Inspiring photos, a question, a small rant and a challenge...

[p0ss3s3d]

Here are a set of photo's I've stumbled upon courtesy of national geographic (not the ones someone else posted earlier). First let's look at the photos...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

Impressive! Now of course these have been taken by various photographers across the world and therefore all have their own unique style but for me, numbers 1,2,6,10,13,14. Some were shot on film but most are digital. So now for my question. How are they achieving such fantastic colours? Is it in camera calibration, is it purley light, is it just whacking the saturation up?

Now this brings me niceley to my quick rant... Location. Remeber this is the key to these photos. All well and good having £1000000's worth of gear. No use if your not going places. I think it would be better to take a 350D and 10-22, 18-55 and 55-250 to the artic (ignore the weather for now) than have a 1DsIII, 16-35L, 85L, 400L etc. etc. and only visit local places 9yes the uk is nice, but travelling afar has other benefits). Something to think about.


Anyways my challenge... anyone fancy having a go at this pp style on their own shots. It would be great to see how it was done, we could either get someone to upload a RAW and everyone pp's that or we all pp our own shots...

 

[ScarySquirrel]

You don't need thousands of pounds worth of gear to achieve colours like that. Just learn how to expose and take a good photo to begin with and then learn how to process a digital photo properly. Those two things together will give you great photos.

 

[p0ss3s3d]

You don't need thousands of pounds worth of gear to achieve colours like that. Just learn how to expose and take a good photo to begin with and then learn how to process a digital photo properly. Those two things together will give you great photos.

That was my point (see the rant).

 

[Mud]

Regarding the colours, manual white balance for a start, and yes...travelling pays off (though you need to be off the beaten track).

 

[p0ss3s3d]

I've just picked out four of my last wildlife shots and crit'ted them myself. None of them are too well composed but being at a zoo it's a case of avoid as much distractions first. Compose second.

1) Slightly 3D. But not saturated enough. I guess the problem of the leaves making subject green or background pink doesn't help.

2) This ones a little flat. Perhaps a longer lens might've helped?

3) The plain background means it looks flatter - I could saturate the blues more?

4) This ones poorly composed but I think it's got the most 3D'ness...?

My thinking is, good light would help some of these? I could push the saturation further and possibly actually lowerthe contrast? Use wide angles rather than telephoto to make things more distinctive. (I do this with the motorsport stuff, but I think to do it with widlife requires oodles of patience and waiting!)?

Regarding the colours, manual white balance for a start, and yes...travelling pays off (though you need to be off the beaten track).

I use manual wb 95% of the time anywa (if I shot football and y wb was off, the agency would reject it due to the colour cast - I can't fix that because 1) we don't have time for PP and 2) you can't recover too much with jpegs anyway (I do usually shoot RAW for personal stuff though))



No offense to anyone on here but nobody (on here at least) has this 'pop' that those national geographic photos have!!!!!!

 

[Rojin]

6, 7 and 12 I think are excellent photos, the others are nice. A lot of saturation in some, certainly striking I guess.

 

[tbs]

Normally if youre "travelling" and shooting stuff like the above for NG, you wouldnt be using a 1D or a D3s/x because theye too big, youre most probably going to take a 5DMKII or a D700 or equiv whatever that isnt a studio camera.

Also you dont need expensive gear, you just need to know how to use your gear and know how to post process.

I have taken pictures with a 350D before using a 5DMKII and I have people telling me (my pictures) "The pictures are good, the 5DMKII is such a nice camera!", even though most of my images are taken with the 350D and not the 5DMKII. What does that tell you? Untrained eye, maybe, but it could also mean it makes no difference in what gear you have.

 

[p0ss3s3d]

I agree about the gear.'i only mentioned gear as a rant - a 350d in a beautiful place is 10000 times better than a 1DsIII in, nowhere!

As for the PP, yes you need to know how to pp/treat your slides, but I don't think anyone on here has got this sort of pp nailed.

BTW, I know a few who shoot for various news agencies through my sports shooting and whatnot. 99% of us shooting news use 1's/dx's and some of the regulars who are part time travel togs - 9/10 take pro bodies , especially if they go to harsher environments- purely for the sealing.

(infact of the six I personally know, four always take two pro bodies and the other two take a 5DII and a 1DsII in one case a 1DIII in the other)

Back to the original question, how on earth are they pp'ing them like that!!!?

 

[tbs]

I agree about the gear.'i only mentioned gear as a rant - a 350d in a beautiful place is 10000 times better than a 1DsIII in, nowhere!

As for the PP, yes you need to know how to pp/treat your slides, but I don't think anyone on here has got this sort of pp nailed.

BTW, I know a few who shoot for various news agencies through my sports shooting and whatnot. 99% of us shooting news use 1's/dx's and some of the regulars who are part time travel togs - 9/10 take pro bodies , especially if they go to harsher environments- purely for the sealing.

(infact of the six I personally know, four always take two pro bodies and the other two take a 5DII and a 1DsII in one case a 1DIII in the other)

Back to the original question, how on earth are they pp'ing them like that!!!?

Regarding post processing, it depends entirely on what you shoot, so it depends what "nailed" means by your standard.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of genre of news do you shoot or your friends shoot?

 

[p0ss3s3d]

I only have the time to fit in the sports work and local paper work.

I regularly see people trackside/pitchside, a couple work for press agencies. But when the sporting season they cover is finished some of them travel and work either writing a book a shots or simply for alamy/various image libraries; it depends if they are pure sports or can cover news aswell.

When I'm on about the pp I'm talking about this national geo style. Ray Lin, famas, Martin t and scary etc all have their own styles of pp, but I'm interested to see how one can achieve the national geo look in pp!

 

[p0ss3s3d]

Most of my work goes straight from jpeg to the paper and when I work on their behalf they get the photos and I forget about them. I'm trying to start my own thing going too. Trying artistic sports photos. I'm not so good at the pp style I want (semi-high-key-glamour, high saturation, high contrast), rather annoyingly the vest events are paper work, so the glamorous/best events don't get personal control & I rarely grt opportunities to shoot for myself.

 

[ralv585]

Had a quick go at pp your monkey shot.

Before

After

Edit: Actually, do you have that in hi-res, wouldn't mind making it my wallpaper

 

[86JR]

Here are a set of photo's I've stumbled upon courtesy of national geographic (not the ones someone else posted earlier). First let's look at the photos...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

Impressive! Now of course these have been taken by various photographers across the world and therefore all have their own unique style but for me, numbers 1,2,6,10,13,14. Some were shot on film but most are digital. So now for my question. How are they achieving such fantastic colours? Is it in camera calibration, is it purley light, is it just whacking the saturation up?

Now this brings me niceley to my quick rant... Location. Remeber this is the key to these photos. All well and good having £1000000's worth of gear. No use if your not going places. I think it would be better to take a 350D and 10-22, 18-55 and 55-250 to the artic (ignore the weather for now) than have a 1DsIII, 16-35L, 85L, 400L etc. etc. and only visit local places 9yes the uk is nice, but travelling afar has other benefits). Something to think about.


Anyways my challenge... anyone fancy having a go at this pp style on their own shots. It would be great to see how it was done, we could either get someone to upload a RAW and everyone pp's that or we all pp our own shots...

I think its photoshop. I nearly enough got my monitor calibrated, just need a hardware profile, but my latest shots i had much better success by following a tip :

"dont worry about kit, just take a good shot on a good camera, if anything over expose it (better than underexposing it). Then use photoshop to get the exposure nailed then PP the rest of the pics"

I followed this and it works for me.

Nikon are normally more vivid than canon as the settings by default are cranked up but if your going to run it through photoshop then it doesnt matter either way.

 

[86JR]

Also you dont need expensive gear, you just need to know how to use your gear and know how to post process.

Theres times and places where i would disagree with that.

Say your shooting sports you have the choice between an expensive camera that shoots 9fps and focuses super quickly with any lens vs an enthusiast camera that shoots 2.5fps and hunts using your long lens. Not to mention your lens will be cheaper, would you rather shoot football or hockey with a 350d and 70-300 f5.6-6.3 or 1dmkiv and 70-200 f2.8 ? Your almost garaunteed to get more shots with the latter and that increases your probability tenfold of getting "the" shot that gets you on the frontpage.

Also wide angles etc.

 

[86JR]

I


No offense to anyone on here but nobody (on here at least) has this 'pop' that those national geographic photos have!!!!!!

Do a search on here for a user named Vspec. An example:

 

[tbs]

Theres times and places where i would disagree with that.

Say your shooting sports you have the choice between an expensive camera that shoots 9fps and focuses super quickly with any lens vs an enthusiast camera that shoots 2.5fps and hunts using your long lens. Not to mention your lens will be cheaper, would you rather shoot football or hockey with a 350d and 70-300 f5.6-6.3 or 1dmkiv and 70-200 f2.8 ? Your almost garaunteed to get more shots with the latter and that increases your probability tenfold of getting "the" shot that gets you on the frontpage.

Also wide angles etc.

Like they say "use the right tool for the right job".

Im talking in this instance, not for every job. Its like saying drive a Robin Reliant to a F1 race...

 

[86JR]

But the thing is with a great camera like the pro levels you can do everything. with a cheaper one your sometimes limited.

Like an RS4 will do 30mph and 170mph and a passat will do 30mph and run out at 130mph.

What if you find yourself needing to get to hospital and your parents are there dying and speed counts ?

 

[p0ss3s3d]

Do a search on here for a user named Vspec. An example:

I did think of vspec actually, he does shoot film though, so not a necessarily a 100% digital workflow.

Again back to the gear 350D at man u will be better than 1DIV at blue square south etc.

But I don't want to mention gear, it's the pp I'm looking at here!


Thanks for pp'ing the monkey shot dude, I gurss you did vibrance, shadows/highlights & levels?

 

[D.P.]

Getting the shot right has presidence over PP.

The reason the photos pop is they were taken at the right place at the right time with the right atmosphere and lighting and photographed exceptionally technically correct. The PP was important, as it always is with digital (and also film, but shooting in RAW default output will rarely pop immediately).



The problem is, for us amateurs we may visit a place and take photo vacations but we can only afford limited time (say 2 weeks holiday), we are often restricted in the time of year to travel (say mid summer with dry dusty air and the foliage drying up in the sun, increased smog and haze...), and our short time budget means we cannot always be at the right lace at the right time - e.g. usually you want to take a shot first thing in the morning but due to travel arrangements you will have to do with midday sun - oh dear.


I experienced this a lot last year when I went to Canada. Bad weather on vancouver island (but not a storm just greyness), then severe forest fires led everything to be a smoky and hazy and grey. I could only travel at the end of summer, which is bad because all the foliage has lost that fresh new green look, the grass is half dead. Lots of cloudy weather also. This made for very disappointing photography, pretty much a right off for my landscapes.

For landscapes, often the key is getting interesting lighting, ins ome areas of the world this may happen only a few days a year, or only every few years etc.
Take pictures 4, 8 and 15 - you don't get these conditions by hopping on a plane on a 2 week vacation unless you are lucky.

It takes lots of time to get the perfect shots. Ansel Adams great shots are due to a lifetime of patience, waiting for the moment. The lighting on half dome to be perfect, the stars or moon to be perfeclty aligned. The famous shot of Mount McKinley/Denali - there are perhaps 10-15 completely cloud free days in year to take such a shot, and it has been know to have the summit in cloud for a year at a time. Moreover, the shot was taken in winter or spring, this gives much added contrast and sharpness which would be lost due to the large viewing distance needed and heat disturbances and haze of summer. The odds of cloud free Denali in winter are pretty slim. Not only that but all atmospheric conditions were good, no fog/haze/, there was no wind etc.
Adams Yosemite collection comes form a lifetime.I have spent a total of 34 days in Yosemite and had great lighting once, for about 30 minutes (the rest of the time has always been sunny, but that wasn't interesting for the likes of half-dome).

My best photos come from being in the right place at the right time, while others come from waiting years to get the shot. I have a great collection of Swiss Alpen glow sunsets. In 4 years I have only the sunset that good on that one occasion- if you don't live in the alps you wont get that kind of opportunity.

 

[bigredshark]

The reason the photos pop is they were taken at the right place at the right time with the right atmosphere and lighting and photographed exceptionally technically correct. The PP was important, as it always is with digital (and also film, but shooting in RAW default output will rarely pop immediately).

The problem is, for us amateurs we may visit a place and take photo vacations but we can only afford limited time (say 2 weeks holiday), we are often restricted in the time of year to travel (say mid summer with dry dusty air and the foliage drying up in the sun, increased smog and haze...), and our short time budget means we cannot always be at the right lace at the right time - e.g. usually you want to take a shot first thing in the morning but due to travel arrangements you will have to do with midday sun - oh dear.

I think that hits a lot of it on the head, the right lighting often means being there at 5AM in the middle of autumn. I think it's a rare person here who is that committed! It can also mean going back again and again shooting the same scene until you get the perfect shot, when that involves getting up at 4AM, driving for an hour and climbing a mountain (which for landscapes it often does) then it's a very committed person who does that for anything other than a living.

Most people shoot in very average light, take a few photos of a scene and never return. That they're photos don't 'pop' shouldn't be a massive surprise.

Other things - well I think it is at least partially about the gear - fast lenses on full frame do produce more images with that 3D quality for my money but also small stuff, I bet some of those were taken at much shorter focal length than you immediately assume, less telephoto compression is going to give more '3D' looking results. I reckon a good few of them were shot with filters as well which isn't always easy to replicate in processing.