[Zugara]

I have a 60d canon, using it with a 18-135mm efs lens on auto and P mode but the pictures just look flat, well not vibrant and impacting as I would like. I was going to get the Tamron 300mm lens but when I tried them side by side, there wasn't much difference in the colour reproduction. I have tried all manner of different settings, iso, etc, but nothing seems correct , even done a factory reset but no difference.

A few pics for you to comment on

[dabhand16]

They don't look bad to me. Is your monitor calibrated? Before you start looking at the camera you have to make sure that the screen that you are viewing the pictures on is, if not calibrated, at least adjusted to give reasonable images. There are plenty of free software 'calibration' tools that will give you a starting point. Adobe Gamma springs to mind, but there are others.

If you do have a reasonable monitor, you say that you have tried different settings. If you are shooting in jpeg, have you tried different settings in the picture control menu (or whatever that is called on a Canon)?

I've removed your other thread with the same content.

[Zugara]

Tried RAw, which seems to give better colour,, I am sure it's down to my laptop screen, always nice to have a second opinion though

[dabhand16]

Originally Posted by Zugara

Tried RAw, which seems to give better colour,, I am sure it's down to my laptop screen, always nice to have a second opinion though

That accounts for it then. RAW files need processing before they look any good. RAW files with no processing applied will look flat with poor contrast and no sharpening. Most people will use a RAW converter of some description, then save in tiff or jpg format after tweaking any or all of: the white balance, exposure, recovery (highlight control), fill light, brightness and contrast with some sharpening also applied dependent on the subject. Most RAW converters will also allow adjustments of other parameters too, but the ones listed are the main ones.

I'd still check out your screen too though.

[silver]

pics posted I would say are 'about right', you can choose to make them look different but for 'out of camera' (i.e. what the camera thinks a picture should look like) I would say colour/contrast wise these are better than might be expected (i.e. I don't think there is anything unexpected / lacking really)

like Graham says above you might not be looking on a calibrated monitor, I think printing wise these should print fairly at most places

one further idea, perhaps post a link to images you have seen that are vibrant/more like you are wanting to achieve as there are lots of different ways to change an image

[Zugara]

Think I have solved the problem...compared the photos on an iPad and my lappy. Turns out the laptop display is appalling. Can't adjust the colours enough to match the iPad.

[dabhand16]

Originally Posted by Zugara

Think I have solved the problem...compared the photos on an iPad and my lappy. Turns out the laptop display is appalling. Can't adjust the colours enough to match the iPad.

[Firebrand]

Heh. I guess that gave me a decision. LOL. Flat photos will throw me off. I have only one functioning eye that I can see out of.... I'll stick to JPEG for me..... I think...... Unless the RAW has some benefit.....

[dabhand16]

RAW has many benefits. You can change the exposure and many other parameters after you have take the picture! However, there is also a downside. RAW pictures need a two stage process as without it they will appear flat. First a conversion where you will add contrast, sharpness, saturation, then the final touches in a photo editor.

If you shoot in jpg the camera will do all of this for you, but you have no control over the final image.