dull digital pictures

[biglouis]

I don't know if anyone here can offer me any advice but I was wondering how to counteract the tendency for digital photographs to be somewhat dull.

I recall reading somewhere that digital cameras often have this problem and with varying degrees I've noticed it with my D-LUX 2. Looking at the results posted here from DMRs and Digilux 2 cameras this problem does not seem to exist.

Either these cameras don't suffer from this issue or the users have learned how to process the tendecy/effect out during processing is CS2 or Camera Raw.

TIA for any advice. Perhaps I am imaging this?????

LouisB

[stunsworth]

Hi Louis. are you talking about photographs shown on the web?

If so make sure that they use the sRGB colour space before saving them. If you use the Adobe 1998 colour space you'll more than likely see muted colours when the picture is displayed in a web browser.

[biglouis]

Steve

Thanks for the response and the tip. I generally notice it when I first start to process the pictures in CS2 or Lightbox. Do I need to convert to sRGB before I start to work on them?

LouisB

[stunsworth]

You shouldn't need to.

[stnami]

It should be the last thing to do and only the images destined for the net just after sharpening

[dugby]

As a D2 owner, I fully understand and agree with what you are saying.

At the risk of sounding like..... "I'm blowing my own trumpet", I was very pleasantly surprised when I started to view my first D2 photos, straight off the SD card with no PS processing.

There is a certain "Leica glow" to the D2 images, which I've also noticed more so with the DMR. Also noticed this on the fredmiranda.com website with Canon 5D's using Leica R lenses.

It's quite a distinct "glow" that gives life to the photos that I do not see in other brand lenses. I have been a keen Olympus OM Zuiko shooter for 35+ years and am thrilled to have moved onto much better images.

Now that I'm used to these Leica images, I have no trouble spotting photos shot through Leica glass.

[john_r_smith]

Louis B

you are not imagining things. Assuming you still have a film camera, take that loaded with slide film along with your digital next time you go out, and shoot frame-for-frame each shot, one on film and one on digital. You may be in for a shock.

Two things tend to make digital look good to us -

One is the immediacy of the process, and the fact that you have nothing to compare it with (unless you do as I suggest, above).

The other is the fact that you are viewing your images on a computer monitor which makes things look more punchy and contrasty than they really are (as you quickly find out when you print them to reflective media).

Some of the worst digital images I have seen in a long time were from our brand new Canon EOS 350D here at work - dull, flat, lifeless. I'd have done a lot better with an old Pentax K1000 and colour neg film. But our staff love the digicams, of course. Convenience wins the battle over quality, every time.

John

[stunsworth]

Hi John, if printed digital prints look flat and lifeless alongside their film counterparts then there's a problem somewhere in the digital 'workflow' - god how I hate that word. Certainly this can happen when printing with an inkjet printer if you don't use the correct profiles.

[john_r_smith]

Stuart

sorry, I think I'm having a bad "digital" day But we have a really fine pro lab where we send our film work, and they do prints for us (both colour and B/W) which are really excellent, and make a lot of digital stuff look pretty poor. I was thinking more in terms of inexpensive digicams for my criticism, not decent stuff like the LC1 or DMR (or the new M8, come to that).

It all depends (as always) what you want to use your pictures for, obviously. I do a certain amount of lectures for work in the evenings, and now of course we have retired our old Kodak carousel projectors, and we have to use Powerpoint on a laptop PC with a digital projector. I remember getting a real kick out of a good 35mm slide projected up to 5 feet wide. Now you should see the pixellated mess I get instead at 1024x768, which makes me feel ashamed to be standing in front of it.

John

[albertwang]

Yes!!!, someone who actually called the Canon Rebel dull and lifeless. Attaboy!

[biglouis]

OK, some interesting responses but I was hoping for suggestions about how to get some punch back into my digital pictures.

This site abounds with some really wonderful, luminous and striking digital pictures.

Is it just the sRGB adjustment that I need as stated above or are there are other steps in workflow I should be using?

LouisB

[andybarton]

Increase the saturation and contrast a bit in PS.

Some shooters of negative film use this technique too.

[stunsworth]

As Andy suggests have a play with the saturation if you think the images look lifeless.

Regarding the digital rebel - I'm assuming you mean what's know as the 300D in Europe - as someone who has actually _used_ one there is no reason why the images should look flat unless there is a processing issue. See attached photograph. If you go to my website and look at the Australia 2005 album or Southern France 2004 you'll see more dull and lifeless shots :-)

CRW_1488.jpg

[lct]

Originally Posted by biglouis

...I was hoping for suggestions about how to get some punch back into my digital pictures...

Checking white balance is one of the most important things IMHO.
Did you try iCorrect?
http://www.pictocolor.com/

[albertwang]

geewhiz, not another one of the plastic shotz...

[dugby]

Originally Posted by biglouis

OK, some interesting responses but I was hoping for suggestions about how to get some punch back into my digital pictures.

This site abounds with some really wonderful, luminous and striking digital pictures.

Is it just the sRGB adjustment that I need as stated above or are there are other steps in workflow I should be using?

LouisB

I guess you didn't read between the lines...........

To get that Leica "life-in-your-photos".....You may need to get a D2, or DMR, or M8 or Panasonic L1 with Leica lens...or...... Leica-R glass on a Canon 5D

Have a careful look at the size (width and depth) of your D-Lux2 lens, then take a careful look at the above cameras' lenses.......there's a hidden message in that task.



An easier comparson...... go to a binocular shop and have a look through some 8x20 binoculars, then immediately have a look through some 8x50 (or even 8x40 will do it)..... tell us what you see.

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by albertwang

geewhiz, not another one of the plastic shotz...

'Fraid so Alfie, why don't you post one of your Leica R/Leica M/Contax/Olympus/Nikon shots to show how it should it should be done. As a 'professional' you must surely have something suitable.

[masjah]

Alfie

DIdn't you say a while ago on the old Forum that the adapter you'd ordered had arrived (wasn't it Leica R lens to Olympus body)? Seriously, it would be interesting to see the results.

[ade909]

Louis,

If you haven't already tried it, there's a little trick you can do with unsharp mask in Photoshop, that makes your pictures "pop" a little. Luminous Landscape call it local contrast enhancement, and someone on the old forum also pointed it out (I forget who it was, but thank you, if you're still out there!)

It's part of my workflow with the LC1, particularly for landscapes.

Hopefully, this is a link to the LL tutorial Contrast Enhancement

best

Ade

[steve_l]

Ade's recommended method (which, by the way, was invented by Thomas Knoll, the inventor of Photoshop!) is the trick for sure...those of us who have been doing digital for a while now have pretty much all found this and swear by it!

I'd say to use Amount 10% to 20%, not just a flat 20% as the article recommends.

I switched form Leica to Canon to be digital, and discovering this trick gave me back that Leica "pop" that I had lost....Leica lenses are more known for contrast than for resolution, and the "local contrast enhancement" provided that feel.