Color and saturation in post processing RAW

After a recent set of discussions, and feedback I've received on one of my pictures I've posted here, I believe I'm more lost in the intricacies of RAW post-processing

The image in question is:

Original: http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=59529&b=va&st=200&la=3633&ph=205&sid=9668&u=9803 (received feedback to the effect that the saturation was a bit too much.)

A re-worked versions seems to have been well received: http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=59774&b=va&st=50&la=3622&ph=60&sid=23275&u=23285

I currently use Adobe Gamma for monitor calibration; but irrespective of that, when I compare the images I've post processed as opposed to the ones below, using the exact same computer and monitor and at exactly the same ambient light in my room, mine appear to be much more natural and realistic; even the original version appears very natural and realistic to me.

So I wonder what people think about these following images:

1) http://www.mountainlight.com/AA-images/aa_1125_480.jpg
2) http://www.mountainlight.com/AA-images/aa_1160_480.jpg
3) http://www.mountainlight.com/AA-images/aa_0612_480.jpg

Please note that I am not at all comparing myself to Rowell, I'm just eager to hear about people's views on "appearance" of the photographs. Specifically the color, it's vibrance, and the saturation.

I don't know if I can give a satisfactory reply because I don't have a calibrated monitor myself, and I worry that I don't see things as accurately as those who do. That said, I do feel that there is something about your three photos that makes them feel oversaturated TO ME. One thought I have is that recently I've found that when saving images for the web through photoshop, the colors and saturation in my images have been altered to appear more red/yellow and more saturated. On my most recent post to NPN I even adjusted hue and saturation before saving in order to counteract that phenomenon. On the other hand, you said the images look natural TO YOU, which is very different from looking natural to everyone. People really do process colors in different ways in their minds, so you may recreate colors as you feel you saw them or you may want to tone things down so that it matches a general consensus on what is realistic. Either way is valid. Back to the technique side, there was one other thing I wanted to mention. In images 1 and 2 most of the oversaturation is in the yellow channel. To get pleasing forground colors that are in the shade takes one color balance, and getting realistic colors in the sky where direct sunlight is hitting the clouds may take a completely different color balance. I'm sure you'll get some other ideas from more experienced photographers than myself, so feel free to take this all with a grain of salt. And good luck finding that happy medium between your vision and that of others.

I'm not sure what your question really is, but if you want to be accurate it'd be more safe to get a monitor calibration device like a spyder. it's about $150. You know you're accurate when you have something like that. Adobe Gamma is unreliable in my experience.

I looked at those links you provided. Your reds were probably oversaturated a bit, but those Rowell photos are way oversaturated. Just because he's famous doesn't mean that his stuff is perfect and that you should do something just because he did. Alpenglow can do incredible things, but there's a limit to how much color you can get away with in photos before it becomes distracting.

Or another way of looking at it is...

If the level of saturation that you've created in your photos is appropriate to the style of image that you wish to create and you are not causing a technical flaw such as posterization or fully saturated blocked out colors, then you should feel free to express your image as you see fit. Rowell created very saturated colors as the result of the films and filters he used and his technique. That was his photographic style. But today, people are so concerned about the manipulation of the scene with digital imaging tools that people are very self conscious about the saturation and other image properties.

That said, using a calibrating device and profiling can help ensure that what you see on your monitor is consistent and that you'll get repeatable results. It will help you to share your images with others in a way that is repeatable, so that they see the same levels of saturation and same brightness that you see.

Hi Ashutosh,
To start with I don't think there's a right answer to your question. Everyone sees and reacts to colours differently so your interpretation of the scene you photographed is going to be the right one for you. I do have a calibrated monitor and have checked all the links you provided. IMO the first post you provided is the best as an interpretation of that scene. The bright sky looks a bit overly bright to me but that may well be how it was or how you chose to portray it.

I think sometimes we photographers get hung up on getting the colours and perspective so that they most closely reflect how we think we saw reality. Perhaps the best way I can state this is that what we're doing is providing a 2 dimensional collection of pixels that represent how we interpreted the moment: this isn't reality!

You reference Galen Rowell's images. Galen's interpretation of the scenes he photographed were highly subjective. I've been to a seminar he gave and have seen hundreds of his images at that time. To my mind he often overused the hard edged ND grad filters and super-saturated colours that he was so fond of: those images were often very dramatic but didn't always appeal to me. Lots of other people thought they were fantastic. I mention this only to illustrate the you and only you can be the final arbiter of what works in your images.

NPN is an excellent site to post images for critiques because the vast majority of the folks who participate here are really keen to share their knowledge and to help out when they can. At the same time, I feel it's important that you continue to produce the types of images that speak to you. Seems to me there is no right or wrong with a subject as subjective as a photograph. The best I or anyone else can offer is suggestions for other ways of doing the post processing or seeing the subject. Ultimately you have to like what you create.

You mention that your original post looked naturalistic to you. Great! I've been in two places in the world, New Mexico and the northern British Columbia coast, where I've seen numerous sunsets with that level of intensity. As such I believe that was what you saw at that time.

Sometimes our digital media isn't quite up to recording what we see and certain problems do occur. I've learned, for example, that's it's very easy to 'blow' the red channel. That's a technical problem that hasn't much to do with the photographer's vision as it does with the limitations of the current equipment available to us.

Sorry for the long-winded answer. As long as you keep producing images that are meaningful and representative to you I think you're on the right track.

Good question. I like the reference to the Rowell images since I can particulary relate to those with first-hand experience. Many of us grew up "photo-wise" seeing a whole flock of landscape and wildlife photographers using Velvia, which had a very saturated pallete compared to ekatchromes and kodachromes from a generation before. Beginning photographers attending Galen's workshop would hear him speak again and again about how film saw the world differently than our eyes did, and Galen liked using under-exposure, ND- Grads, and the like to increase the saturation, and density. But all things considered, (and I follow in his footsteps in this regard,) Galen would want the prints (or scan) to match the transparency.

Speaking of AA 612 speifically, which he took while I was working there, the image I see on my screen is way too dark and saturated from what I KNOW the transparency and original prints look like. Unfortunately, some of the stuff I see coming out of there since the accident (and in some cases before) seem to be more heavily saturated. I can't speak to what takes place after I left, but I know that Galen NEVER EVER would have approved that scan that I see on my screen. - Now, maybe that's because they operate in a calibrated 1.8 Gamma environment, and I'm seeing an image in a 2.2 Gamma environment. That right there is enough to make an image seem dark. On the (Mac) computer screens at the ML office, I'll bet (at least I'd sure hope) that the scan looks a hell of a lot better, lighter, and closer to what the original AA transparency looked like. If not, then yes, I'd say they have some problems there.

I mentioned a guiding fact that steered Galen, myself, and many other professionals, back in the pre-digital, scan-your-film days - you wanted your scans to be in a close ballpark to what your transparency looked like, because most of the time, the scan was just a preview for a buyer, and you would hope the buyer called in your slide. Scanners by Default will often produce a flat, low contrast, low saturation image, so automatically you had all those velvia shooters reaching for the saturation button in PShop.

Nowdays, Digital Cameras don't come with the same type of visual pallete that we got with film. You knew how Velvia would render greens, magentas, etc,, and how deep the shadow density was. These days, you get a fraction of that if you shoot in sRGB, but if using a wider colorspace or shooting in Raw, you have to make all the choices - as if you were creating a custom film pallete for every image. Similarly, it's easier now to translate an image into "How I remember it Looking" vs. the "How the film would have seen it". When I first started showing off some of my D2x images, I'd crank that saturation up to where I thought it was as High as it could go, and still look natural. Even then, I got a lot of comments, including several from our own Guy Tal, saying, "...needs more saturation". And it turns out, they were usually right. I found that I was toning down images by default, fearful that they would be seen as too saturated. Now, I just try to make my images look as if they had the same basic pallete as Velvia, without going too far overboard. I usually point people to the New Images Portfolio gallery on my web site and ask people to identify which images were shot on velvia and which were shot w/ the D2x.

Cheers.

Gary,

Thanks for taking the time to share your experience working with Galen and your insight in general. Your post above was most useful, not because I want to make images like Galen Rowell, but because I could learn a little more about why he chose to make his photos in his characteristic style.

Thanks.

I'm going to pour over your responses slowly and only then respond to make sure that nothing flies over the top of my head; but in the meanwhile I must thank you all so much for them and the amount of time you are willing to spend on some stupid questions by a stupid hobbyist newcomer.

I had never expected real talented experienced heavyweight photographers to be so intricately involved with NPN here; I always thought they were the people who lived in those inaccessible tall castles away from the unwashed masses.

Slowly and steadily I am discovering that the landscape photography world is not as I believed it to be when viewing it from the outside; but I guess most things are just like that - crunchy outside and soft inside

It's been a real eye-opener. Thanks once again!

AR,
I would actually like a mix between the two images. Little less saturation (than older version) and less muddy (than newer version)

All three of Rowell's images are likely processed similarly. A characteristic electric look of Velvia that after scanning has been post processed with raw compressed peak saturations downward and middle saturation upward into the upper quadrant so highest values are near 100% thus not blocked up. In aa_1125 one can see strong purple saturation casts in both the sky, reflected water and as scattered dim light through the branches of the distant mountains. Of course with aa_0612 the purple emphasis is more strong. All the saturation in the three pics is not so far from the realm of natural possibility much like many other such images photographers today manipulate, though the real events were likely not all that impressive. Are all of Galen's prints hanging in Bishop like this? No, and I'm guessing you just snagged the late/early light ones most suited to make a point. Are most of Galen's actual hanging prints generally oversaturated versus the natural experience? Of course he used Velvia and then post processed for a modestly striking look while still having reasonable fidelity to the Velvia transparencies. I do think most of his prints tend to look more reasonable saturation wise except a few that are also printed overly large. Its a game of course and the gallery is interested in sales so since he is no longer there for approval, more of the same is likely.

As to your own posted image Ashutosh, I never commented on that because yes it looked typical of a lot of Velvia or slightly overly saturated images here. Members herein already know my preference for a bit more natural thus subdued images so I didn't need to reassert that bias. In this case the level of saturation is closer to the more typical Rowell prints I was alluding too and certainly not all that different than a lot of posted images on this or other forums. The image graphic is quite beautiful and given the graduated ND filters, the fine foreground features of wildflowers makes for a wonderful composition that the colored radiating geometries of the dusk sky complement. In order to get the best reactions from the general public, magazine editors, and generate the sales this image is worthy of, it is probably just fine the way you processed it. Best of luck, David

Here...... here.. Gary..... I totally agree with you 100%. I too am one of the Galen/ velvia disciples!
JG