30d Flat Images....!!

[magpiemick]

Hello All,

I've had my 30D for seven months now along with two lens Canon 400L & Canon 1.4x and Sigma 70-200 F2.8 ....

99% of the images appear flat and colours not vibrant...
99.9% of the images are to me not pin sharp...

All camera settings are 0 except for style is on faithful..
Exposure compensation -2/3rd

Looked at other 30d images and they appear the same as mine so they must be happy but im not i've been considering sending off for calibration and sensor clean..

Could it be a technique or a processing thing..

ANY SUGGESTIONS ..

HAS ANYONE ELSE HAD THE SAME PROBLEMS..

Thanks

Mick.

[RJL2005]

Hi Mick

I have had my 30d for just over a year and am still learning alot about dslr's and photography in general. I would guess that the lack of sharpness you are seeing is caused by either your post processing parameters or dare I say it equipment vibration/focus point. I started a thread a few weeks ago about sharpening and had some useful replies even if one or too hurt a bit :-). I am also interested in your exposure compensation of -2/3 - do you use this for all shots and metering modes? Arthur Morris does quite a good job of explaining exposure compensation you could try a google for it, it maybe useful.

As I said I am quite new to this myself but am sure some more experienced members of BF will offer you more help.

Good luck

Rhod

PS Here's the link:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=85242

[mjmw]

Hello All,

I've had my 30D for seven months now along with two lens Canon 400L & Canon 1.4x and Sigma 70-200 F2.8 ....

99% of the images appear flat and colours not vibrant...
99.9% of the images are to me not pin sharp...

All camera settings are 0 except for style is on faithful..
Exposure compensation -2/3rd

Looked at other 30d images and they appear the same as mine so they must be happy but im not i've been considering sending off for calibration and sensor clean..

Could it be a technique or a processing thing..

ANY SUGGESTIONS ..

HAS ANYONE ELSE HAD THE SAME PROBLEMS..

Thanks

Mick.

Hi Mick, I don't think there is anything wrong with your kit - you have just told the camera not to apply any 'punch' to the image. If you do not want to do any post processing on the images and want to use them straight 'off camera' then you need to change the picture style to reflect your personal taste and/or the subject and tweak the other settings (for example saturation and sharpness) to give results that you are happy with. I use exactly the settings you do but add the 'punch' during post-processing rather than in camera.

Exposure compensation is a more complex subject and the amount to apply, if any, varies with the shooting conditions, that said, always lowering the exposure will under-expose many shots making them dark and often look 'muddy'.

The following has some info on picture styles:

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/picturestyle/index.html

[Roy C]

Hi Mick, to get the most out of a digital sensor you should expose to the right (without blowing the highlights). By purposely underexposing you are creating more noise in the shadow areas and losing a lot of the dynamic range. If you shoot in RAW and overexpose slightly you can always pull it back.

[shoshone]

Hi Mick, to get the most out of a digital sensor you should expose to the right (without blowing the highlights). By purposely underexposing you are creating more noise in the shadow areas and losing a lot of the dynamic range. If you shoot in RAW and overexpose slightly you can always pull it back.

Roy, I explored Luminous Landscapes website and followed the Histogram article on there about exposing to the right and kind of understood it....however I would ideally prefer to get the image that I want 'in camera' (well almost at least) and as I understood the article my pix would be even more washed out than they are already if I follow the 'expose to the right' methodology, so maybe there is something more fundamental wrong with what I am doing. I was amazed that Mick was under-exposing so much...however (and I have seen this recommended before) perhaps canon DSLRs over expose a bit and maybe -1/3 would produce better (i.e less washed out (landscapes) images than I am getting even when set to 'picture Mode - Landscape' ...I suppose I should try this for a bit myself, however any feedback you can give on this subject would I am sure be helpful.

Once again I am conscious I may be usurping a thread and my apologies in advance for this.



regards
Jamie

[magpiemick]

Most of my shots nearly all are from a tripod manfrotto 055 with a 701rc2 head and cable release, tried differant techniques wide open stopped down, auto and manual focus they just lack that overall quaility straight out the camera. Surely any amount processing can't make an image excellent when it was o.k. to start with...

[magpiemick]

Jamie,
Even with this setting i blow out whites alot so to go to the right im in even bigger trouble than i am now...I also read that on lumi-landscapes site and it makes sense but well im lacking quaility as well..

Mick.

[macshark]

It is hard to comment unless you post some examples.

[mjmw]

Most of my shots nearly all are from a tripod manfrotto 055 with a 701rc2 head and cable release, tried differant techniques wide open stopped down, auto and manual focus they just lack that overall quaility straight out the camera. Surely any amount processing can't make an image excellent when it was o.k. to start with...

Mick, if you don't think the suggestions so far are going to help, then maybe post a couple of examples on this thread so we can see what your concerns are - if you do, it would also help if you posted the techs for the shots (shutter speed, aperture, ISO).

[mjmw]

Roy, I explored Luminous Landscapes website and followed the Histogram article on there about exposing to the right and kind of understood it....however I would ideally prefer to get the image that I want 'in camera' (well almost at least) and as I understood the article my pix would be even more washed out than they are already if I follow the 'expose to the right' methodology, so maybe there is something more fundamental wrong with what I am doing. I was amazed that Mick was under-exposing so much...however (and I have seen this recommended before) perhaps canon DSLRs over expose a bit and maybe -1/3 would produce better (i.e less washed out (landscapes) images than I am getting even when set to 'picture Mode - Landscape' ...I suppose I should try this for a bit myself, however any feedback you can give on this subject would I am sure be helpful.

Once again I am conscious I may be usurping a thread and my apologies in advance for this.

regards
Jamie

You have it dead right Jamie about 'exposing to the right', Roy's advice is perfectly correct if you want to post-process your images and maximise image quality for printing large. Getting the exposure spot on is more important if you want to use the images straight off of the camera, which I think Mick does.

To clarify what I meant about camera settings, the picture style has nothing to do with exposure...it is more akin to the type of film you use - for example, the landscape style has saturated colours (similar to the popular Fuji Velvia).
Sharpness - digital cameras create soft images that require some level of sharpening applied...most DSLRs allow the photographer to change the amount as the manufacturers realise that some people want to do this off camera, or prefer a slightly softer look (with portraits for example).
Saturation, colour tone, contrast - all can be adjusted to taste in camera beyond the picture style but will not effect the exposure.
These settings are alternatives to doing the work on your computer but are still the equivalent of choosing a film type and then developing the exposed film in the darkroom or by the lab.

[magpiemick]

Five recent images to me just not on the money, the Squacco Heron is the best in my opinion for quality.'hope i uploaded the right one'

I don't feel im nit picking..

All Raw converted in Canon's Digital Photo Professional sharpened by 1 and then Jpeg in Elements 5.0 U.S.M 30%..1.0..0

All with the 400L except the Razorbill with 70/200 about 6 foot away !!

This is what i get not much wrong just lacking

Be honest which i know you will be..

[Keith Reeder]

On my monitor they lack a bit of "pop" (actually, the eider's fine) but nothing that a little bit of Levels or Curves tweaking wouldn't sort out in a few seconds.

There seem to be two issues here. The exposure/histogram/highlights issue, and the Picture Styles question.

Blown highlights - and dealing with (or avoiding) them - are down to either getting religious about poring over the histogram, or shooting RAW.

Or both.

But... I shoot RAW exclusively and hardly ever need to worry about blown highlights (I've yet to look at a histogram) and unlike in my Nikon days, hardly ever change EVC because I'm pretty confident that what I get off the camera will be "thereabouts".

And I can get all the pop I want in PP (if anything, I'm overly cautious in that regard, but I think I'd still be tweaking these pictures up).

For maximum "pop" of jpegs off the camera you need to be looking at other Picture Styles - by definition, "Faithful" is going to be... well, faithful to the scene, and if it was a dull low light situation (like the razorbill?) that's how the picture will look.

As an aside Mick, it's really useful in threads like this if your pictures were to contain Exif so that we could get some idea about the shooting situation.

Oh - is your monitor calibrated at all?

[mjmw]

On my monitor they lack a bit of "pop" (actually, the eider's fine) but nothing that a little bit of Levels or Curves tweaking wouldn't sort out in a few seconds.
There seem to be two issues here. The exposure/histogram/highlights issue, and the Picture Styles question.



Agreed, which would be solved with proper exposure and adjustment of 'development' settings in the camera.

Blown highlights - and dealing with (or avoiding) them - are down to either getting religious about poring over the histogram, or shooting RAW.

Or both.

But... I shoot RAW exclusively and hardly ever need to worry about blown highlights (I've yet to look at a histogram) and unlike in my Nikon days, hardly ever change EVC because I'm pretty confident that what I get off the camera will be "thereabouts".


Sorry Keith but blown highlights has nothing to with shooting RAW or not. It is all to do with experience of your (camera) light-meter and more recently with DSLRs, using the histogram...but I agree that Canon's EOS cameras have had pretty good metering in good light. Most reports of exposure problems I have seen tend to be from people not understanding the metering mode (for example over-exposed images when using center-weighted) or how lighting will fool the camera. As I read recently, the LCD on the back of our DSLRs has become the ultimate test Polaroid!


And I can get all the pop I want in PP (if anything, I'm overly cautious in that regard, but I think I'd still be tweaking these pictures up).

For maximum "pop" of jpegs off the camera you need to be looking at other Picture Styles - by definition, "Faithful" is going to be... well, faithful to the scene, and if it was a dull low light situation (like the razorbill?) that's how the picture will look.


My opinion is that the Faithfull picture style is just a dull representation of the scene and will rarely represent what the photographer wanted (what is real?). It does give the maximum potential to post-process the image though.

As an aside Mick, it's really useful in threads like this if your pictures were to contain Exif so that we could get some idea about the shooting situation.

Oh - is your monitor calibrated at all?

As I asked for above...provide the techs in the post - it can really help others to understand the shooting conditions and provide the best advice.

With regards to your images Mick? Based on your comments in this thread, I am going to isolate the issues you mentioned, so may sound a little harsh...

Image 1 (Puffin) - this is under-exposed, has a cyan or blue colour-cast and is lacking contrast and saturation.
Image 2 (Eider) - Exposed well, may improve with more saturation.
Image 3 (Razorbill) - very under-exposed - the overcast conditions with a dark subject and pale background needed positive exposure compensation (that is, more light) plus more saturation.
Image 4 (Puffin) - this is slightly under-exposed, lacking a little contrast and saturation.
Image 5 (Squacco) - good light, even tones - the camera handled it well.

To be honest, these pics look pretty good considering the conditions - they all would benefit from a little more sharpening, but not because of technique or your gear...just because digital does!
Overall, based on these shots on my calibrated monitor, if you want 'off the camera' good looks, try leaving the EV comp at 0 unless you need to adjust, and as a guess - set saturation +2, contrast +1, sharpness +2 and see how you like it.

[paul goode]

I know that this has been covered before but I'm still confused. Mick stated that the images are converted RAW files using DPP. Therefore aren't the picture style settings irrelevant. Or, do they have some effect on a RAW file?

With regard to the images Mick, I can't add anything that Mark and Keith haven't said. Basically good images which will stand a little more processing.

'Flat images can be a factor of the light, a bit like the first Puffin. It will stand a bit more processing but the light is dull and you can only make the best of it.

Shooting RAW, as you are doing, will ultimately give the best results but will mean putting time in post processing the image. As I thought I understood it the picture styles are an attempt to produce a processed jpeg straight out of the camera

Paul

Edit. Also agree about Monitor Calibration. Essential!

[Roy C]

I know that this has been covered before but I'm still confused. Mick stated that the images are converted RAW files using DPP. Therefore aren't the picture style settings irrelevant. Or, do they have some effect on a RAW file?

Beat me to it Paul - I was going to ask the same question.

[pe'rigin]

Mick,


Your images are fine, just put in the 3% highlight and see them transform.

[tdodd]

Magpie Mick,

AIUI the "Faithful" picture style has zero sharpening, zero contrast enhancement and zero saturation enhancement, plus a colour swing specifically intended for use under lighting at 5200K and no other. It is fully expected that you will deal with these enhancements in post processing so the image out of the camera is left as "raw" as possible, even if you produce an in-camera jpeg.

IMHO, for what you are shooting and the way you are processing "Faithful" is probably the worst picture style you could choose. If you want shots out of the camera with zero processing/enhancement then at least use "Neutral" picture style, as that will not make assumptions about colour temperature of the lighting. If you want your photos to emerge from the camera with some punch/pop then the "Standard" picture style is probably what you want, or even "Landscape". Alternatively you could customise the parameters for the existing picture styles to save tweaking in DPP afterwards.

Also remember that DPP is the only editing software that recognises picture styles and adjusts the image based on the chosen style. As you are shooting raw and using DPP then try playing with the picture styles in DPP. You have complete freedom to apply whichever picture style you want in post processing. If you're leaving the picture style as "Faithful" before exporting to jpeg then you will get flat looking images. Just sharpening is not enough - you need to tweak contrast and saturation too. Also, since "Faithful" is intended for 5200K lighting you'll more than likely have to tweak WB as well.

If you shoot raw and bypass DPP altogether, going straight to some other raw software, like Lightroom or ACR, then the picture style has no effect at all and you will still need to apply sharpening, contrast and colour enhancement to the raw image, as normal.

[Keith Reeder]

Sorry Keith but blown highlights has nothing to with shooting RAW or not.
Yeah, but RAW does give you that extra latitude where highlights are almost blown - and would be if the shot had been jpeg straight from the camera. 12 bits over 8 bits is a lot of extra information!

;)

I've tested this by taking RAW + jpeg shots of my Sanderlings: I've been able to save detail in the RAW versions of sunlit Winter plumage birds where highlights in the camera jpeg version were blown.

Paul, Picture Styles are (or can be) applied to RAW files if you convert in DPP (and maybe one other converter? The name escapes me, but Paul Weston - BPW - uses it, I think).

[paul goode]

Paul, Picture Styles are (or can be) applied to RAW files if you convert in DPP (and maybe one other converter? The name escapes me, but Paul Weston - BPW - uses it, I think).


thanks for that Keith, I'll have to mess around with some files from the 400d in DPP.

[mjmw]

Yeah, but RAW does give you that extra latitude where highlights are almost blown - and would be if the shot had been jpeg straight from the camera. 12 bits over 8 bits is a lot of extra information!

;)

I've tested this by taking RAW + jpeg shots of my Sanderlings: I've been able to save detail in the RAW versions of sunlit Winter plumage birds where highlights in the camera jpeg version were blown.

Paul, Picture Styles are (or can be) applied to RAW files if you convert in DPP (and maybe one other converter? The name escapes me, but Paul Weston - BPW - uses it, I think).

OK, point taken...but shooting RAW won't magically expose your shots correctly ;)

Breezebrowser Pro allows you to change the picture style at RAW conversion.

[Keith Reeder]

OK, point taken...but shooting RAW won't magically expose your shots correctly ;)

How true, how true... apologies if my earlier comments read that way. I just meant that with RAW I get away with more without having to ride EVC - there's a decent amount of headroom in a 30D RAW file, I find.

Breezebrowser Pro allows you to change the picture style at RAW conversion.

Thought it might be - thanks for that, Mark.

[shoshone]

How true, how true... apologies if my earlier comments read that way. I just meant that with RAW I get away with more without having to ride EVC - there's a decent amount of headroom in a 30D RAW file, I find.



Thought it might be - thanks for that, Mark.

Yes that is what I understood according to Luminous Landscapes, that could be because with RAW you are working with 12 bit data instead of 8 bit for jpg (and hence how you can push the histogram to the right (or what other methodology you use) and get away with a better quality image. With 12 bit (they say) you have more data and much more subtle tone gradations - In several articles the author(s) emphasise staying in RAW to manipulate (including upsizing images) before converting to TIF or JPG at least as I understood it.
Jamie

[avan]

As said, the faulty are the picture style faithfull and neutral are very dull directly out of the camera and with no sharpening apply. Try the standard setting and in high contrast situation, low the contrast setting by -1. Your picture are very good and nothing you can resolve with post processing. I read you shoot in raw, so go back to the original file and try different picture style, WB, etc..

[magpiemick]

Well many thanks for your replies of help and advice..
So much to learn, so much to try now with the advice given..
Try some in camera settings..
A differant workflow using ACR..
I think my exif data was missing because of 'Neat Image'
Monitor is a cheap Acer AL1714 and not calibrated
Try some shots and let you know the results..

Thanks again..

Mick.

[tdodd]

MM,

Just remember that if you are shooting RAW you can play with all the camera settings in DPP software after you take the shot. For example, take one well exposed photograph of a typical subject (an existing raw file will do). Make several (5-10) identical copies of the file. Open each in turn in DPP and set a different picture style for each file copy and then add in a few variations with adjustments to other parameters and then compare the appearance of each version. It is much easier to tinker about in software to compare resluts than to physically shoot 10-20 photos, adjusting parameters between shots. It also means you have identical composition and lighting for all the shots in order to compare the effect of parameter tweaking.

It really doesn't matter what camera settings you have (in terms of picture styles and parameters) unless you are shooting straight to jpeg in camera, when those parameters are "locked" into the jpeg file. There is one small exception to this advice, which is that if you want the histogram to most accurately reflect the raw data you should shoot in Neutral style. This will avoid false blinkies of overblown highlights that don't actually exist in the raw data but might in the jpeg version when contrast and sharpness are pumped up in the camera (note the histogram is generated from an embedded mini-jpeg in the raw data and not from the actual raw data itself).

Edit:
Actually, I've just had a thought - if using DPP as your raw editor then I believe all of he above holds true. However, if using ACR, Lightroom etc. I know the picture styles have no effect but it is possible that parameters such as sharpness/contrast/saturation are picked up by the software so in fact it might be important to set those parameters in-camera, to suit your tastes, before shooting. A few test shots should soon prove whether or not this is so.

[Roy C]

I think my exif data was missing because of 'Neat Image'
Mick.
Do not think think that 'Neat Image' strips the Exif Mick but 'saving for the web' does in PS and I assume Element's as well.

[Keith Reeder]

Actually Roy, the free Neat Image does strip the Exif as I recall.

[Roy C]

Actually Roy, the free Neat Image does strip the Exif as I recall.
Keith, I use the free Neat Image and it does not strip the Exif from my images. Mind you I use it as a plug-in for CS2, maybe it is different if using as a stand alone.

UPDATE Just tested this out and if you use the free Neat Image as a CS2 plug-in it does not strip the info but if you use it as a stand alone it does (I have always used it a plug-in which is why I made the comment)

[Keith Reeder]

Aha - I always used the stand-alone!

It's actually one of the reasons I moved to a paid-for version.

[pe'rigin]

Mick,

If your printing the images get your range between these points, if showing on the web, go beyond.

It's really simple to alter your images.

[macshark]

Free version of NeatImage strips the EXIF.

Paid version (standalone or PhotoShop plugin) does not.

[Roy C]

Free version of NeatImage strips the EXIF.
The plug-in does not.

[Keith Reeder]

Something strange going on here, Roy.

According to Neatimage, the free ("Demo") version plug-in does not save the Exif: http://www.neatimage.com/featuremap.html

I am officially confused..!

;)

Added: you're right though - I've just tried it myself!

[Roy C]

Something strange going on here, Roy.

According to Neatimage, the free ("Demo") version plug-in does not save the Exif: http://www.neatimage.com/featuremap.html

I am officially confused..!

;)

Added: you're right though - I've just tried it myself!
What's even more confusing Keith is that I have just looked in my Gallery and I can guarantee that all my last 100 or so images have gone through the neat image plug-in and yet about 75% have the Exif data and 25% do not (the same shots that do not have the Exif in Birdforum all have it in Photobucket)
|:S| |:S| |:S|