Printable View
I love to do macro photography, but I always feel that my images do not have enough color. What are all the ways to best ensure that I get the best color out of my photos. BTW, I am using an Canon XS. I do not have a macro lens yet, but I plan on getting one soon, as I just started recently using an SLR. So, if you have any suggestion for the best macro lens, let me know your opinions too please. Thanks in advance for all your help!
Canon EF 100/2,8 USM should work just fine and give you enough colors
It *may* also depend on if you're shooting raw or jpg. If you shoot jpg and you have a neutral picture style selected things may be affected color-wise. The same thing goes for color space.
The lens mentioned above has beautiful colors. But camera settings and light also help. A lot.
If you're not shooting raw: shoot raw. You can postproces with less loss and tweak the colors to what you want them to be.
White Balance. Get yourself a Lastolite Ezybalance grey card, and take a picture of it under the same conditions as the other photos. Iwould shootRAW, and use that photo to pick the white balance with the dropper in post processing. You can also use "Custom White Balance" on the camera if you shoot Jpeg. Short of a grey card, pick a white balance setting in post processing that is most appropriate. In Digital Photo Professional you can choose Daylight, Shade, Flash, Tungsten, etc. The difference can be stunning!
Try this...
RAW, White Balance: AWB, Colorspace: sRGB (or Adobe RGB) and Picture Style: Standard. If your white balance seems off use DPP/lightrooom etc to correct it. You may also want to check to make sure your monitor is adjusted correctly as well.
Steve,
I just got a Lastolite Ezybalance recently. Do you use the gray side or the white side for setting the white balance? I've only had a couple of opportunities to use it and my results were less than impressive. I think I'm doing something wrong.
Thanks, David.
David,
I use the grey side. Are you using Custom White Balance for jpegs, or post-processing?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Gray-Card-Review.aspx
Bryan offersa great primer on the gray card here.
As far as color is concerned, I shoot in RAW and set one of the custom picture stylesto boost saturation. This in-camera saturation can be lowered in DPP and it seems to offer better (deeper, truer?)color than boosting"normal" saturation inpost processing.
I shoot in RAW and I am trying to get the custom white balance "correct" in the camera. However, I almost always seem to need to adjust it later in post. Even then, when I have used the white side of the card, it did not look right.
My last shoot was in and elementary school gym room, so the lighting was pretty bad industrial stuff that seemed to change colors over time. My daughter's white uniform actually gave me a better set point than the white side of the card.
Thanks, I'll try the grey side next time and see how it turns out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by powers_brent
Your getting great advice on White Balance but I think your question is broader. Getting good color/contrast is first a function of having good light and then exposure. If you have a bright red ball, but the color is flat and dark it won't look like a bright red ball to your eye and neither will it look like a bright red ball to your camera. Bird photos are often the peril of this. I beautiful blue heron in flight may look dark or gray to your eye if side lit or cloudy and nothing more than a silhouette if back lit. And that is what your camera will record. So, assuming good lighting, good exposure is really the key. I shoot a lot of macros, and rarely do I use the default exposure readings from the camera. Mostly I end up being EV +/- 1 or 2 stops to get the right color. Sure, I could spot meter or use averaging or centering to get close but would rather use the histogram and the image preview to dial in the color. Mostly the histogram. Take time to learn that. In short order, the wider the histogram the broader the range of tones being captured and the higher the more of the tones are being captured. I won't get into the whole histogram process here but I think that's where your answer lies.
For example, in this image I used and EV -2/3 to accurately reproduce the reds in this shot.
http://www.pbase.com/dbrasco/image/9...5/original.jpg
In this scene, I was EV +2/3 in a relatively dark woods to get the right color in this Shooting Star.
http://www.pbase.com/dbrasco/image/9...1/original.jpg
And finally, I was all the way to EV -2 to dial down the whites in this mum bud on a very brightly lit day.
http://www.pbase.com/dbrasco/image/1...4/original.jpg
Hope this helps. Good Luck
Don - Thanks for filling in the gaps; I was asking about a general approach, not just white balance even though white balance is still very important.
Cool Fairy Duster Don!!!
Thanks Steve. I should have ID'd the shot. It's a Power Puff Tree (Calliandra haematocaphala)
Not a Fairy Duster, which is a shrub. The flowers are very similar, all the more reason I should have called it out. Sorry for the confusion
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]The canon 100mm F2.8 Macro lens is not “fine” it is a great lens, I had an efs 60mm which while good optically is just not long enough.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I also have a Tamron 90mm for my T90’s and tried a new one on my 40D, but then borrowed a canon 100mm macro from a mate and that was it, I had to have one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I also had a go with the canon 180 macro, mind blowing optically but too big, too heavy, too expensive, and slow to focus.
Don, nice bugaboo on that Shooting Star.
Have you ever used the technique where you focus at one spot, then move the focus further down, etc., then stack the layers, and average them to get more of the flower in focus in the final blend?
I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet, but monitor and printer calibration.
Very nice pictures, Don, and the colors are great. All three of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Burkett
Are you saying you adjust to EV +/- 1 or 2 to get the histogram right, then alter exposure in post processing to get the colors the way you want? (Because after all, the picture that has the best histogram does not always look best in image preview)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Jon, This may be hard to explain, but essentially if the histogram is right then the colors will be right. The EV adjustments I make are to get the colors right. I trust the histogram more than the preview screen. Now having said that, the histogram has to match the scene. Remember the meter in the camera will always strive to balance at middle gray tones. That's why the built in meter, if left to it's own, will make white snow gray and black cats gray. The only thing that the meter does extremely well is if the scene has a lot of tonal range or the majority of the scene is a middle tone. A landscape of trees, grass and blue sky works well for the meter since these are all middle tones. If the same scene has white clouds in the blue sky and dark shadows in the trees, the meter still does well because of the wide range of tones. But, replace the blue clouds with white sky and the grass with snow, the meter is going to expose them to be gray because the predominant tone is white and the meters job is to balance to gray. Simply put, for a dark scene the histogram should be left side oriented, for a light, bright scene it should be right side oriented, for a typical scene with lots of tone, it should be middle oriented with peaks in the center. Lots of colors or tones then the histogram band should be wide, and visa versa. Hope that makes sense. If not, John Shaw and Bryon Peterson do a wonderful job explaining exposure and metering in their books.
Now back to the flowers, and EV adjustments. In the Power Puff shot, the background was very dark and the powder puffs themselves were somewhat shaded. Thus, I knew the meter would overexpose the scene (make everything lighter than it should be) To compensate for that I used an EV -2/3. Remember I said the histogram has to match the scene, well in this case the histogram was left side oriented and in fact, clipped the background, which was ok in this case because I wanted the background to go black. Without compensating this way, the background would have been lighter and the flower and berries would have been pink and the whole shot would have looked washed out.
The Shooting Star is going to seem like a contradiction, but it's really not. In this case, the woods were relatively dark and the flower is a light lavender. So, based on what I just said, the meter would have naturally lightened the scene. But in this case, not enough. The EV +2/3rds was needed to get enough bars to the right of the histogram that I felt confident the flower was exposed correctly. And even with this adjustment, I could have gotten away with a little more to brighten some of the white areas of the flower.
As a matter of practice, I do generally bracket my shots at +1 and -1 to hedge my bet and this is a practice I would recommend for everyone. With some frequency, I'll shoot a scene thinking the EV should be +/- some value and get home and discover I'm not so smart. Bracketing gives me some latitude in these cases. Certainly, with RAW files you can adjust the exposure value up to 2 stops in DPP, but I'd rather an native file with the right exposure to begin with. [:)]
Thanks Alan, I have recently started doing some focus stacking. But still use it selectively. In this shot, A) It was before I knew how to focus stack. B) I had to fight a persistent breeze even though I had the flower Plamped. C) Never saw the bug-a-boo until Post Processing. But, to your point, focus stacking if an great tool to have in your tool bag.
Thanks, Don, for taking the time to craft such a thorough explanation. Its extremely helpful for me to get a window into what goes into excellent photos like yours. (After all, I haven't given up all hope of taking one myself one day [:)])