My photos look so dull

[elflord]

Hi,

well im regularly browsing around several websites checking out portraits cuz thats what i like to shoot too. Usually i come across pictures where i just think they look so good because the photo just looks so "fully lighted".
Feeling a bit retarded at the moment but i will still try to explain what i mean.

If you're shooting raw, you will get a lot of mileage out of just bumping the exposure (on the raw image) and tweaking the white balance.

You could just expose more to start with but that's always risky because you end up blowing out highlights if you're not careful -- easier and safer to add a little exposure when working with the raw image.

You can also tweak the curves (similar effect to tweaking exposure)

You can do all of this in jpeg too but it works much better in raw (especially white balance correction)

[@!ex]

Well, we have had a nice little conversation haven't we, but I'm curious if this lady will ever read any of these comments.  Sorta feels like we are talking to ourselves at this point.  oh well.

[Tammy]

Well, we have had a nice little conversation haven't we, but I'm curious if this lady will ever read any of these comments.  Sorta feels like we are talking to ourselves at this point.  oh well.

that's fine, because i am reading them..

they can be helpful to others.. knowledge can be found, even by those who know much, if one has an open mind..

[philsv77]

I know it's hard to explain.  However, it's all about quality of the light, whether it is natural or flash, whichever.  For  a portrait photo, soft and directional light is "usually" the best light for a subject, particularly in a female, or kids . 

Yes, some photos you post were in wrong white balance setting, which is another thing you will need to learn so my suggestion is shoot in RAW so you can easily fix it in pp.

These are the shots of my kids taken 4-6 years back.  Tell me if you know which one is shot with flash.  Hint: only 1 taken with "bounce" flash

[Xeryus]

Looks like all of them are shot with flash , except the first one (Unless you were using a diffuser to soften and spread the nice evenly while shooting at a higher focal length)

I vote that the last one was bounced. just because i like the picture the most

[sandymandy]

Im still here. Well a bit disappointed auto WB seems to work crappy T_T

[paul13walnut5]

think about perspective... for that real focus fall off you want the subject nice and close to the camera, and the distance between the subject and the background at least double that of the distance between the subject and camera, ideally even more.

Think about light...  your guy is in the shade, no catchlight = dead eyes.

Look into fill flash, the wee pop up flash on the 1100D is actually fine for a little bit of fill flash.

Post prod is important as discussed.

Think about colour profile, are you going to be primarily printing it (use Abobe RGB) or sharing it online (use sRGB)

Think about a little post sharpening and NR on the RAW files.  Can help make things POP a little if used in a subtle way.

Nothing wrong with cam or lens, should actually be a pretty good combo for portraits.

[sama]

If Photoshop or lightroom is too much trouble to you. Edit your images with the Windows live photo gallery and see what you will achieve.

[wockawocka]

I know it's hard to explain.  However, it's all about quality of the light, whether it is natural or flash, whichever.  For  a portrait photo, soft and directional light is "usually" the best light for a subject, particularly in a female, or kids . 

Yes, some photos you post were in wrong white balance setting, which is another thing you will need to learn so my suggestion is shoot in RAW so you can easily fix it in pp.

These are the shots of my kids taken 4-6 years back.  Tell me if you know which one is shot with flash.  Hint: only 1 taken with "bounce" flash

This is just my opinion, but the above examples are what you should be paying attention to. The other ones given, shown, used as examples leading up to the post are over processed and very poor indeed.

It is indeed all about the quality of the light and where it comes from in relation to the subject. You are after all, painting with it.

[DB]

You can do amazing things in post (as many others have shown here on this thread), but it's 100% better to improve the image at point of capture.

2 things you can do (that I did when I was shooting before with a T2i):

(1) Buy a Grey card e.g. Lastolite 18% mid-tonal grey collapsible card (fits in a camera bag) & custom WB

(2) Buy a decent lens. I went from an EF-S kit ens to EF24-70mm f/2.8L USM and the colours blew me away. I shoot a lot outside in the garden, woods etc. and people see my shots and say how did you get the colour like that, did you do it in Photoshop? Before when I took pics with a cheap lens, I would always Auto Tone & Auto Colour in PS automatically in post, now I never mess with the colour from my L lens.

[sandymandy]

Im on a really low budget. An L lense feels like lightyears away from me. Plus i think i would rather get a Fullframe body first before im gonna buy any L Lense unless its ridiculously cheap
Probably the next lens i will buy around xmas is an 50mm 1.4 SMC Takumar m42. Good image quality and good price. But so far i just stick with my 50mm f/1.8 II and vivitar/kiron 28mm f/2.5.
I think theyre not bad lenses.
I have an anti flash hate, perhaps i will be cured one day when i get a decent flash. Im traumatized by the P&S inbuilt flashes.

For WB what about this:

http://www.amazon.de/Enjoyyourcamera-Balance-Wei%C3%9Fabgleich-Graukarte-Objektivdeckel/dp/B000WII2PA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1345128130&sr=8-2

Im not a pro so i dont need perfection...just something close to that would be good. I always shoot in RAW.

Anyway thanks for yall advice guess i just have to practice more.

[RLPhoto]

Im on a really low budget. An L lense feels like lightyears away from me. Plus i think i would rather get a Fullframe body first before im gonna buy any L Lense unless its ridiculously cheap
Probably the next lens i will buy around xmas is an 50mm 1.4 SMC Takumar m42. Good image quality and good price. But so far i just stick with my 50mm f/1.8 II and vivitar/kiron 28mm f/2.5.
I think theyre not bad lenses.
I have an anti flash hate, perhaps i will be cured one day when i get a decent flash. Im traumatized by the P&S inbuilt flashes.

For WB what about this:

http://www.amazon.de/Enjoyyourcamera-Balance-Wei%C3%9Fabgleich-Graukarte-Objektivdeckel/dp/B000WII2PA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1345128130&sr=8-2

Im not a pro so i dont need perfection...just something close to that would be good. I always shoot in RAW.

Anyway thanks for yall advice guess i just have to practice more.

You can get a 5Dc for around 700$ if you want full frame. It still is one of the finest cameras ever made for little $$$.

On the L lens stuff, There is a couple of non-L primes that are very good. 100mm F/2, 50mm 1.4, 28mm 1.8 (when stopped down a bit to F2.8 ).

Glass first, bodies second.

[Jamesy]

My swing at it.  levels, curves, contrast, adjusted color, fixed tones and skin, a bit of dodging and burning.  All and all about 2-3 min of work.

This was done is PS right? As soon as you say Levels it implies PS.

[@!ex]

My swing at it.  levels, curves, contrast, adjusted color, fixed tones and skin, a bit of dodging and burning.  All and all about 2-3 min of work.

This was done is PS right? As soon as you say Levels it implies PS.

By PS, you mean photoshop I assume (I guess is could mean post process too).  Either way I did it in pohsotoshop, but levels adjustments do not, in of themselves, imply photoshop per say.  Levels adjustments are available in any image processing software (Aperture, lightroom, DPP, iPhoto, ect). 

[Jamesy]

By PS, you mean photoshop I assume (I guess is could mean post process too).  Either way I did it in pohsotoshop, but levels adjustments do not, in of themselves, imply photoshop per say.  Levels adjustments are available in any image processing software (Aperture, lightroom, DPP, iPhoto, ect).

Right I was referring to Photoshop. The most common use of the term Levels is typically the Levels dialog in Photoshop, at least that I have seen. When you talk of Levels in Lightroom do you mean the Exposure and Brightness sliders (LR3) and  Highlights, Shadows, Whites and Blacks (LR4)?