My photos look so dull

[NotABunny]

Thanks for your effort @!ex, I appreciate it

Still, I do not plan to use Photoshop. I need a photo editor, not an image editor. My photographic style is candid, not posed / directed; oh, and I hate skin without texture. If Adobe were only to include blacks, whites and HSL for brushes in LR...

For what I do, LR is plenty good (note that this is a screenshot taken on an aRGB monitor, so people on sRGB or Chrome will see weird colors):

 

[NotABunny]

Sandymandy, here is my attempt to the photo of the man. I chose that because the light is very good.

If you have LR 4:
* General: Shadows = 100, Whites = 50, Blacks = -60, Clarity = 12 (50 for the second sample).
* Adjustment brush on his face: Exposure = 0.63.

You can exaggerate more with the contrast by going lower with the blacks and higher with the exposure / whites / shadows. You can also use a higher clarity for that rough look that works on men.

 

[SandyP]

Skin blurring = no good.

I think the main problem here is just getting your exposure and your white balance right, in the camera. I mean perfect.


I spend a lot of time retouching portraits for studio work, for make-up artists and such, if you'd like I can run down some tips for you, for more advanced editing. Otherwise, I'd totally drop these global adjustments like "clarity" and such for portrait taking. Those are..... crap.

 

[blaydese]

Ahhh so folks DO post process their pictures and not call it HDR or HDRI eh? Hurmmmm. Interesting.

Peace! 8)

 

[@!ex]

Ahhh so folks DO post process their pictures and not call it HDR or HDRI eh? Hurmmmm. Interesting.

Peace! 8)

WTF?, maybe I missed something here...

 

[dhofmann]

There are three main problems:

1. The images are underexposed. Watch the histogram on the screen when you take the photos. If you took the photo in RAW, Photoshop can fix this, but it will create some grain.

2. The light source is directly overhead, creating shadows on the faces. It needs to be a little more to the front of the face, especially with the woman, because both eyes are in shadow in both of her photos.

3. The white balance is slightly off in the first two photos.

Using natural light can be a challenge in getting good photos, but the rewards are great. I second the suggestion to learn Strobist Lighting 101. It will teach you what good light is. With good light, you can completely eliminate the need to use Photoshop.

 

[Hillsilly]

The 50mm should be fine. I see that some of the sample photos were taken with more expensive lenses. But really, this would only produce minor differences. I've got a 50 / 1.8 myself and have never thought it lacking. A couple of tips for using the lens:

1. Buy a lens hood and use it. Doesn't have to be the overpriced "Canon" one. Just pick up a cheap one off eBay.
2. It doesn't produce optimal results when you are aiming in the direction of the sun. Try taking photos with the sun behind you (so that your shadow is pointed towards the subject) and see if this makes a difference.

I don't know if all of your photos always look like this. If so, play around with some contrast and saturation settings until things start looking better. But I suspect that your photos were just taken on an uninspiring, dreary day. If your subjects aren't in great light, the camera is unlikely to make things look better. Taking photos in the early morning or late afternoon usually produces the best results.

You might notice that the sample photos were taken with a flash - The sparkle in the boys' eyes gives this away. Try using a flash yourself (if outdoors, try it on a very low setting for a little fill). Bouncing the flash off a wall or ceiling also works well to give a nice diffuse light. The other advantage of using a flash is that you can keep your subject well lit, but reduce the background brightness slightly (making your subject stand out more). Some fun things to try.

 

[And-Rew]

The trick with any post processing is to get the image looking like you wanted it.
It may have been captured with the sole purpose of processing, other times it may just need a little 'pick me up'

As with learning how to use you camera to its fullest, post processing software also needs to be mastered to get the best. Personally, I'm a Lightroom man, though I do admire and appreciate the looks people get with Photoshop - it just doesn't appeal to me, at this moment in time, as something I'm in a hurry to learn and do.

Find the look, find how it was created and do or learn what is necessary to get your images like that. You can always ask the photographer how they created a look. Many are willing to help you learn, hence sites like this

 

[koolman]

As other are showing:

1) Improve WB accuracy !

2) Make sure to pay attention to the direction of the light. Shooting with light source above (like your shots) can produce shady shots

3) Exposure and PP

 

[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.