Any tips for enhancing rainbows?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan, Jun 30, 2010.

  1. I've noticed that whenever I take a picture of a rainbow, it looks much less
    impressive than it did to my naked eye.

    For instance this one from yesterday is ok:

    http://www.tednolan.net/misc/p1120927.jpg

    but looked much better in real life.

    Any tips for punching rainbows up in GIMP?

    Ted
    --
    ------
    columbiaclosings.com
    What's not in Columbia anymore..
     
    (Ted Nolan, Jun 30, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2.  (Ted Nolan

    S.G. Guest

    On 30.6.2010. 9:08, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
    > I've noticed that whenever I take a picture of a rainbow, it looks much less
    > impressive than it did to my naked eye.
    >
    > For instance this one from yesterday is ok:
    >
    > http://www.tednolan.net/misc/p1120927.jpg
    >
    > but looked much better in real life.
    >
    > Any tips for punching rainbows up in GIMP?
    >
    > Ted



    try to pass underneath and make a wish.

    :)



    --
    www.gralpix.com
     
    S.G., Jun 30, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On 2010-06-30, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
    > I've noticed that whenever I take a picture of a rainbow, it looks much less
    > impressive than it did to my naked eye.
    >
    > For instance this one from yesterday is ok:
    >
    > http://www.tednolan.net/misc/p1120927.jpg
    >
    > but looked much better in real life.
    >
    > Any tips for punching rainbows up in GIMP?


    Increase brightness and contrast:
    <http://cfajohnson.com/testing/p1120927.jpg>

    --
    Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfajohnson.com>
    Author: =======================
    Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)
    Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
     
    Chris F.A. Johnson, Jun 30, 2010
    #3
  4.  (Ted Nolan

    ray Guest

    On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:08:42 +0000, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:

    > I've noticed that whenever I take a picture of a rainbow, it looks much
    > less impressive than it did to my naked eye.
    >
    > For instance this one from yesterday is ok:
    >
    > http://www.tednolan.net/misc/p1120927.jpg
    >
    > but looked much better in real life.
    >
    > Any tips for punching rainbows up in GIMP?
    >
    > Ted


    Have you tried a polarizing filter?
     
    ray, Jun 30, 2010
    #4
  5.  (Ted Nolan

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 30/06/2010 08:08, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
    > I've noticed that whenever I take a picture of a rainbow, it looks much less
    > impressive than it did to my naked eye.
    >
    > For instance this one from yesterday is ok:
    >
    > http://www.tednolan.net/misc/p1120927.jpg
    >
    > but looked much better in real life.
    >
    > Any tips for punching rainbows up in GIMP?


    Bracket the exposure aggressively. The colours will usually look much
    more saturated on the underexposed images (and the clouds darker). But
    the best compromise image may be just 1/2 stop away from the exposure
    that the camera would choose automatically.

    Even saturated pure colours tend to go to pastel shades when over
    exposed. The shot isn't that bad though and there is a hint of the
    larger and usually much fainter secondary rainbow at the far right.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Jun 30, 2010
    #5
  6. On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:08:42 +0000, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:

    > I've noticed that whenever I take a picture of a rainbow, it looks much
    > less impressive than it did to my naked eye.
    >
    > For instance this one from yesterday is ok:
    >
    > http://www.tednolan.net/misc/p1120927.jpg
    >
    > but looked much better in real life.
    >
    > Any tips for punching rainbows up in GIMP?


    You should have adjusted the exposure by about 1.5 stop. Setting the
    correct exposure is easy on the LX3 with its live histogram.

    After that, adjust the curve to give the rainbow more 'space':

    http://www.arumes.com/temp/p1120927_edit1.jpg
    http://www.arumes.com/temp/curves_adjustment.png

    Note that the exposure only uses five out of eight columns in this view.
    The righthand three columns aren't used because of the underexposure.
    You can see that I use about 60% of the dynamic range for the 40% of the
    original exposure containing the rainbow. The other 60% of the original,
    which contains the dark areas like the chimney and trees, only gets 40%
    after the adjustment because these areas are less important. Look how
    much this makes the rainbow stand out.

    Finally, you may want to adjust the white balance and increase saturation
    a bit, to limit the color in the sky, and to make the colorful rainbow
    stand out even more against a gray background.

    http://www.arumes.com/temp/p1120927_edit2.jpg

    --
    Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Jun 30, 2010
    #6
  7. In article <>,
    Chris F.A. Johnson <> wrote:
    >On 2010-06-30, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
    >> I've noticed that whenever I take a picture of a rainbow, it looks much less
    >> impressive than it did to my naked eye.
    >>
    >> For instance this one from yesterday is ok:
    >>
    >> http://www.tednolan.net/misc/p1120927.jpg
    >>
    >> but looked much better in real life.
    >>
    >> Any tips for punching rainbows up in GIMP?

    >
    > Increase brightness and contrast:
    > <http://cfajohnson.com/testing/p1120927.jpg>
    >


    Thanks!
    --
    ------
    columbiaclosings.com
    What's not in Columbia anymore..
     
    (Ted Nolan, Jun 30, 2010
    #7
  8. In article <>, ray <> wrote:
    >On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:08:42 +0000, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
    >
    >> I've noticed that whenever I take a picture of a rainbow, it looks much
    >> less impressive than it did to my naked eye.
    >>
    >> For instance this one from yesterday is ok:
    >>
    >> http://www.tednolan.net/misc/p1120927.jpg
    >>
    >> but looked much better in real life.
    >>
    >> Any tips for punching rainbows up in GIMP?
    >>
    >> Ted

    >
    >Have you tried a polarizing filter?


    I'll give it a look, thanks!
    --
    ------
    columbiaclosings.com
    What's not in Columbia anymore..
     
    (Ted Nolan, Jun 30, 2010
    #8
  9. In article <>,
    John Navas <> wrote:
    >On 30 Jun 2010 07:08:42 GMT, in <>,
    > (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
    >
    >>I've noticed that whenever I take a picture of a rainbow, it looks much less
    >>impressive than it did to my naked eye.
    >>
    >>For instance this one from yesterday is ok:
    >>
    >> http://www.tednolan.net/misc/p1120927.jpg
    >>
    >>but looked much better in real life.
    >>
    >>Any tips for punching rainbows up in GIMP?

    >
    >1. Adjust levels
    >2. Correct color
    >3. Increase saturation
    >
    ><http://i48.tinypic.com/2k11fk.jpg>
    >


    Oh, very nice!

    Thanks
    --
    ------
    columbiaclosings.com
    What's not in Columbia anymore..
     
    (Ted Nolan, Jun 30, 2010
    #9
  10. In article <CCIWn.6931$>,
    Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
    >On 30/06/2010 08:08, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
    >> I've noticed that whenever I take a picture of a rainbow, it looks much less
    >> impressive than it did to my naked eye.
    >>
    >> For instance this one from yesterday is ok:
    >>
    >> http://www.tednolan.net/misc/p1120927.jpg
    >>
    >> but looked much better in real life.
    >>
    >> Any tips for punching rainbows up in GIMP?

    >
    >Bracket the exposure aggressively. The colours will usually look much
    >more saturated on the underexposed images (and the clouds darker). But
    >the best compromise image may be just 1/2 stop away from the exposure
    >that the camera would choose automatically.
    >
    >Even saturated pure colours tend to go to pastel shades when over
    >exposed. The shot isn't that bad though and there is a hint of the
    >larger and usually much fainter secondary rainbow at the far right.
    >
    >Regards,
    >Martin Brown


    Thanks!

    Yeah, there was a secondary rainbow, more visible to the eye than here.

    Ted
    --
    ------
    columbiaclosings.com
    What's not in Columbia anymore..
     
    (Ted Nolan, Jun 30, 2010
    #10
  11. In article <2d149$4c2b5c67$546ac3cf$>,
    Robert Spanjaard <> wrote:
    >On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:08:42 +0000, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
    >
    >> I've noticed that whenever I take a picture of a rainbow, it looks much
    >> less impressive than it did to my naked eye.
    >>
    >> For instance this one from yesterday is ok:
    >>
    >> http://www.tednolan.net/misc/p1120927.jpg
    >>
    >> but looked much better in real life.
    >>
    >> Any tips for punching rainbows up in GIMP?

    >
    >You should have adjusted the exposure by about 1.5 stop. Setting the
    >correct exposure is easy on the LX3 with its live histogram.
    >
    >After that, adjust the curve to give the rainbow more 'space':
    >
    >http://www.arumes.com/temp/p1120927_edit1.jpg
    >http://www.arumes.com/temp/curves_adjustment.png
    >
    >Note that the exposure only uses five out of eight columns in this view.
    >The righthand three columns aren't used because of the underexposure.
    >You can see that I use about 60% of the dynamic range for the 40% of the
    >original exposure containing the rainbow. The other 60% of the original,
    >which contains the dark areas like the chimney and trees, only gets 40%
    >after the adjustment because these areas are less important. Look how
    >much this makes the rainbow stand out.
    >
    >Finally, you may want to adjust the white balance and increase saturation
    >a bit, to limit the color in the sky, and to make the colorful rainbow
    >stand out even more against a gray background.
    >
    >http://www.arumes.com/temp/p1120927_edit2.jpg
    >


    Very informative, thanks!

    Ted
    --
    ------
    columbiaclosings.com
    What's not in Columbia anymore..
     
    (Ted Nolan, Jun 30, 2010
    #11
  12.  (Ted Nolan

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, ray <>
    wrote:

    > Have you tried a polarizing filter?


    it's a little late for that.
     
    nospam, Jun 30, 2010
    #12
  13. Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > John Navas <> wrote:
    >> On 30 Jun 2010 07:08:42 GMT, in <>,
    >> (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
    >>
    >>> I've noticed that whenever I take a picture of a rainbow, it looks much less
    >>> impressive than it did to my naked eye.
    >>>
    >>> For instance this one from yesterday is ok:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.tednolan.net/misc/p1120927.jpg
    >>>
    >>> but looked much better in real life.
    >>>
    >>> Any tips for punching rainbows up in GIMP?

    >> 1. Adjust levels
    >> 2. Correct color
    >> 3. Increase saturation
    >>
    >> <http://i48.tinypic.com/2k11fk.jpg>
    >>

    >
    > Oh, very nice!
    >
    > Thanks


    yes, good on the colors, but how 'bout that stack?? Quite some
    distortion, unless it's about to fall down.

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 30, 2010
    #13
  14. In article <>,
    (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:

    > I've noticed that whenever I take a picture of a rainbow, it looks much less
    > impressive than it did to my naked eye.
    >
    > For instance this one from yesterday is ok:
    >
    > http://www.tednolan.net/misc/p1120927.jpg
    >
    > but looked much better in real life.
    >
    > Any tips for punching rainbows up in GIMP?
    >
    > Ted


    Manual RGB level correction, a saturation boost, and 50% reduction:
    http://www.pixelmemory.us/~mcmurtri/p1120927.jpg

    Of course I have no idea what it's supposed to look like because I
    wasn't there. Maybe I ruined a sunset.
    --
    I won't see Google Groups replies because I must filter them as spam
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Jul 1, 2010
    #14
  15.  (Ted Nolan

    DanP Guest

    On 30 June, 17:24, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    > Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
    > > I've noticed that whenever I take a picture of a rainbow, it looks much less
    > > impressive than it did to my naked eye.

    >
    > > For instance this one from yesterday is ok:

    >
    > >    http://www.tednolan.net/misc/p1120927.jpg

    >
    > > but looked much better in real life.

    >
    > > Any tips for punching rainbows up in GIMP?

    >
    > Alternatively, can anyone give an explanation
    > of why photos of rainbows tend to be disappointing
    > compared to the Mk1 human eyeball ?
    >
    > I've experienced this too.
    >
    > (some of the corrections in this thread
    > have been pretty good, BTW)
    >
    >    BugBear


    It has to be the dynamic range and the fact that we can concentrate on
    the rainbow and miss the rest.
    In a photo this would work if printed really big and hung on a wall.

    This is my crap rainbow shot with a mobile phone and edited.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/danpetre/4750809061/


    DanP
     
    DanP, Jul 1, 2010
    #15
  16.  (Ted Nolan

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 30/06/2010 17:24, bugbear wrote:
    > Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
    >> I've noticed that whenever I take a picture of a rainbow, it looks
    >> much less
    >> impressive than it did to my naked eye.
    >>
    >> For instance this one from yesterday is ok:
    >>
    >> http://www.tednolan.net/misc/p1120927.jpg
    >>
    >> but looked much better in real life.
    >>
    >> Any tips for punching rainbows up in GIMP?

    >
    > Alternatively, can anyone give an explanation
    > of why photos of rainbows tend to be disappointing
    > compared to the Mk1 human eyeball ?
    >
    > I've experienced this too.


    The problem is that the dynamic range of the scene is too high for a
    camera to handle satisfactorily. It is one place where HDR imaging might
    help if you have a bracketed set of exposures.

    Basically the human can distinguish brilliant pure red light as truly
    pure red whereas the camera sees it as bright first then coloured second
    (ie pastel shade). Weaknesses in the filter (true also for film) allow
    enough crosstalk between the colour channels that it desaturates.

    You can demonstrate this under much more controlled conditions by
    photographing the various brightly coloured LED indicators on hifi and
    TVs at varying exposures.
    >
    > (some of the corrections in this thread
    > have been pretty good, BTW)


    You can get something of the look and feel back by careful use of
    histogram curves, contrast and brightness. But the eye is just so much
    better at seeing bright coloured light as truly saturated colour.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Jul 1, 2010
    #16
  17.  (Ted Nolan

    Ray Fischer Guest

    ray <> wrote:
    > Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:


    >> I've noticed that whenever I take a picture of a rainbow, it looks much
    >> less impressive than it did to my naked eye.
    >>
    >> For instance this one from yesterday is ok:
    >>
    >> http://www.tednolan.net/misc/p1120927.jpg
    >>
    >> but looked much better in real life.
    >>
    >> Any tips for punching rainbows up in GIMP?
    >>
    >> Ted

    >
    >Have you tried a polarizing filter?


    Won't work. Polarizing filters improve sky contrast when the camera
    is aimed at roughly 90 degrees from the sun. Rainbows always happen
    opposite the sun.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Jul 1, 2010
    #17
  18. In article <4c2c4621$0$1581$>,
    (Ray Fischer) wrote:

    > ray <> wrote:
    > > Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:

    >
    > >> I've noticed that whenever I take a picture of a rainbow, it looks much
    > >> less impressive than it did to my naked eye.
    > >>
    > >> For instance this one from yesterday is ok:
    > >>
    > >> http://www.tednolan.net/misc/p1120927.jpg
    > >>
    > >> but looked much better in real life.
    > >>
    > >> Any tips for punching rainbows up in GIMP?
    > >>
    > >> Ted

    > >
    > >Have you tried a polarizing filter?

    >
    > Won't work. Polarizing filters improve sky contrast when the camera
    > is aimed at roughly 90 degrees from the sun. Rainbows always happen
    > opposite the sun.


    A rainbow has polarization so a polarization filter does have an
    influence. Whether or not it helps depends on conditions and how much
    of the rainbow is in the photo.
    --
    I won't see Google Groups replies because I must filter them as spam
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Jul 1, 2010
    #18
  19.  (Ted Nolan

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 01/07/2010 17:41, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
    > In article<4c2c4621$0$1581$>,
    > (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >
    >> ray<> wrote:
    >>> Ted Nolan<tednolan> wrote:

    >>
    >>>> I've noticed that whenever I take a picture of a rainbow, it looks much
    >>>> less impressive than it did to my naked eye.
    >>>>
    >>>> For instance this one from yesterday is ok:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.tednolan.net/misc/p1120927.jpg
    >>>>
    >>>> but looked much better in real life.
    >>>>
    >>>> Any tips for punching rainbows up in GIMP?
    >>>>
    >>>> Ted
    >>>
    >>> Have you tried a polarizing filter?

    >>
    >> Won't work. Polarizing filters improve sky contrast when the camera
    >> is aimed at roughly 90 degrees from the sun. Rainbows always happen
    >> opposite the sun.

    >
    > A rainbow has polarization so a polarization filter does have an
    > influence. Whether or not it helps depends on conditions and how much
    > of the rainbow is in the photo.


    A PL Filter can only remove light and so is only good against unwanted
    polarized light. If the rainbow is polarized the PL can only attenuate
    it, and not accentuate it.

    --
    Bertrand
     
    Ofnuts, Jul 1, 2010
    #19
  20.  (Ted Nolan

    M-M Guest

    In article <>,
    (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:

    > I've noticed that whenever I take a picture of a rainbow, it looks much less
    > impressive than it did to my naked eye.
    >
    > For instance this one from yesterday is ok:
    >
    > http://www.tednolan.net/misc/p1120927.jpg
    >
    > but looked much better in real life.
    >
    > Any tips for punching rainbows up in GIMP?
    >
    > Ted



    Don't know about Gimp, but Auto levels in Photoshop does wonders:

    http://i45.tinypic.com/35hls0n.jpg

    --
    m-m
    http://www.mhmyers.com
     
    M-M, Jul 1, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Eugene F.

    Enhancing reception of Edimax EW-7126 [?]

    Eugene F., Aug 4, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    837
    Eugene F.
    Aug 5, 2005
  2. Nod

    Enhancing skies

    Nod, Jul 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    378
  3. Georgette Preddy

    Bayer rainbows add life to B&Ws

    Georgette Preddy, Jun 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    916
    bagal
    Jun 10, 2004
  4. Networking Student
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,401
    vreyesii
    Nov 16, 2006
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,156
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page