How do pros manage to make the color green so bright in their nature photographs?

Question

I am an amateur photographer, I had a question how do professional photographers manage to make the green color so bright in their images.

For example:

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnfrisch/5492742882/lightbox/

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/kylehammons/1796400249/

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/mohdhasri/4388973197/

Is this all done in post-processing? Could anyone tell me a Photoshop or Lightroom process to achieve this effect?

Asked by koool

Answer

The question that you are asking is a very common one, but the answers are not as straight forward as you may think. How does a professional make the colors so bright, the contrast so well defined, the focus so perfect, etc ? Well, it isn't just one thing, ever. It isn't a single setting on the camera, or a single post processing technique or button. It is a combination of talent, skill, technique, equipment, patience, etc - all things that cannot be adequately described in a short answer such as this.

The article "Magic Camera Settings" by Thom Hogan really gives a great example of this. Many times amateur photographers are looking for one magic bullet, such as a setting or preset - but you will find none that gives such a general "pop" to photos, as it is a combination of many things.

I won't leave you without helping you out a bit though :) I would suggest picking up a circular polarizing filter. It will help a great deal in giving your greens a very rich vibrant green color. It also helps blues to pop, and can assist when reflections exist in the frame as well. As for post processing, you can use sliders in Lightroom for vibrance, saturation, and clarity to get the photos to pop. You also can single out the green channel and boost the saturation of just that. Don't go too overboard though or you will end up with a very fake looking photo.

Answered by dpollitt

Check more discussion of this question.

What kind of camera do I need to capture deep space images?

Question

By deep space image, I mean below kind. In the background it is space dust, I think.
Is it dependent on camera or location? If on camera, what kind of cameras are capable to capture this kind of images?

Asked by Reddy S R

Answer

Unfortunately, a lot of images like the one you show here are digitally altered and it is difficult to get comparable results. The image above shows the Milky Way, looking approximately at its center, which appears to us to be in the constellation of Sagittarius.

To get such a detailed view of the comparatively dark nebulous structures, however, you need to use really long exposure times. Unfortunately, because of the stars' apparent rotation, exposures above approximately 25 seconds (for wide angle lenses; the smaller your lens angle, the shorter the time) begin to show star trails. So I doubt that the image you show was really created as one exposure. If so, the photographer must have used an extremely low-noise semsor with exceptionally high sensitivity.

The linked "star trail" image (which shows the telescope I work for, by the way) used a technique called "stacking". To create it, 70 1-minute-exposures were added together. This is a common method that allows you to get very good images using a normal DSLR and an external timer/trigger.

If you stack the images so that the star "pinpoints" are on top of each other, you will get a detailed skyscape with blurred foreground. This is what I suppose was done in your example image: The sky was images with a series of exposures, stacked together for greater sensitivity, and the foreground has likely been added afterwards.

Of course, instead of doing that much digital manipulation, you can also follow the traditional route and mount your (D)SLR on a tracking mount. A good description with sample images that show what to expect from real-world exposures is given on the "bedfordnights" Geocities page.

Edit: I forgot to address your question regarding location. Yes, it depends on the location: For one thing, the center of the milky way (which is its brightest area) gets higher above the horizon when you move from the poles to the equator. But most importantly, images of the quality you show above are only possible from the darkest locations on the planet (which sounds exotic and adventurous, but essentially means "anywhere where there are no human settlements causing light pollution in about 200 km radius").

Answered by jstarek

Check more discussion of this question.

Photoshop or lightroom for landscape and nature photography?

Question

I have canon 500D with 18-55mm and 70-300mm lens. I have lot of interest in landscape and Nature photography. I need to purchase some software to assist me with post-processing my photos. Which one is better for landscape and nature photography. Will Photoshop or Lightroom do, or are there any other tools better suited to processing this type of photography?

Answer

Photoshop and Lightroom are photography tools, not Landscape photography tools or Portrait Photography tools, etc. Either will do fine for Landscape photography. Each tool has different strengths and weaknesses; many pros use both tools since they each excel in different areas.

To decide with tool you need requires you to determine what you want to do with your digital darkroom? Do you need digital asset management? Do you make basic corrections such as brightness, whitebalance, perhaps curves? Do you frequently make use of filters, find you need to dodge and burn or mask out objects or sections of images? Do you work with RAW or just JPEG? Do you frequently print or do you send your images out for reproduction? Are printer profiles and proofing important to you?

By the way, here are my answers if you asked these questions above: (L=Lightroom, PS=Photoshop): L,L,PS,L,L or PS, PS.

Check more discussion of this question.

How does one develop good photographic vision and style?

Question

I am a relatively new photographer. I've only owned my Canon Rebel XSi for a year, however I was researching SLR/DSLR camera gear and photographic theory for over a year before I purchased a DSLR. I have extensive theoretical knowledge, and I understand the technical aspects of cameras very well. I think this has lead to some of my troubles with practical application, however. All those technical details seem to get in the way, and I don't have any artistic knowledge to balance things out.

I am primarily interested in landscape, wildlife/bird, macro, and other nature photography. I am wondering how someone in my position can go about learning the artistic aspects of photography. I have several of the most recommended books, like John Shaw's Nature Photography Field Guide and Developing Vision & Style. Shaw's book is great, however primarily film based, and a lot of the book is about film photographic theory and technique (i.e. "pushing" film ISO). The Developing Vision & Style is a phenomenal book that interviews some fantastic artists, but does not really get to the heart of how one really develops vision and style.

Are there any other resources I could use to help me learn more about the artistic aspects of nature photography? Books, web sites? Personal tips are also welcome.

Many thanks for your insight.

Answer

We've moved into (in my opinion) a more philosophical question with art and photography.

To answer this, you need to figure out what is your definition of "good photographic vision?"

How do you measure the artistic value of a photograph? To me, that is a very subjective question; much like judging any type of art is.

I have had the luxury of visiting many of the worlds finest art museums, and not every work of art that is on display had artistic meaning to me. In fact, I now know that I prefer modern art to the the classics.

So to get to your question: Spin it another way: Why do you think your photographs lack in artistic value? Are you judging your own work yourself? We're all probably our own harshest critics.

My definition of art is: any work that evokes an emotional connection. What is your definition?

How does one get better?

Like all artists, you need a mentor. Study the works of photographers whose work you admire. Every great artist spent years studying the works of other great artists.

Like many artists, you may need to leave your home. How many great authors, painters, sculptors, have traveled to find inspiration. Perhaps you need your own "walk about" (yeah I'm a Lost fan :)

Take risks. Since you enjoy nature photography, how about trying a different type of photography, to get you to think outside the parameters of nature. Street Candids, or still-life, macro, sports. A subject you don't have the "technical" mastery of will force your right brain to engage more.

Experiment. If you always shoot nature with tele's, try grabbing a wide-angle and see what you get.

Practice. The idea that creative types just know how to be creative is false. Artists spend so much time honing their skills, and it's the same with photography. The Beatles played shows day in and day out for years to hone their musical skills. Malcolm Gladwell famously wrote about 10,000 hours in Outliers. You said you're "new" to photography, so give it time. If you shot photographs for every hour of every day for the first year you owned your dSLR, you'd still need over 1000 more hours of practice :)

Be a true Renaissance man (or woman). Try other creative outlets. Ansel Adams taught himself piano. Lessons learned in one art form can directly influence the works of others.

Submit your work for critique. Enter photo contests, find a way to get into an art-show, submit your photos online to places that give honest constructive feedback.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why do bright red flowers end up without details?

Question

With our DSLR, indoor flowers come out detailed. Outdoor violet and blue flowers are detailed, too.

But outdoor bright red flowers give us problems. They come out as a single flat detail-less spot. Sometimes bright yellow flowers do this too.

Why? What we are doing wrong? Is it a camera defect?

In some of our pictures of red flowers, you can see small white reflections on the petals, but on other shots, the whole red flower appears flat, as one blob of same-color pixels, lifeless and volume-less. It is disturbing.

I am not asking how to to photoshop this image. The question is how to shoot correctly in the first place.

Condition: outdoor, sunlight, Nikon D5000, unresized, unprocessed jpeg.

Answer

So the other posts are correct in that the red channel is being blown, but what you really want to know is how to overcome the issue within the camera without post editing. The Nikon D5000 has the Picture Control System giving users the ability to customize image capture preferences. Six settings are available — Standard, Neutral, Vivid, Monochrome, Portrait, and Landscape, along with the ability to create up to nine custom Picture Control settings.

I shoot with a Nikon D300 and have EXACTLY the same problem as yourself. Normally I have my picture control set to Vivid as I shoot a lot of nature, landscape and macro so it's nice to have the colours punch through. However whenever I am then shooting red flowers I change the control to either Standard or Neutral so the red is not blown.

Personally I shoot all my images in RAW (NEF) format and this allows me to change the Picture Control in post (using Nikon's NX2 software) which means I can choose the end result utilizing a larger screen and also I don't have to change the camera configuration for a single image while out in the field.

There are additional Picture Control setups that you can download at http://nikonimglib.com/opc/ but I don not know if these are compatible with the D5000, they may be as it is possible to add up to nine custom Picture Controls.

Check more discussion of this question.

What size lens is recommended for flying bird photography?

Question

My wife has a Canon 450D and a 70-300 lens for long distance shots.

I am considering a present or two and good advice from jrista suggests possible upgrade of camera to a Canon 7D and of lens to a Canon EF100-400 or Canon EF400 (I do like Canon). This will result in quite a large investment in my wife’s photographic future and I would like to get it right.

I would, therefore, welcome any further advice from jrista and any other users who may be able to assist me in my quest.

If I were only able to get one of the presents, which should I choose?

Answer

I'm not a bird photographer but whenever I travel with amateur birders, they almost always use the Sigma 50-500mm. As Jrista said, you lose in terms of quality but versatility-wise it is hard to beat.

The question is where the images go, if it's for small prints or web-use, you may not notice the difference. If it's for a gallery, you'll have to get something better and probably heavier.

When I take a group to Ecuador, we spend two shoots (sunset & sunrise) at a bird-lodge sanctuary. The species are quite small, particularly the hummingbirds everyone goes to see there. Those who max-out before 400mm (like me) didn't get many closeups, except near the bird-feeders where you can get really really close. At least, I'm not there for the birds ;) Those who don't want to shoot birds, get to have fun photographing Orchids instead.

Check more discussion of this question.