Thread: Post Processing

Originally Posted by dullbird

now although I have probably gone a tad dark...this is purely to show that 30sec in PP with my lens can make an improvement. I know i have some really good examples somewhere in my albums but its to late to find them so I thought I would just do a quick one.

The original picture displays the rocks in a washed out kind of pinky tone...that was not the colour of the day. Anyone lend me a couple of thousand bux so I can rectify this situation?

What would happen if you dropped the exposure at the point you take the photo? Would that help?

If so it strikes me that there is something wrong with the aperature mechanism in the lense. Could you always with that lense like a third or a half a stop?

I don't have any 2k lenses and none of them do that

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

What would happen if you dropped the exposure at the point you take the photo? Would that help?

If so it strikes me that there is something wrong with the aperature mechanism in the lense. Could you always with that lense like a third or a half a stop?

I don't have any 2k lenses and none of them do that

this is not a 2k lens....I would be pretty ****ed off if it did.

I could stop it down a bit I suppose but quite often it is exposed correctly just washed out with colour...its the way the lens is and always has been from new....its just different I think in the way it sees colour its just not as rich...you get spoilt with canon and Nikon even my cheapo kit lens from nikon is richer in colour...that only goes to 5.4 though and is not a fast lens so anything other than standing still and its not sharp..but the colour is heaps better.

DB, on your first image looks to me that the WB is a bit out and also a tad overexposed.
Did you used auto in the WB settings?
If you have the original try to go to ACR and play with the WB just a touch on the plus and bring down the exposure to -020 to -030 and see what it is the result.
To me the WB in auto of the Nikon is out a tad and many photographers believe that on the forums.
Just a thought
Cheers

could be but i have also shot (not this photo) in the same set a 18% grey card and there has been no difference in well not that I can notice in a lot of photos when sync'ing the white balance from it...

I will try your suggestions but I honestly think its the lens regardless of the exposure. as I have manual exposed as I like to shot in manual sometimes using the exposure bar and that does not make the colours richer....you can't in my experience make colours richer from tweaking an exposure a fraction.

Back in the days before digital cameras and Photoshop, it was possible to get quite a bit of variation in the appearance of photos because of decisions made before the shot was taken.
A lot of Bell's Gorge shots look like this.

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

I remember the colours of the rocks looking more like this.


My first reaction to this shot (because I have taken some that look the same) is that it needed a polarising filter rather than exposure correction.

Originally Posted by dullbird

Compare the colours in these two shots of Chambers Pillar.
This one is taken with the polarising filter.


This one without the polarising filter because I don't have one to fit my longer lens.


I was under the impression that shots in the bright glare of the Australian sun often needed a polarising filter for pretty much the same reason we wear good polaroid sunglasses, to cut down the reflected glare.

So even in the days of SLRs and film, it was possible to take photos that showed the colours of Central Australia as we remember them or to have the glare wash out the rich colours that make the scenery so memorable.

Would some purist object to the use of a polarising filter because it doesn't render the shot the way the film wants to record it?

I always use a polariser on days where there is glare or chance of lots of reflection....

that shot taken above was I think at like 9 in the morning wasn't hazy or anything just really lovely...

good example with yours though does look very similar.

however I do have shots in my back yard where the lens just doesn't do the dogs any justice....I don't think there is a shot I haven't taken with this lens where I haven't felt the need to adjust.

I remember being really happy with this lens when i first got it.......could it be the lens is now faulty? or could it be my perception has changed with experience as to what a better photo looks like?

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

Sorry for the edits all.

Neither of the following two shots have had ANY PP.

Have you got any idea how much of a berating I gave myself for not waiting for these two people to walk off?



Or how proud I am of this photo which I can't think of anything I could enhance on it?



I'm sorry Chucaro I think you can take lovely images without any form of PP and I think that makes them extra special.

@DB we had a canon ixsus and it has a horrible quality lense. You would need to sharpen every image. Now it sits and gathers dust. Stump up for a good one Until then you shouldn't enter the sans PP comps, and like I said I won't have a chance at the ones where PP is allowed

I like that the 2 people are there, to me it drags you to the bag but my eye tells my brain to look closer cause there is some thing else there and then sorta drags me out , nice and suttle
cheers
blaze

Hi DB
Have you thought about puttin the camera on a tripod, shooting some shots with the tamron and then shoot with the nikon (you still have it dont you) and comparing, maybe you can make some camera setting changes to bring it up to the rich color of the nikon and then save those settings as user defined or what ever you call them.
cheers
blaze