Water Drops on Leaves - Looking a bit dull?

[sm3g]

Hey Guys,
Forgot to post these ones earlier, took some photos of some leaves in my back yard after xmas (how exciting right?) to see if I could get focus on things like little water drops - turns out I can.
However, I took 3 different photos, all of which seem some what dull/washed out? Is this me doing dumb things or is it just that I need the post process to bring out vibrant colours?

All 3 were taken at :
Nikon D3300, f/5.6, 55mm, 1/200, ISO 800

DSC_0191 by Sam Wardlaw, on Flickr

DSC_0190 by Sam Wardlaw, on Flickr

DSC_0189 by Sam Wardlaw, on Flickr

Now I did have a go at making one more vibrant in lightroom - I think this was actually the first or second photo I played with so I pretty much fiddled around with every slider
DSC_0191 by Sam Wardlaw, on Flickr

Do not rate the result I don't think.

 

[xDarek]

Amazing water drops.The last one looks amazing.Nice editing.

 

[JustJazzie]

Beautiful edit!! I love the vibrancy!

 

[LarryLomona]

Nice

 

[dxqcanada]

Question is ... is that what they looked like when you viewed them with your eyes ? ... or did they look like the vibrant one ?
The originals do look a little under exposed.

 

[dannylightning]

nice shots, nicely done. . i agree they are slightly under exposed..

 

[sm3g]

Question is ... is that what they looked like when you viewed them with your eyes ? ... or did they look like the vibrant one ?
The originals do look a little under exposed.

Nope, the edited one is definitely more vibrant than the leaves appear in real life and the originals are definitely more dull than in real life - under exposed, so I would best fix that by slowing down shutter speed yeah?

 

[SquarePeg]

Nice edit. Either slow the shutter speed or bump up the ISO.

 

[k5MOW]

Very nice.

 

[idcanyon]

These are pretty good when edited. For more pop in color and contrast from the start, try shooting them in the sun.

 

[Ysarex]

However, I took 3 different photos, all of which seem some what dull/washed out? Is this me doing dumb things or is it just that I need the post process to bring out vibrant colours?

Let's not use the term "dumb" but you're certainly doing things that raise flags and beg questions.

I looked at the EXIF data for these photos. You have the camera's EC set to +3.67 which would result in huge overexposure. You're using the camera on full manual (why?) and so that EC value was obviously ignored except that you're using a Nikon camera which even in full manual applies the EC value to the exposure meter's reading. Which leads to the question: How did you determine exposure for these in the first place?

You have the camera set to auto white balance and the photos are off color as a further complication.

You have good software (LR) that supports it and a nice camera that will save an NEF raw file. Did you do that?

Joe

 

[sm3g]

Thanks for all the replies guys

However, I took 3 different photos, all of which seem some what dull/washed out? Is this me doing dumb things or is it just that I need the post process to bring out vibrant colours?

Let's not use the term "dumb" but you're certainly doing things that raise flags and beg questions.

I looked at the EXIF data for these photos. You have the camera's EC set to +3.67 which would result in huge overexposure. You're using the camera on full manual (why?) and so that EC value was obviously ignored except that you're using a Nikon camera which even in full manual applies the EC value to the exposure meter's reading. Which leads to the question: How did you determine exposure for these in the first place?

You have the camera set to auto white balance and the photos are off color as a further complication.

You have good software (LR) that supports it and a nice camera that will save an NEF raw file. Did you do that?

Joe

Ahh yes.
Well, I took these the day after I got the camera so was playing with all sorts of settings.
I think I used full Manual because I hadn't really read about the A and S modes at that point - the +3.67 is probably me trying to change the focal length at some point but accidentally changing that (I have since realised when this happens and know about it so I don't do that anymore)... AS far as determining the exposure - I really had no idea at that point!! I think I just got lucky that these even turned out well at all, I really didn't know what I was doing with the settings when I shot them
These leaves were shot in RAW, not all my shots have been, most have been in JPEG but after doing some reading about these forums I have now switched it back to be taking RAWs once more.
With white balance, there are only predefined options? Would I be better using one of those or finding some grey card to make it determine it correctly first?

Thanks for all the feedback

 

[Ysarex]

Thanks for all the replies guys

However, I took 3 different photos, all of which seem some what dull/washed out? Is this me doing dumb things or is it just that I need the post process to bring out vibrant colours?

Let's not use the term "dumb" but you're certainly doing things that raise flags and beg questions.

I looked at the EXIF data for these photos. You have the camera's EC set to +3.67 which would result in huge overexposure. You're using the camera on full manual (why?) and so that EC value was obviously ignored except that you're using a Nikon camera which even in full manual applies the EC value to the exposure meter's reading. Which leads to the question: How did you determine exposure for these in the first place?

You have the camera set to auto white balance and the photos are off color as a further complication.

You have good software (LR) that supports it and a nice camera that will save an NEF raw file. Did you do that?

Joe

Ahh yes.
Well, I took these the day after I got the camera so was playing with all sorts of settings.
I think I used full Manual because I hadn't really read about the A and S modes at that point - the +3.67 is probably me trying to change the focal length at some point but accidentally changing that (I have since realised when this happens and know about it so I don't do that anymore)... AS far as determining the exposure - I really had no idea at that point!! I think I just got lucky that these even turned out well at all, I really didn't know what I was doing with the settings when I shot them

OK, congrats on the new camera. Recommend you use the camera in either P, A or S modes. Take control of the ISO setting as soon as you fell comfortable. You can put it on auto right now but eventually you'll want to set it deliberately as a matter of practice (although auto can be useful in changeable action conditions). Your goal is to get the photo at the lowest ISO possible but by all means raise the ISO as necessity requires.

HINT: Establish for yourself right now a default setting for the camera. Determine and even write down where you want everything to be set. For example P mode, Single focus, ISO 100, auto WB, etc. etc. and start to memorize that default combination of settings. THEN DO THIS!!! Set your defaults every time before you turn off the camera. That way you'll always turn the camera on to the same default condition.

These leaves were shot in RAW, not all my shots have been, most have been in JPEG but after doing some reading about these forums I have now switched it back to be taking RAWs once more.
With white balance, there are only predefined options? Would I be better using one of those or finding some grey card to make it determine it correctly first?

Thanks for all the feedback

Even if you don't learn to use them now make sure you save the camera NEF (raw) files. Those are like a film negative used to be. The JPEG is created from the NEF. If in time you decide to get better at this you may want those NEF files. The software in the camera that creates the JPEG is OK but it's not excellent and not able to tailor the processing to each individual photo. Therefore it is always possible for you to learn to do better than the camera software but you'll need the NEFs to do that.

Your camera has auto WB and a bunch of presets. Auto WB is an algorithm that tries to assess the color of the light by examining the light reflected from the subject. The color of the subject changes the color of the light and auto WB fails. The presets aren't much better but they're at least consistent. Most people aren't very color sensitive and they blissfully click away with auto WB and don't notice -- the bliss of ignorance. You may do the same or you have two other alternatives:
1. If you shoot and use the camera JPEGs you can set a custom WB from a spectrally neutral target -- recommend white Styrofoam as effect and inexpensive -- get a coffee cup (see you camera manual).
2. If you save and process the NEF files just make sure you get a reference shot of a spectrally neutral target in the same light as the rest of what you're photographing and you can then sample the target for temp and tint values in LR.

Joe