increasing contrast
Discussion
Are you looking to increase the contrast in your camera (possibly under custom picture mode depending on what camera you have) or techniques for adding contrast in post processing (adjusting the curves, or simply upping the contrast slider)?
You'll find that a lot of peope tweak the curves in nearly all their photos!
You'll find that a lot of peope tweak the curves in nearly all their photos!
Camera and lens both affect contrast, and most digital cameras have a setting that let you increase it.
If you have software with the camera there may be a post-processing option to increase contrast. If not GIMP lets you do it as well as a lot of other post-processing thingies (and it's FREE!!!!).
If you have software with the camera there may be a post-processing option to increase contrast. If not GIMP lets you do it as well as a lot of other post-processing thingies (and it's FREE!!!!).
Davi said:
One thing I've noticed about all my pics - they lack a bit (lot?!) of the contrast many of the "out the cam" pic's shown here have.
What are key elements to improving the contrast in a pic - or is it likely to be a function of the camera and lens?
Contrast is about getting the blacks black and the whites white. To a certain extent you can do that by controlling/adjusting exposure at the time you take the photo, but after that you're venturing into the realms of digital processing, by one means or another.What are key elements to improving the contrast in a pic - or is it likely to be a function of the camera and lens?
I'm up to speed with PP work - used to be a graphic designer and print manager so no probs there. It's the actual shots out the camera that I'm disappointed with. I was taking a shed load of test shots in my quest to get a decent sunset yesterday, and universally they are ALL lacking in contrast, all look a bit washed. exposure wound up, down, left right aperture open closed speed fast slow white level at x y z etc etc etc... they all look, well just a bit drab.
If it's simply a case of certain levels of light or certain types of shot, whatever, will always need a tweak then fine I'm happy to do that, but I'd like to try and get things right as best I can with the equipment first.
If it's simply a case of certain levels of light or certain types of shot, whatever, will always need a tweak then fine I'm happy to do that, but I'd like to try and get things right as best I can with the equipment first.
Davi said:
I'm up to speed with PP work - used to be a graphic designer and print manager so no probs there. It's the actual shots out the camera that I'm disappointed with. I was taking a shed load of test shots in my quest to get a decent sunset yesterday, and universally they are ALL lacking in contrast, all look a bit washed. exposure wound up, down, left right aperture open closed speed fast slow white level at x y z etc etc etc... they all look, well just a bit drab.
If it's simply a case of certain levels of light or certain types of shot, whatever, will always need a tweak then fine I'm happy to do that, but I'd like to try and get things right as best I can with the equipment first.
All good points. Can you post some examples? What camera is it? From your description above I guess you were using manual exposure?If it's simply a case of certain levels of light or certain types of shot, whatever, will always need a tweak then fine I'm happy to do that, but I'd like to try and get things right as best I can with the equipment first.
Davi said:
I'm up to speed with PP work - used to be a graphic designer and print manager so no probs there. It's the actual shots out the camera that I'm disappointed with. I was taking a shed load of test shots in my quest to get a decent sunset yesterday, and universally they are ALL lacking in contrast, all look a bit washed. exposure wound up, down, left right aperture open closed speed fast slow white level at x y z etc etc etc... they all look, well just a bit drab.
If it's simply a case of certain levels of light or certain types of shot, whatever, will always need a tweak then fine I'm happy to do that, but I'd like to try and get things right as best I can with the equipment first.
I could be well off, but DSLRs are designed to capture the most natural picture they possibly can, which means usually natural contrast. Unfortunately our eyes seem to like slightly blown contrast as it helps differentiate between the blacks and whites which is why so many pictures go through a curves tweak.If it's simply a case of certain levels of light or certain types of shot, whatever, will always need a tweak then fine I'm happy to do that, but I'd like to try and get things right as best I can with the equipment first.
One other possibility is your metering settings are off, and your camera is exposing the shot for the wrong area of the photo. Read up on metering (you've still not said what camera)
I'll have to snap some more later, at the moment I've not been worrying with composure or subject matter, very much trying to learn what does what on the camera so taking idiot notes then binning all but the occasional shot -They would be rather embarrassing to show as they look like something out a my-first-camera snapshot album 
Camera is a D60 and at the moment I only have an 18-70 lens which I opted for instead of the 18-55 kit lens as I was told the 18-70 was a much higher quality one (and more suited to what I wanted the camera for initially). In very bright light it's not as bad, and in shorter focal ranges things seem better, but even so on some portraits taken recently in bright light or with a flash they still looked a bit grey.
Below is an example out the camera, although a flash shot it's typical of what I'm seeing - no real highlights to the shot, the histograms are very predictable from the first glimpse, they are going to be heavy in the dark tones and very lacking in the light - on this one levelling the histograms off in PS leaves the range so fragmented it'd be questionable for high end press.
Camera is a D60 and at the moment I only have an 18-70 lens which I opted for instead of the 18-55 kit lens as I was told the 18-70 was a much higher quality one (and more suited to what I wanted the camera for initially). In very bright light it's not as bad, and in shorter focal ranges things seem better, but even so on some portraits taken recently in bright light or with a flash they still looked a bit grey.
Below is an example out the camera, although a flash shot it's typical of what I'm seeing - no real highlights to the shot, the histograms are very predictable from the first glimpse, they are going to be heavy in the dark tones and very lacking in the light - on this one levelling the histograms off in PS leaves the range so fragmented it'd be questionable for high end press.
First off - if there's no contrast in the scene with flat, dull English light you will always struggle.
I, like most people will always tweak the levels and curves slightly, but usually very little. Also will use the more vivid colour settings on the camera where appropriate.
You're not shooting RAW are you? If processed badly RAW can give you really dull images. By bypassing the in-camera funking of the images you can be left with flat images, and to make matters worse Adobe Camera RAW (the photoshop plugin for RAW that many people use) set the contrast curve to flat by default for the images. Vast improvement can be found by tweaking it, even more by using Nikons RAW converter.
So I'd check:
- Good contrasty scene/light
- Exposure correct (check your exposure compensation!)
- Low ISO if possible (higher ISOs dull colour and contrast)
- Sensible apperture (not stopped down to F16 etc!)
- No odd colour space that can reduce your colour range (whole diffeerent argument, but shoot in the widest colour space possible, you can reduce later. I use Adobe RGB when not shooting RAW)
- Experiment with different colour settings on the camera if shooting JPEG.
Then, if the histogram is roughly right:
- If converting from RAW check the contrast curve is not too flat, get the exposure tweaks and light/dark points correct
- Drag into PS, convert to 16bit colour then tweak the levels and the curves, convert back to 8 bit if needed for further editing/ saving tyo jpeg etc.
Also check you monitor calibration if editing on a different machine to viewing.
I, like most people will always tweak the levels and curves slightly, but usually very little. Also will use the more vivid colour settings on the camera where appropriate.
You're not shooting RAW are you? If processed badly RAW can give you really dull images. By bypassing the in-camera funking of the images you can be left with flat images, and to make matters worse Adobe Camera RAW (the photoshop plugin for RAW that many people use) set the contrast curve to flat by default for the images. Vast improvement can be found by tweaking it, even more by using Nikons RAW converter.
So I'd check:
- Good contrasty scene/light
- Exposure correct (check your exposure compensation!)
- Low ISO if possible (higher ISOs dull colour and contrast)
- Sensible apperture (not stopped down to F16 etc!)
- No odd colour space that can reduce your colour range (whole diffeerent argument, but shoot in the widest colour space possible, you can reduce later. I use Adobe RGB when not shooting RAW)
- Experiment with different colour settings on the camera if shooting JPEG.
Then, if the histogram is roughly right:
- If converting from RAW check the contrast curve is not too flat, get the exposure tweaks and light/dark points correct
- Drag into PS, convert to 16bit colour then tweak the levels and the curves, convert back to 8 bit if needed for further editing/ saving tyo jpeg etc.
Also check you monitor calibration if editing on a different machine to viewing.
LOL until I started seeing some of the shots on this site I was hoping it was just the dull English light, but even my wife's 1/4 the price handbag sized snappy job seems to get more contrast in any given setting than mine 
Not shooting RAW no, I was but decided it wasn't worth the effort at this stage. Might have a look at raw+jpeg though see how things compare now you've said that!
Funny you should mention exposure compensation, I do have a habit of forgetting to re-set that, but it seems it was of little consequence when I was checking the last batch of disappointments.
ISO is always low, possibly too low for the sunsets I was playing with but checking on auto it didn't want to up it either.
Monitor calibration is an issue at the moment as I'm hopping it between two temporary PC's, but it's not a million miles out - certainly good enough to see that these shots look crap.
Not shooting RAW no, I was but decided it wasn't worth the effort at this stage. Might have a look at raw+jpeg though see how things compare now you've said that!
Funny you should mention exposure compensation, I do have a habit of forgetting to re-set that, but it seems it was of little consequence when I was checking the last batch of disappointments.
ISO is always low, possibly too low for the sunsets I was playing with but checking on auto it didn't want to up it either.
Monitor calibration is an issue at the moment as I'm hopping it between two temporary PC's, but it's not a million miles out - certainly good enough to see that these shots look crap.
I'd say it's simply a case of underexposure. If I saw that on my monitor/histogram I'd just dial in +1 EV and take another 
'in bright light or with a flash they still looked a bit grey.'
Two thoughts which may or may not be helpful. If you're using the built-in flash then they default to 'fill-flash' ('TTL-BL' in Nikonspeak) - ie they try to balance with the ambient light. If there isn't much ambient light, the whole thing can go dim. You can use flash compensation to improve this (changes the flash), or EV (changes everything), or there may be a menu function to set it to 'TTL' as opposed to TTL-BL - read the manual on this.
Bright light - DSLRs will often try to retain highlights, which means the rest of the image looks underexposed.
You'd think a DSLR would be so clever that it would it get it right every time, what with it's 1,000,001 scene evaluative matrix malarkey which means it's comparing your shot with a gondola in Venice or whatever. b
ks! Just stay alert and ride the settings as you go.
ETA: All I did was adjust the white level in PS - bingo:
'in bright light or with a flash they still looked a bit grey.'
Two thoughts which may or may not be helpful. If you're using the built-in flash then they default to 'fill-flash' ('TTL-BL' in Nikonspeak) - ie they try to balance with the ambient light. If there isn't much ambient light, the whole thing can go dim. You can use flash compensation to improve this (changes the flash), or EV (changes everything), or there may be a menu function to set it to 'TTL' as opposed to TTL-BL - read the manual on this.
Bright light - DSLRs will often try to retain highlights, which means the rest of the image looks underexposed.
You'd think a DSLR would be so clever that it would it get it right every time, what with it's 1,000,001 scene evaluative matrix malarkey which means it's comparing your shot with a gondola in Venice or whatever. b
ks! Just stay alert and ride the settings as you go.ETA: All I did was adjust the white level in PS - bingo:
Edited by Simpo Two on Wednesday 27th May 11:02
pretty much what I've found with most of the shots, adjusting the white level is enough, though as I mentioned, on many to get an acceptable image the histogram is fragmented and range clipping starts to occur, which although frankly doesn't make a great deal of difference 99% of the time I know what a PITA it can be on a press so just want to learn properly LOLI'll have a play with exposure, if it is that simple then I'll be quite happy - it's a shame it can't do as good a job as a cheap snappy but then I didn't buy it for the camera to do all the work, quite the opposite!
Edited by Davi on Wednesday 27th May 11:14
'Fragmented histogram' sounds like JPG lossiness to me - every time you alter it, you lose a bit (though whether you can tell the difference is another matter)
'Cheap snappies' do all the processing for you - they sort out the histogram, the belt in a load of contrast and saturation - much the same way as you belt on salt and vinegar at a chip shop. Whether you shoot RAW is up to you, but JPGs never seem quite right afterwards!
There's definitely a learning curve when you go from compact to DSLR and first results can be disappointing - but when you figure it out and find a technique that suits you, you'll never look back.
'Cheap snappies' do all the processing for you - they sort out the histogram, the belt in a load of contrast and saturation - much the same way as you belt on salt and vinegar at a chip shop. Whether you shoot RAW is up to you, but JPGs never seem quite right afterwards!
There's definitely a learning curve when you go from compact to DSLR and first results can be disappointing - but when you figure it out and find a technique that suits you, you'll never look back.
Also might be worth having a read of this article on exposing to the right. It does only apply to shooting RAW though
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff