washed out colors--outdoor action photos

sftballmom

Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
I have a canon 50D using both 18-55mm and 55-250mm lenses outdoors for sports action events (softball & football). I have tried UV lenses, polorizing lenses (too dark) and also lens shields and I continue to have trouble with "washed" out colors and untrue colors (royal blue looks like purple). I am using the automatic sports mode since I am still a beginner and do not know how to use any manual modes. I avoid taking pictures into the sun to help but I am still discouraged by the lack of coloring and I don't like the effect of fixing all the pictures in photo gallery. Any suggestions?
 
Post some photos and we can give you some feedback on what is going wrong. As a sports shooter I can tell you it's rare that letting the camera choose the exposure works out very well. There's too much that throws the exposure off. But rather than cover every aspect of shooting sports - let's deal with your specific photos. Post a couple and we'll help you figure out what is wrong with them.
 
Some possible problems that can cause complaints of colour imbalances:

You are using the wrong White Balance.
You are using the wrong Colour Tone.
You are using the wrong Picture Style.
The light is bad, with an unusual mix of blue or green.
You are looking at a computer screen that has not been calibrated.

You are using Adobe RGB instead of sRGB and you do not know how to process this colour space.
Your printer does not know what it is doing.

--
http://www.alexanderrogge.net/arshutterbug.html
 
I have a canon 50D using both 18-55mm and 55-250mm lenses outdoors for sports action events (softball & football). I have tried UV lenses, polorizing lenses (too dark) and also lens shields and I continue to have trouble with "washed" out colors and untrue colors (royal blue looks like purple). I am using the automatic sports mode since I am still a beginner and do not know how to use any manual modes. I avoid taking pictures into the sun to help but I am still discouraged by the lack of coloring and I don't like the effect of fixing all the pictures in photo gallery. Any suggestions?
As John said, the best thing you can do is to post some examples (with full exif information) so that more experienced people here can give you better, more specific advice.

In the mean time, there are some things you can look into. You said you're using the "automatic sports mode". You didn't mention what you have your white balance (WB) set at. If the games you're photographing are during the day make sure you have the WB set for sunny or cloudy as conditions dictate. If the games are at night or under the lights, try different WB settings to see the effect on the colors.

If the games are at night, you could also check the ISO setting. The higher the ISO value, the lower the dynamic range of the resulting pictures.

Another thing you might look into would be to make adjustments to the default settings for the "Standard" picture style. The sports mode uses the standard picture style. You can go into the menu and adjust sharpness, contrast and saturation. You might try bumping up the saturation a couple steps, take a few pictures, adjust saturation back to 0 and try bumping up the contrast for a couple shots.

The last thing you might try for grins and giggles, would be to throw a simple S-curve on your shots to deepen contrast.

Example:
From the camera:



After a simple S-curve:



I have a writeup on this located here:
http://www.texasmothman.com/tutorials/curves.asp

Come back with some examples and we can help you with better answers.

-----------------------------
Mothman13
http://www.texasmothman.com
 
I have a canon 50D using both 18-55mm and 55-250mm lenses outdoors for sports action events (softball & football).
First keep in mind those are not "quality" lenses. They're useful for many purposes, but are intended to be cheap first and good second.
I have tried UV lenses, polorizing lenses (too dark) and also lens shields and I continue to have trouble with "washed" out colors and untrue colors (royal blue looks like purple).
Filters will not, in general, improve image quality. They perform very specific changes to the light entering the lens, but unless you need the effect you should not use them.

UV filters are as close to being useless as makes no difference.

If you meant lens hood when you said lens shield then that's good - always use the lens hood as it helps a lot with reducing unwanted flare and improving contrast a little. Typically filters have the opposite ( negative ) effects.
I am using the automatic sports mode since I am still a beginner and do not know how to use any manual modes. I avoid taking pictures into the sun to help but I am still discouraged by the lack of coloring and I don't like the effect of fixing all the pictures in photo gallery. Any suggestions?
Typically cheaper telephoto zoom lenses will have low contrast at the long and wide ends of the zoom range. It's one reason why people pay more for those expensive lenses. So the limits of the lens may be a problem. The 55-250 is one of those lenses which has reduced contrast at the long end of the zoom range, so there is a good chance this is a problem.

Low contrast like this can be corrected in post processing. You should have a copy of Canon's DPP application, and if not that are alternatives. You can try a simple correction like "auto levels" or the slightly more complex ( but more useful ) technique of adjusting the tone curves. Level would be a good place to start.

Exposure settings may be a problem. If you over-expose you might describe it as washed-out. Because you are on full auto the camera could be fooled by the conditions and be slightly over exposing. You can try adjusting "exposure compensation" to correct this. You manual will explain it more, but it's not complicated.

The "untrue" colours are most likely to be a problem with white balance. Again it's better to read this up in the manual. Briefly it mean the light sources are not matching the ideal daylight the sensor is designed for and the automatic white balance correction is guessing wrong ( which it usually does ) about how to correct that. Presets are often better, so start by trying those.

However, even with a perfect white balance setting there are some colours which NO camera will accurately reproduce. Those colours simply fall outside the range the camera can capture. The ability of the human eye exceeds that of all cameras in that sense. I suspect it's not this issue, but the much more common white balance and exposure issues you are seeing.

Almost finally many cameras now apply an automatic correction to images to brighten shadows and/or extend dynamic range. These can cause problems in some situations because what they do ( under the hood ) is adjust the tone curve ( which is a more sophisticated version of contrast and brightness settings ). This can reduce contrast in parts of the image as an unwanted but unavoidable side effect. You can usually disable these "enhancements" and I'd suggest you also try that.

And finally, finally, it's typically a combination of these things.

--
StephenG

Pentax K100D
Fuji S3 Pro
Fuji S9600
 










I have read several suggestions and comments on what to do to improve the photo quality of the action sports pictures that I am taking outside in daylight. I will need to read much in my manual to further understand your suggestions. I have posted 3 recent photos that I have taken with my Canon 50D using my Canon 55-250mm lens.
 
As stated a couple days ago. I am looking for suggestions on what to do to improve the quality of my outdoor action sports picture taking. I am using a Canon 50D with 55-250mm lens. I have had difficulty with color quality. It was suggested to post some photos. I have posted 3 in previous message.
 
Here is one of your photos after a simple light touch of unsharp mask, and highlight reduction in photoshop.

Total time in Photoshop about 30 seconds..

I think it looks a little better.



--
Larry Lynch'
Mystic, Connecticut
New England
USA.
 
The colors are a bit flat but they don't look wrong. Slight levels work will help the contrast and make them pop a bit more. A poster below did an edit and I think the colors look fine after that. I don't think they're inaccurate.

Are you using a filter? If so, remove it.

But, if your expectation is that contrast will be perfect strait out of the camera then I think your expectations in this type of shooting environment are a bit unrealistic.
 
The first posted picture looks pretty good. You could bump the sat a little or make slight adjustments to levels or curves, but basically, the histogram goes from nearly pure black to pure white.

The other two look like they're overexposed a bit. I did a simple histogram adjustment to the red, green and blue channels on each.



Before and after histogram channel comparison





Before and after histogram channel comparison



If you shot in raw, try pulling back the exposure a bit in the manufacturer's software and then add a curves adjustment to make the colors pop.

Just my 2 cents ...

-----------------------------
Mothman13
http://www.texasmothman.com
 
This, to my eye, is the worst of your 3 pix. It's not terrible, but can be much better:



Here is how I used PSE8 to "fix" it...

Step 1: Use the Levels Tool to see how the brightness values are distributed:



Step 2: The Levels curve shows that there are virtually no black values and the white values are blown (they hit the right border). So, I moved the black pointer to the right until it got to the edge of the big part of the curve:



Step 3: Use the Shadows and Highlights Tool to somewhat recover the highlight detail (this can't really be done with an 8-bit JPEG image...works much better with a RAW image...but it helps a little). I moved the Highlights Slider to 25%. I also increased the contrast by moving the Midtone Contrast Slider to 25%. The latter makes the picture "pop" a bit more:



Step 4: I sharpened the image (always sharpen last), using the counter-intuitively named Un-Sharp Mask Tool (USM). I used parameters of 60, 1.5, 1...these should be adjusted until "halos" start to appear and then back off (I normally leave the 1.5 and 1 set that way and just vary the first parameter (Amount):



It took much longer to write this post than to do the adjustments!
--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D50, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info

"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
-Samuel Adams, 1776
 
Even considering the lighting conditions, the colours look good. Increase the colour saturation and adjust the levels, but unless the purple shown in your second example is supposed to be blue, there is nothing really wrong. If the lighting is harsh, there is nothing that you can really do about it. The third example looks like a dust problem, and I know about dust problems this month! It sucks contrast and colour like crazy.

--
http://www.alexanderrogge.net/arshutterbug.html
 
Hi,

you can apply unsharp mask with a LARGE radius (e.g. 5-15% of image dimensions) to enhance local contrast. Essentially, this will blur the image, creating a local average using the surruoundings of each pixel, then take the difference between the surrounding are and the pixel, and add it to the pixel to make it stand out more. (When used with a small radius, you can use it to add contrast to abrupt transitions - edges; with a large radius, you 'lift' pixels out of the surrounding average.)

Levels only:





Levels + local contrast enhancement using unsharp mark:





The difference is subtle. Check the sand, the fence, the foliage. Download both images, add them to the same image as layers, toggle visibility of the top layer.

The Gimp has an enhanced unsharp mark plugin that allows you to selectively filter the highlights, shadows etc., and makes it possible to select how much bringhtening/darkening to apply in the filter, so you can avoid blowing out highlights (you set brightening to 0, darkening to strong) and losing shadow details (you set brightening to strong, darkening to 0).

Google will give you a some good articles:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=unsharp+mask+local+contrast
 
Thank you for all your comments and information. One more question could you please give me some information regarding the PSE program that you used to analyze my pictures.
 
PSE = Photoshop Elements, a simplified version of Photoshop 'THE' image editing software.
According to Wikipedia:

Adobe Photoshop Elements is the consumer version of the Adobe Photoshop raster image editing product, targeted at hobbyist users and hence sold at a fraction (roughly 1/6th) of the cost of the professional product. It contains most of the features of the professional version but with fewer and simpler options. The program allows users to create, edit, organize and share images, all from the same product.

You may want to try the Gimp, which is similar, but is free.
http://www.gimp.org/downloads/
http://www.gimp.org/docs/
 
Thank you for all your comments and information. One more question could you please give me some information regarding the PSE program that you used to analyze my pictures.
You have already been advised that PSE = PhotoShop Elements. The current version is 8, but 9 has been announced and will be shipping soon. Until 9, the price has been $80, but 9 seems to be $100. Note that any version of PSE will do what I did. You can often find the previous versions for discounted prices ($40-$50).

PSE is a complex program...it may take you years to "master" [BTW, I still haven't "mastered" it!]...but there are LOTS of good resources to help you learn.

Ignore suggestions to consider GIMP! GIMP is a free, open-source program written by hundreds of geeks for other geeks to use. It is a terrible program for a beginner!!!

There is another approach you should consider. Your camera has adjustments that will improve the out-of-camera images. If you absolutely don't want to learn how to do photo editing, you could try increasing the saturation and contrast in the camera. Also, you should learn to check the histogram and bump the Exposure Correction (EC) downwards when you see that images of some scene are being overexposed. This is not as good as editing a RAW image, but better than nothing. Everyone really should learn to edit photos...even just a little as I did.

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D50, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info

"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
-Samuel Adams, 1776
 
Ignore suggestions to consider GIMP! GIMP is a free, open-source program written by hundreds of geeks for other geeks to use. It is a terrible program for a beginner!!!
Why would it be a terrible program to use?! It was written by geeks to USERS. Is Firefox ('a free, open-source program written by hundreds of geeks') more difficult to use than Internet Explorer?!

Check these links for step-by-step guidance.
http://docs.gimp.org/2.6/en/gimp-imaging-photos.html
http://gimp-savvy.com/BOOK/node59.html

Or even videos:
http://sixrevisions.com/graphics-design/gimp_video_tutorials/
 
Ignore suggestions to consider GIMP! GIMP is a free, open-source program written by hundreds of geeks for other geeks to use. It is a terrible program for a beginner!!!
Why would it be a terrible program to use?! It was written by geeks to USERS. Is Firefox ('a free, open-source program written by hundreds of geeks') more difficult to use than Internet Explorer?!

Check these links for step-by-step guidance.
http://docs.gimp.org/2.6/en/gimp-imaging-photos.html
http://gimp-savvy.com/BOOK/node59.html

Or even videos:
http://sixrevisions.com/graphics-design/gimp_video_tutorials/
It is "terrible" only in its limitations.

It is definitely not as easy to use as PSE.

If one can afford to use "paid for" software, there are far better alternatives than GIMP.

If ones financial situation is such that one MUST use GIMP, it is far form useless, and you CAN get the work done..

I, myself, am far more likely to boot my system to a flavor of "Ubuntu" (or any other Linux OS) for web surfing and email, because it is cleaner, faster, and pretty much (so far) virus free.

For photography though, I only use Linux for building slideshows and web pages, using finished images that were "PPed" in Lightroom, PS CS 4 or 5.

--
Larry Lynch'
Mystic, Connecticut
New England
USA.
 
one of the greatest benefits of PSE is that it is so widely used there are a LOT of books out there on how to use it and a lot of people to get direct "how to" advice as well. None of these products are things you're going to learn feature-by-feature. But with so much existing documentation on PSE it's just easier for people to learn how to do what they need to do in it. And $100 is a reasonable price point.

So, open source aside, I think PSE can be much easier to use and get documentation for for individuals that aren't software junkies.
 
I just boot Ubuntu for everything... I convert raw images using RawTherapee (free) and edit (if needed) in the Gimp. I do use a single commercial photographic application: NoiseNinja.

Since the original poster had questions regarding such basic things as enhancing contrast, and had no idea about the Levels tool, I don't think he'd find the Gimp too limiting. An loading the photo, clicking Color -> Levels, adjusting the sliders, clicking OK, clicking File -> Save is not exactly difficult.

I'm not saying the Gimp is perfect (no 16-bit support etc.). But here we have someone who would like to know how to toast bread, and some would like to sign him up to a master chef's course...
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top