How much saturation is too much?
-
#1. "RE: How much saturation is too much?" | In response to Reply # 0
gcline87 Registered since 24th Mar 2010Fri 13-Aug-10 06:22 PMYou could say that this is a cop out, but I think it totally depends on the situation and the intent of the photographer. There are very impressonistic images with creative angles and lighting, and deserve due process in post.
In terms of your local landmark, I would say that you as the photographer have a vision for your photo in your mind. You carefully select the time of day/lighting, angle, focal length, focus point, depth of field, etc. All these alter how the viewer views your work. Don't waste your imagination or time in makeing an image the does not match up with your full vision.Glenn Cline Photography
http://glennclinephotography.zenfolio.com -
#2. "RE: How much saturation is too much?" | In response to Reply # 0
esantos Nikonian since 10th Nov 2002Fri 13-Aug-10 06:33 PMI think it depends on the image, really. I like my landscape images to be richly colored and I shoot at times of the day and use filters that will help me achieve this. But I also use some creative license to post process my images to best represent what I saw in the viewfinder. It isn't just about capturing the moment in a sterile photo-journalistic manner, it's about conveying feelings, emotions, awe, wonder, and a celebration of the earth and its beauty. If one subscribed to such a rigid approach then would it also be wrong to take timed exposures? This is also altering our perceived reality, yet it is a true capture of the passage of time, a very real part of our world.
Those who believe the digital file should not be touched in any way do not fully know the developmental history of photography. In the days of film negatives as well as prints were manipulated to achieve a desired interpretation. Then emulsions of the film were designed to heighten (or lessen) certain tones, shades, and colors. Even film grain played a part and became an ingredient in the recipe.
I'm not going to set a limit on this subject because photography should be an exploration of the senses. Just like some favor sweets over savory, some like rich color while others prefer muted tones.Ernesto Santos
esartprints.com Ernesto Santos Photography
Get my new e-Book "Churches of Texas"See my portfolio.
-
#3. "RE: How much saturation is too much?" | In response to Reply # 2
dbuckenmyer Registered since 22nd Feb 2009Fri 13-Aug-10 11:25 PMThese are both great answers and I will share them with the club. Actually, elements of these answers have already been brought up, but a new take from outside sources will be welcomed. But now you have caused me a new question.
Does it bother you when you see a photo that you know has obviously been enrichened by editing software? I know that I sometimes look at a photo and think to myself "Those colors weren't that bright when they took that shot, so they are lying to the uninitiated as to the true nature of the shot." I agree that artistic license is always granted in art shots, but I sometimes worry that non-photographers will be tricked into believing their eyes when they should not be. It almost seems like cheating, but I know that I do it myself sometimes. I guess I feel that it comes down to what I want the image to convey, as you both have indicated.
dbuckenmyerVisit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#4. "RE: How much saturation is too much?" | In response to Reply # 3
Baaker Registered since 18th Aug 2009Sat 14-Aug-10 03:33 AM | edited Sat 14-Aug-10 03:34 AM by BaakerProbably the majority of people who state that the image shouldn't be photoshopped are film shooters? I was a member of a camera club, so I have heard it all. If they are film shooters then simply ask them why they use different types of film ( they all do and boast about favourite types ) and ask why they use filters. Ask them to explain the differences in the types of film and the impact they have in changing the scene. If they state that the type of film doesn't change anything then ask them why they use different types. Keep asking. Every time you hear a comment about a digital image being photoshopped ask them what they do in a darkroom to enhance an image. They will soon get the message about double standards. Either that or totally ignore them. If they represent the majority view then you are in a regressive club and you should look for another with progressive thoughts on photography. Last but not least they are probably jealous about what can be done to enhance an image.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/43019448@N04/-
#5. "RE: How much saturation is too much?" | In response to Reply # 4
dbuckenmyer Registered since 22nd Feb 2009Sun 15-Aug-10 11:39 AMAlmost none of them are film shooters and the ones that argue most for not PSing are "techies." I will have to ask them if they are shooting in RAW or jepg, as the camera does the image editing on jpegs.
I can't fault the club, as I started it and am the president. We accept avenues of thought and types of photography, so that is not an issue. It is not an argument, just a healthy discussion, and everyone agrees that it is totally up to each individual whether they want to adjust or not.
Dan
http://riverregionphotography.yolasite.com
dbuckenmyerVisit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#7. "RE: How much saturation is too much?" | In response to Reply # 5
Baaker Registered since 18th Aug 2009Mon 16-Aug-10 03:11 AM>Almost none of them are film shooters and the ones that argue
>most for not PSing are "techies." I will have to ask
>them if they are shooting in RAW or jepg, as the camera does
>the image editing on jpegs.
>
>I can't fault the club, as I started it and am the president.
>We accept avenues of thought and types of photography, so that
>is not an issue. It is not an argument, just a healthy
>discussion, and everyone agrees that it is totally up to each
>individual whether they want to adjust or not.
>
>Dan
It seems to me that you are now answering your own original post? The original post gave the impression that there were two opposing camps and the issue was an ongoing one. If the images are jpegs then no added saturation is necessary and there isn't really anything to debate?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/43019448@N04/
-
-
-
-
#6. "RE: How much saturation is too much?" | In response to Reply # 0
-August
De l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace!
-
#8. "RE: How much saturation is too much?" | In response to Reply # 6
jjjfromcanada Registered since 28th Jan 2012Mon 05-Aug-13 09:07 PM | edited Mon 05-Aug-13 09:10 PM by jjjfromcanadaSome people (typically those who know little about photography) seem to be under the impression that if you have an excellent photo then it had to have been heavily Photoshopped. In my experience Photoshop doesn't make a bad photo good, it only enhances an already decent photo. I use it, but not excessively. I'd rather try to get everything right in the camera but that isn't always possible.
How much is acceptable? I almost always tinker with saturation, brightness/contrast, levels and maybe smart sharpen. Not much more, I guess I'm a bit of a purist in that way. You won't see any of my photos winning awards, I take them just to document my life and the places I've been and people I've met (which may all be very boring to others).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30889557@N05/sets
#9. "RE: How much saturation is too much?" | In response to Reply # 0
>saturation/manipulation is acceptable in a photograph of say,
>a local landmark, that is for public display or sale? I would
>like to add more ingredients to or processing discussions at
>the club, so everyone please feel free to chime in and include
>examples/links if you wish.
Every digital image be it RAW or JPEG is altered by the camera. Typically, Canon colors are more saturated than Nikon colors. Even among Nikon cameras, captures of the same object under the same conditions by different cameras look different. Also, the same picture taken with a Nikon or a Zeiss lens looks different.
On a more subjective level, I would say that any pictures that look unnatural are probably excessively processed. My favorite examples are waterfalls that look like cotton, shadows that are too bright or Hollywood style sunsets.
Tristan
Visit my Nikonians gallery
-
#10. "RE: How much saturation is too much?" | In response to Reply # 9
barrywesthead Registered since 06th Nov 2006Fri 09-Aug-13 08:00 AM | edited Sat 10-Aug-13 10:28 AM by barrywestheadIt is clear from the writings of Ansel Adams that he spent days over periods of years post-processing and manipulating his best images. One of his most famous works, Moonrise, changed substanially over the years as his taste and experimentation evolved. (A 1948 print sold for $609,000 at Sotheby's)
Experimenting with chemicals, times, papers, burning and dodging, Adams said, "it is safe to say that no two prints are precisely the same."
He was ahead of his time on the subject of digital manipulation:
“The time will come when you will be able to make the entire photograph electronically, with extremely high resolution and the enormous control you can get from electronics, the results will be fantastic. I wish I were young again.” Ansel Adams, in his 82nd year, 1984.
Barry
http://art2printimages.com
“We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us
realize the truth, at least the truth that is given to us to
understand.” Picasso
-
#11. "RE: How much saturation is too much?" | In response to Reply # 9
SheriB Nikonian since 11th Sep 2010Sat 10-Aug-13 09:48 AM
>
>On a more subjective level, I would say that any pictures that
>look unnatural are probably excessively processed. My favorite
>examples are waterfalls that look like cotton,.....
>
Which is interesting, considering that those cotton waterfalls are usually done in camera with ND filters, long exposures...Sheri Becker
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#12. "RE: How much saturation is too much?" | In response to Reply # 0
I suppose one could argue that scientifically, there is no DSLR that can approach the ability of the human eye to see things and therefore, post-processing is not only an artistic right but also a purist's obligation to use the available tools to better portray what the photographer actually saw while make the photo.
However, I think that artistic right wins the argument for me. After all, we all strive to take (create) photographs vs. snapshots. Therefore we endeavor to take into account composition, lighting and shadows, etc. in our attempt to create a form or artistry which has appeal to others (be it to sell, put in a portfolio or scrapbook or enter into a contest--to name a few reasons). We want our photographs to create (elicit) a response (hopefully a good one) or emotion. Furthermore, like all forms of art, tastes change and can lead to vehement disagreements, e.g. HDR. If we are good enough, others will come to recognize "our" style (e.g. Ansel Adams).
Therefore, for me, I think that saturation is but one of many interventions that the photographer can use to create "his" or "her" photograph.
prreid
-
#13. "RE: How much saturation is too much?" | In response to Reply # 12
OldCodger Registered since 15th Oct 2011Sun 11-Aug-13 06:57 AMProbably my most manipulated picture sequence was taken years ago. A sample was sent for display to a VIP- the most important VIP in the country I was working in at the time. On arrival it was found to be damaged. The paint had a series of dents which to my mind and the minds of others, ruined the object.
Lit with light that barely skimmed the surface, good magnification and careful high contrast printing I made the dents look more like those from a moon shot, the orange peel of the paint did not look that perfect either.!
Was that sequence manipulated? I certainly think so, from end to end.
Did it get the point across? Yes, just as certainly.
Was it art? No, I would have to say probably not.
Was it justified? Yes I think it certainly was , but then I would.
The images were fired off to explain the problem.
The replacement was better prepared, packed and shipped. It was then presented successfully.
Now, I think nothing of correcting dust marks, chemical stains, scratches, etc. from scanned 30 or 40 year old slides and negatives. In fact it annoys me to see historical images displayed on TV programmes without at least dust spotting and other flaw removal. Or did people in times past walk, round with scratches all over their face, the back ground and with faded clothes?
I have strayed from saturation but that is only one bit player in the whole balanced performance.
Richard
#14. "RE: How much saturation is too much?" | In response to Reply # 0
-
#15. "RE: How much saturation is too much?" | In response to Reply # 14
pqtrths Nikonian since 02nd May 2007Mon 12-Aug-13 04:26 PMErnesto wrote:
> I think it depends on the image, really. I like my landscape images to be richly colored and I shoot at times of the day and use filters that will help me achieve this. But I also use some creative license to post process my images to best represent what I saw in the viewfinder. It isn't just about capturing the moment in a sterile photo-journalistic manner, it's about conveying feelings, emotions, awe, wonder, and a celebration of the earth and its beauty. If one subscribed to such a rigid approach then would it also be wrong to take timed exposures? This is also altering our perceived reality, yet it is a true capture of the passage of time, a very real part of our world.
> Those who believe the digital file should not be touched in any way do not fully know the developmental history of photography. In the days of film negatives as well as prints were manipulated to achieve a desired interpretation. Then emulsions of the film were designed to heighten (or lessen) certain tones, shades, and colors. Even film grain played a part and became an ingredient in the recipe. <
Ernesto:
Well stated.
My turning point in photography came from Galen Rowell's column in Outdoor Photography, in which he stated that he photographed the light falling on the subject, and manipulated the subject to replicate his emotional reaction - something like that.
Rowell's famous photograph of the rainbow on the Potola Palace is such a subject where he literally ran with tripod and camera to line the end of the rainbow with the building and then added a warming filter to produce this great photograph. He was also one of the photographs for the "Day In the Life of Hollywood" book where he wrote about what filter(s) he was going to use for a photo of a sound stage when the stage crew asked him, "what light he wanted." The heightened red and orange tones of his photos were the result of film and filter.
How much saturation is enough? How much is too much? There is no absolute on this. And speaking from experience, if you set out to produce the "perfect post process" of a photo, you're setting yourself up for a lot of frustration. (Me? 8,000 photos in my catalog and not a one finished because I have ey to "master" PSE 8.)
Go with what works to achieve your vision.
MpVisit my Nikonians gallery
-
#16. "RE: How much saturation is too much?" | In response to Reply # 15
pqtrths Nikonian since 02nd May 2007Mon 12-Aug-13 04:29 PMDaniel and Ernesto:
I intended this as a response to Daniel's question and not as it sounds - me lecturing Ernesto on photography. My apologies to all.
MpVisit my Nikonians gallery
-
#17. "RE: How much saturation is too much?" | In response to Reply # 16
dbuckenmyer Registered since 22nd Feb 2009Wed 14-Aug-13 04:16 PM>Daniel and Ernesto:
>
>I intended this as a response to Daniel's question and not as
>it sounds - me lecturing Ernesto on photography. My apologies
>to all.
>
>Mp
No problem here. In fact, by viewing Galen Rowell's photography, I pretty much got the answer that I was looking for. The general feel that I have received from all of the replies to my first question are that the camera (or the person that wrote the algorithm and the parts used to make the camera and lens and filters..) determine part of how the final product appears, that the settings we set in the camera affects the output image, that the camera cannot possibly capture all that the eye sees as the eye sees it, and that the final image we present to the public should be set as to how our (the photographer) memory of the original shot was, or how it made us feel.
Galen (and Barbara) has many shots that most people would say were oversaturated, but that is the way it actually appeared when shot. I think that people get caught up with what they expect the camera to produce, with grain and a grey "film" over them, and aren't used to the eye-popping color and saturation that some people produce in their photographs. Since it is all a matter of the artists' tastes, and since it is art, I feel confident that it is a matter of personal expression, whatever level of saturation one wishes.
Dan
dbuckenmyerVisit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#18. "RE: How much saturation is too much?" | In response to Reply # 17
ericbowles Nikonian since 25th Nov 2005Tue 20-Aug-13 12:04 PMDan
There are different levels of manipulation - and saturation - depending on the use.
For commercial work, anything that makes the image better is appropriate. Stage the scene, manipulate or change whatever you want, and saturate more heavily than normal. It's a problem if the image is not manipulated, but manipulation may occur downstream - not just with the photographer.
For competitions, the rules vary widely. PPA is largely looking at professionals and commercial work, so any amount of manipulation is fine. NANPA is looking at nature photography - and while editing and increasing saturation is fine if it makes the image better, combining content from multiple images is not permitted. Some clubs allow less manipulation than others. Velvia slide film was popular because it highly saturated color in a period when that was appealing. The highly saturated look of Galen Rowell - or even more by Tom Till - may sell commercially but today it is often considered oversaturated as a stand alone photo.
For art - its a matter of personal taste. If I am a designer looking for a focal piece for a home, a vibrant, saturated, Tom Till image might be just the thing.
One thing I hate to see is excessive use of the Vibrance slider. When I review or judge images, that's almost always a reason to reject the image. The grunge effect of HDR is a similar reason to reject an image - even though it may be the artists intent.
Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
Fall Workshops - Golf Photography at the Tour Championship and Fall Color in the Smokies
Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera
-
-
-
#19. "RE: How much saturation is too much?" | In response to Reply # 0
First of all, the camera does not capture what our eye sees so I find the argument that 'no post-processing is allowed' to be futile.
Secondly, give the same RAW picture to 100 photographers and ask them to process the image: you will get 100 different end results.
Photography is an art, not an exact science like physics where 1 result is the only correct one.
Me personally, I don't like the look of 'bad' HDR or too much saturation, so I try to pay attention to that in post-processing. I don't like composites where parts of an image are cut and pasted into a different image, as this crosses 'my' personal line.
You only have to please one person as a photographer and that is yourself.
Take black & white images: some people might see in black & white but most don't. What is the 'rule' for this? Are only the color-blind allowed to take black & white images?
There are no rules. Do what looks best in your opinion. Please yourself, not others.
To knock in an open door: most people are surprised to find out that Ansel Adams was one of the best 'post-processors' in the history of photography. Compare the negative of one his images to the print: they look like 2 different images most of the times.
That being said, I have noticed that, when it comes time to sell your images to the general public, 'too much' saturation goes a long way. Most people (of the general public - aka, not photography purists) love saturated colors.
Visit my Nikonians gallery
#20. "RE: How much saturation is too much?" | In response to Reply # 0
I don't like when colors just seem to bleed together, or things start to look like they're glowing when they shouldn't be, which in itself is very subjective. If the colors Im looking at are garish and over the top (like a carnival or circus) then giving them that extra punch is justified. When a fall landscape looks like a billion Christmas lights, not so much.
But I'm all about the colors!
--Andy
--Andy
Visit my Nikonians gallery
G
My question is, what is each of your opinions on how much saturation/manipulation is acceptable in a photograph of say, a local landmark, that is for public display or sale? I would like to add more ingredients to or processing discussions at the club, so everyone please feel free to chime in and include examples/links if you wish.
dbuckenmyer
Visit my Nikonians gallery.