What do I do wrong (dim colours)

[Vassago]

Originally Posted by Tirol

granted I destroyed your sailboats but if you were working on a raw file that wouldnt happen =)

I'm just curious, why wouldn't it happen if it was being done on RAW? When you saturate, etc. it happens on the whole picture... so the sailboat as well, right?

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Vassago

... I'd like to expand my skills in photography/camera setup, before doing magic with some software. I can't (or don't want to, to be honest) invest in Photoshop, but when it comes to my current needs Google's Picasa does wonders for me (just started using it yesterday!)

What dcclark said is true--nearly all photos get post-processed. A P&S digital camera does it in camera for you--often applying sharpening and saturation increases in-camera to get a more pleasing image. The problem with this in-camera processing is that it's a one-size-fits-all solution, and uniform for every image, without regard to what the image actually needs done to it. By default, most dSLR manufacturers assume that you will want to do your own post-processing on an image-by-image basis, so the default settings in the camera are for a more neutral straight-from-the-sensor look. Most dSLR newbies are disappointed in how much less punch images will have straight out of camera, because they've never seen an unprocessed photo before.

If you just want to concentrate on shooting and not on post-processing skills, you can use the in-camera processing in your dSLR. The "Set Picture Control" menu will let you change the default processing to something closer to what you want, or create your own settings.

Often, when you get something that's flat, it'll be because you're shooting a scene with a dynamic range greater than that of the camera's. Shooting backlit scenes is one common way to do this (e.g., getting white instead of blue skies). Making sure the sun is at your back (or at least out of the shot) is one option to reduce the scene's dynamic range.

[wulf]

Originally Posted by Vassago

I'm just curious, why wouldn't it happen if it was being done on RAW? When you saturate, etc. it happens on the whole picture... so the sailboat as well, right?

I think the problem here is not RAW vs JPEG but saving as JPEG with too much compression. I can see the compression artifacts here.

Working with a program like the Gimp (which is a great tool for photo processing and is free) you can make intermediary saves using a lossless format like XCF and only commit to JPEG (at about 85 - 90% quality) at the end. That should give a result that looks great to all but the most zealous pixel-peeping.

Wulf

[shanka]

you shout F >7.1 Your Pic'll Good :-)

[dcclark]

Originally Posted by shanka

you shout F >7.1 Your Pic'll Good :-)

This... makes no sense.

Otherwise: yes, this is not a raw vs. jpeg thing. You can adjust color balance after the fact using raw files, but that's likely not your problem. If you're worried about saving jpeg files too often, I do exactly what wulf suggested: open them once in Gimp, save as an xcf file (which is lossless), and keep working on that.

[fletch]

What everyone seems to be missing is that it is all about the light. Good photos need good light, no getting away from it. Sure there is a certain amount you can do with editing or camera settings but in the end the better the light, the better the picture.

Try shooting in the golden hours around sunset and sunrise or at the very least don't expect too much from shots where then sun is high is the sky or the light is flat due to cloud cover. If you want to PP your images try to recreate the effect that golden hour light has on photos. Golden hour light is warmer and softer than other times. The sun being low in the sky increases contrast and colours become more saturated. Don't go mad though or things may look unnatural.

[jmidis]

Originally Posted by Tirol

granted I destroyed your sailboats but if you were working on a raw file that wouldnt happen =)

Thanks Tirol. The shot was taken was at around 6:30 pm and the sun was setting to the right side (but out of view) of the shot. It certainly looks more vivid with the post-processing.

[rpcrowe]

I copied your image and transferred it to Photoshop. Then I simply reduced the exposure a small amount and increased the contrast quite a bit. I think it has more punch. What do you think?

You seem to have shot on a very dull day. Often trying to artificially increase color saturation of an image shot on a dull day results in a phony looking image.

[Silverz]

I think you just need to do a small ammount of post processing.
I usually find that the image that comes straight off the camera is always slightly dull looking.

Also remember that the type of light available will make a huge difference to how good a photo looks.

I had a quick try in photoshop and boosted the contrast and saturation a little