quick question

[Cruisn]

I am scrolling through some of the beautiful pictures on this site and the one that are posting there setting I am noticing quite a few are about 1 sec in time or longer. is this what is allowing such vivid colours or is it more along the lines of the lense? or something else? I am sitting here taking photos of a pop can on my desk trying to figure this out. lol

thanks for your help.

 

[dtornabene1]

I honestly have no idea what you are asking. Sorry, I just don't get the question. Could you rephrase the question please?

-Nick

 

[Cruisn]

I honestly have no idea what you are asking. Sorry, I just don't get the question. Could you rephrase the question please?

-Nick

sorry, I am having a little trouble trying to figure out how most of the photos on here have such vivid colours. I am trying to figure out how the length of exposure time affects that. as a few I have seen with really vivid colours have slightly longer exposure times than I am used to seeing. or are there other factors in getting such vivid colours? is that better? longer length of exposure= more vivid colours??

 

[Harmony]

How can you tell that they are one second long exposures?

Let's say you see this: 1/10. This means 'one tenth of a second' or, 0.1 seconds.

 

[Peanuts]

On a side note, I must say, I have never heard of Onoway before, had to google that one. Congrats on officially becoming a town as of 2005 (according to the ever so reliable Wikipedia )

Colours are going to be most 'vivid' when proper exposure is obtained. The difference might be seen in the technology of the sensor, type of film (Velvia is renowned for its vivid colour reproduction), but I must say, usually now-a-days the biggest influence on colour vividness if post production

 

[tsaraleksi]

The right light is often very important-- whether it be well organized artificial light or sunlight.

 

[Cruisn]

On a side note, I must say, I have never heard of Onoway before, had to google that one. Congrats on officially becoming a town as of 2005 (according to the ever so reliable Wikipedia )

Colours are going to be most 'vivid' when proper exposure is obtained. The difference might be seen in the technology of the sensor, type of film (Velvia is renowned for its vivid colour reproduction), but I must say, usually now-a-days the biggest influence on colour vividness if post production

its true, we became a town. lol. sad isnt it... lol.

thanks to all of you for the info and help.

Harmony: I understand the 1/20th a second stuff.

 

[andrew99]

Also most people are doing some photoshop work to their photos. Increasing contrast, saturation, dynamic range, etc.

 

[dtornabene1]

Crusin,

Thank you for rephrasing the question. I didn't mean to be rude, I just was not understanding. With that said...

These folks are all right. There are many factors leading to a photo looking more vivid than others. The question is, "What do you mean by vivid?". In-other-words, by vivid do you mean a photo is more saturated or do you mean it is crisp.

I ask this because of your reference to a pop can. At first take one could assume you mean the colors are more prominant, however I would hardly see shooting a pop can as prominant colors. If so, pp (post production) and on camera settings can easily make colors more vivid in this sence. This is where Peanuts comes into play.

Peanuts makes reference to the days of film. It is true, different film produced different results, often the reason for picking that particular film in the first place. There are products such as Alien Skin's Exposure® 2 that simulate just about any film stock in a digital world or Tiffin's Dfx v2 that simulate 2000 posible filters. However, it is doubtfull that is what you are seeing.

If you mean crisp, pp will help, however lighting, poper exposure, and great glass (lens) are key. True, exposure can be adjusted in your RAW image editior, that's one of the reasons we always shoot in RAW. But, you can not add more light effectively just by adjusting sensor exposure vaules, that's where tsaraleski comes into play.

tsaraleski mentions the importance of lighting which can not be added (correctly) in pp. You need to get the lighting right.

andrew99 hit the nail on the head in general. Most people rely on software to create a better image by using tools in pp to change settings, most importantly saturation.

Not to say this is bad, it is just not what we strive for. There are plenty of things to try to get right when shooting, yet eventually we want to get to the point pp is less and less. People seem to think pp is new since the entrance of digital. That's just stupid. Pp has been around long before the very first pixal was ever created.

If you need some specific advice, post a picture and we can help.

-Nick