicated again with a blending mode of "normal" set at 84 and beefed up the saturation a little.

Just duplicate your original photo and try different blending modes and visibility levels and you will find what you are looking for and a lot of other kool effects you will find along the way.

http://www.ladytx.com/landscape_revised.jpg

[skiernie]

The #1 key to landscape photography is the lighting during the original capture. Mid-day lighting is the worst time. If you can, go back to these same spots and shoot them in the very early AM or near sunset - when the sun is low in the sky.

Jim Zuckerman - a pro landscape & wildlife photographer - has a web based course on Natural Lighting. Do a Google search on him and you'll be directed to all sorts of resources (some free, some not) that will help you improve your landscape shots. There are other pros with similar resources - Brenda Tharp, etc. The first rule is always the same - shoot with a low sun especially if doing vistas.

[Roger]

Your problem seems to me like that of the Emporer's new clothes. If you remember the story...he didn't have any and paraded thru town naked, thinking he did. I suggest your two subjects don't have any..or enough...color to impress me or to satisfy you.

Rog

[winterminute]

subject don't have any..or enough...color to impress me or to satisfy youYou're 100% and that's why I posted here to find out how far post-production can take you. I wasn't 100% sold on the pictures to begin with but they are very inductive of the color most of my landscape shots have and they were current so I used them as examples.

My goal isn't to turn these exact shots into masterpieces, but to be able to judge future shots and have a feeling for the potential. When I’m uploading photos and trying to make a keep/delete decision, it is helpful to be able to look at a photo and know what can be fixed with some post-production and what can’t. If I love a photo and the only problem is bland color, I want to be able to sit down and make it a great photo.

Does make sense?

Also, a couple of people have made comments about not shooting landscapes in mid-day and thought you’d find it interesting that these were shot around 7AM. I guess that’s Colorado for you :)

[uvsub]

I'm all for the lab technique. There's an excellent book out on this "Photoshop LAB color : the canyon conundrum : and other adventures in the most powerful colorspace".

[ELAY]

I'm all for the lab technique. There's an excellent book out on this "Photoshop LAB color : the canyon conundrum : and other adventures in the most powerful colorspace".

I looked it up a while ago at Chapters (which uvsub will know is a CDN big-box bookseller) -- $70!

[winterminute]

Elay -- Amazon has this book for $35 (http://www.amazon.com/Photoshop-LAB-Color-Adventures-Colorspace/dp/0321356780/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6906774-0051142?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184480211&sr=8-1) I haven't bought anything at Chapter's in a long time, but I don't remember it being that overpriced...weird

[ELAY]

Maybe it is a hardcover/softcover thing or something.

Anyway, I have sort of looked into the whole LAB thing, teetered on the brink, and then retreated to the regular manipulations in RGB.

Those LAB guys seem really hardcore -- anybody around here routinely work in LAB for colour management and correction?

EL

[Nieton21]

I really like the lab color adjustment and use it to increase the color saturation alot. I feel that it allow me to get a pretty reasonable saturation increase while maintaining a realistic effect. When I shoot in jpeg I always go that way and strongly recommend that style of saturation increase, but since I switched to shooting a lot of raw I have found it a really great tool to increase the color saturation using apple's aperture. So my recommendations are with jpegs go with the lab style and use the a/b channels to increase color and if your going with raw consider using the color enhancement tab for nice effect.