This might seem a silly post but I have to wonder where the color came from and where mine went when I see some of the outstandingly colorful images here.  The  current LWITG provides a quick reference but the photo galleries have many such colorful images. 

See in LWITG the beautiful photos "Tetons" , "Arizona" and "Birdman".    I pick these simply for convenient reference to my thought.  I shoot a landscape(not often in my photos) and know fine color is there. The print looks great.  Still, the sheer power of color is not there as in the images mentioned.  It is like the photographers have a secret pallate of extra brilliant color to reach into.  

So, is it post work of a sort I have not properly learned or something else providing such rich color?

Of course, there is a line where all is beautiful and works and a cross over that line and the image begins to appear artificial as with some HDR oversaturated images. 

Do you know what I am talking about with color or should I try again to explain? Thanks for any input.        TomDart.

I would say it is post work......some may disagree
There is a lot of detail in a reasonable RAW or jpeg file,not all of it comes thru unless coaxed out..
I know what you mean with the colour.Some images are very good..others seem to really stand out...its post work.
I have my owm methods..others have theirs..I dont mind sharing mine if you wish.
Eddie   

I would like that sharing..IM or on thread as you choose.  Thanks,      Tom.

I don't think it's all postwork, in some cases maybe, but maybe it's also just good light and good reading.  I know sometimes I've taken photos where the colors were blah and I had to do some postwork to make them look better, but I've also taken some where the colors were just perfect and I didn't have to do any. 

One thing I do sometimes is just boost the saturation a bit to make the colors stand out a bit more. 

HDRI seems really neat too to get great colors, here's a gallery with some awesome examples:  http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/03/10/35-fantastic-hdr-pictures/   I don't know how to make those, but here's a link to a bunch of tutorials on the topic:  http://tutorialblog.org/hdr-tutorials-roundup/  one of these days I'm going to have to sit down and look at this more closely...  :)

.

This is at best a complicated issue Tom and colours are going to be

variable due to white balance the sensor and pixels, and also very important

due to the qulity of the lens.

Other colour problems are caused by poorly-designed capture

 and processing systems take the form of colours being recorded

 as the wrong shade,or particular colours becoming oversaturated

 (too vivid). Additionally,some colours may be ‘clipped’because

 they lie outside the gamut of the colour space used when saving the file.

Gamuts : The entire range of colours that can be recorded or

 reproduced by a device Will  vary a great deal,with the human eye

 having a greater gamut than cameras,which in turn have a larger

 gamut than printers. As hs been suggested often it is better to rely

 on our own eyesight, and make corrections and also contrast and brightness.

Most cameras use a colour space known as sRGB,designed for compatibility with the maximum number of devices.sRGB,however,has a relatively small gamut,and the

mapping used to create the file must ensure the maximum number of colours are preserved. Check which your camera and software that you use are both the same and see which gives best results.

Here is a related example. 

Recently, I had some work done on my Canon A1. 

As a test of the camera, I shot 1 roll of 35mm color negative film and had it developed at a local 1-hour lab.  I also got 4X6 prints and a CD.  This order was to assure me that the camera was working OK ... but also to see what kind of service I would get there.  I also wanted to find out what the scan resolution would be since I couldn't get an answer from the local shop, their corporate photo help desk, nor from their equipment manufacturer: Noritsu ... not even from a friend who is a Noritsu repair tech.

The resulting prints were kind of so-so ... flat color, almost washed out, dull, not interesting. 

When back home, I followed my normal workflow and transfered the images from the CD to my HDD.  When I reviewed those images on the monitor, they looked a lot better.  I printed them on my Canon PIXMA IP-5000 and got results that were closer to what I could see on the monitor than what the 1-hour lab did.   

Conclusion ... the Noritsu film processor and scanner worked better than the Noritsu print processor. 

Oh ... the image resolution, you ask? 1545X1024; 72dpi, bit depth 24; sRGB.  That might yield an acceptable print on 13X19 inch paper ... if you were willing to pay for that size print at onnly 72 dpi on the print.

Hmmmmmm ... maybe I should learn how to use my PF1800 film scanner.  That would give me 1800dpi (on the film) or about 4X the pixel depth of the 1-hour lab/Noritsu equipment. 

Funny world: perfection has a price ... an ever escalating price. 

--Martin

I have an idea what it could be Tom, depending on whether you're referring to your gallery images by comparison with how they appear on your monitor when you view them off-line? I used to find that no matter how much saturation I gave an image it would always appear slightly lighter and more 'washed out' when I posted online... I think it's to do with colour profiles, but the way around it for me has been to use 'proof colours' associated with the monitor profile, which essentially will present the image as it will appear when you post it... you can then edit it accordingly (usually darken and saturate in my case), knowing the final result will appear as such when you post it.... hope that helps, I have Rich (inshaala) to thank for opening my eyes to this little trick.

I'm hoping you're using photoshop or this might not make so much sense..

danob: your use of black for the text makes it hard to read.  Why can't you just post in the forum's default colour and font?

Sorry formatting and text colour went scew wiff and by the time I noticed was too late to edit

I always wondered about that too.. The rich colors many get. I have found I can get close with some minor editing. But I do think a lot is postwork. Just a guess here.

Also  thinking about this, some Camera do have modes that can be set or custom modes created to give better colour reproduction, and I have also made my own actions in Photoshop CS4 to automate the process, which can be handy to save time.. Saving files in Tiff from the raw files prior to working on them will also retain more information.

I am thanking everyone for the thoughts. Danny, will you be doing a review on PS CS4?

One time I do make an effort for true color, not necessarily exciting color as seen in some enhanced and beautiful landscapes, is when I am doing a shot which should be accurate as I can get it to the real thing.  Birds of prey for the local raptor center is one example since many of the images will be for teaching purposes.  The birds do look differently in bright sun and in twilight and shadow but on those I try for accuracy and not necessarily colors greater than in reality.

@Tom;
If I recall...you have been using the D200..correct?
If so, you have the ability to change your image parameters in camera to several "presets" to accentuate images.
In addition, you can also adjust hue, tone, saturation and color mode individually to your liking.

If you shoot RAW, they can all be adjusted after the fact using Nikon Capture.

I typically leave settings at default in cam, shoot RAW and then process from there on....

Yes Tom I did a review they dont stay on the front page for long and can be found if you search but here is the link:  http://www.renderosity.com/news.php?viewStory=14372 

Also you can check my website as I will post any reviews I do there