Its been a long time since I visited the ESS gallery and, as always, I took delight in seeing some wonderful photography on display. Coming back after a time-out period has certain benefits (at least I tend to think so) - you get to notice changes that someone might miss if they are inside the same environment all the time. The big change that I noticed this time around, is the "super high" saturation and contrast in so many of the photos on display. Is this a new fad/trend? I have seen amazing light myself on more than a few occasions but never what the posters here claim to have seen with their own eyes.
Any thoughts/comments?
Best regards.
Posted by Mark Stahlke on October 1, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Interesting question Anil. I was thinking of asking the opposite question: Is the Velvia look (high saturation and contrast) going out of style?
As many landscape photographers switched from film (often Velvia) to digital, I thought I noticed more images with less saturation and contrast than one would expect from Velvia.
Posted by Peter Carroll on October 2, 2007 at 12:38 AM
Well put Anil. I particularly like your comment
Coming back after a time-out period has certain benefits (at least I tend to think so) - you get to notice changes that someone might miss if they are inside the same environment all the time.
I have done the same recently and I noticed exactly what you noticed. I want to go on record saying that the quality in the ES&S gallery is fantastic but I do think that it is a gallery in which subtelty is drowned out at times by the louder voices of super saturation. View numbers seem to suport this opinion. In order to separate an image from the pool of high quality shots I think posters resort to the power of bold (and I would agree with you over the top) colour. Another thing that jumped out at me when I returned to NPN after some time away was the "Wow...great shot...love the colour" type comments that pile up on the images with 20+ comments. Some insane fire in the sky end of days type shot will have a bag full of those comments and some wonderful subtle but well seen and executed shot will have say 100 views and 4 comments. It's a mirror of our society in general. Advertising/film/television/radio etc. need to shock more to rise above the din. A topic for another time might be how in days of film (my apologies to those still shooting film) Velvia images sold very well in North America but more pastel tones were sought after in Europe.
I agree with your comment Anil but have been culprit of the same. (Both posting images and typical comments like fine image etc).
Funny thing I noticed is that I've completely eliminated saturation slider from my 'work flow' but using other subtle techniques (TK's masks for one) and trying to keep it to minimum. And then all of a sudden number of comments have gone below 10 (that does not necessarily have got anything to do with the saturation as Peter mentioned but perhaps with the quality of image itself).
I think highly saturated nature images had been in vogue since the birth of Velvia. I don't really see a noticeable recent shift myself. Personally I find the ESS page provides a pretty good variety of styles compared to other venues.
Interesting. Ive always been highly critical of oversturation/contrast, and that trend had been around for quite a while now. I personally seem to think the number of those kind of photos has leveled off or even gone down over the last couple years, maybe since the bold colors inspire a 'been-there-done-that' reaction from the faithful posters. But, you're right your perspective on this changes if you've been away from something (or involved in it) for a while. Too bad there's no objective measure of the subject.
How bout the fact that most of the bold colors come from male photogs? (who also dominate the galleries) Think there's an evolutionary tie there??
Anil, I personally do not look at photography as reality. I think if you look at it as simply "documenting" what's in front of your camera, you're losing some of your artistic liscense. Now I do agree with many images being oversaturated, myself certainly not immune. I've been slammed many times for images have too much saturation. I've found myself working more toward pastels lately, rather than bold vibrant colors. This is not necessarily a product of critiques, but trying to broaden my views, and maybe create a few more images that let subtleties come thru rather than just bold color. Dont get me wrong, I will always be a fan of saturation, I think its inherent that we love color, and it certainly does help generate more views and comments. I have noticed tho, on some of my more recent posts that were more subdued, i've had significantly lower views and comments.
Thanks for responses so far. Its always interesting to hear different views on a particular topic.
Adam: I don't have a problem with the photos themselves. Actually, I happen to like many of them. I was just commenting on the fact that high saturation images seem to be very popular of late (and btw most of them are being made using digital capture, so this doesn't have anything to do with Velvia per-se). I have always belived that photographers should have the creative freedom to realize their vision as they see fit. No problems on this front. What I find surprising, however, is the fact that many photographers claim that what you see in the photo is exactly how the scene looked when the capture was made. Now this might also be true; its just that in my travels so far I have never come across light of that nature. Of course, one can say that I haven't seen all that there is to see.
Posted by Tom Nevesely on October 2, 2007 at 2:14 PM
" What I find surprising, however, is the fact that many photographers claim that what you see in the photo is exactly how the scene looked when the capture was made."
Personally, I don't make my images reflect what I saw; I make them reflect the way I felt when I witnessed and photographed the scene. If that sometimes means boosting the saturation than that's what I do. Then again, sometimes I reduce the saturation to create a almost monochrome look.
Posted by Peter Carroll on October 2, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Interesting reading following this thread. I guess for me the issue is that as photographers we have a box of tools at hand to communicate our reaction to a scene. Light, composition, view point, lens choice, filters, format etc all play a part in creating an image and so too does post work which involves colour manipulation. What I find a bit disappointing at times is that the sat slider can be the most powerful tool in the toolbox to get a reaction. Of course people are naturally attracted to colour; it's hardwired into our brains. I find, however, at times it's akin to going for the cheap laugh in a comedy. I'm also of the opinion that images should not be restricted to a mirror likeness of what the photographer sees because you know what that's impossible. A machine will never truly mirror what the incredibly complicated human eye can see and great art I believe expresses what the soul feels anyway. Art should be restriction free. There is a trap one can fall into in a critique environment where one creates to the expectations of fellow artists rather than for personal expression. If you constantly reach for the same tool your artistic expression will not be too broad.
I feel the same way, I sometimes visit the gallery and some of them images woud make Galen Rowell's images look monchrome, well not quite but I believe there is a fine line between saturation that looks real and over saturation that looks like a cartoon scene. If nature photography is just a artist's expression on a scene why is it so shunned to add a element in a photo or clone one out but saturation that is over the top is applauded with "Wow", "Fantastic Colour", Great Light" etc.?
Each to their own on what they post andsome of theimages I agree are very nice, but totally agree the saturation slider has just gone to far.
Posted by Zack Schnepf on October 2, 2007 at 4:20 PM
Being that I just posted one of the most high contrast images that I've ever worked on, I have a few thoughts on the subject. My personal style has evolved over the last year or so, I find myself producing not only higher contrast images, but also darker tones. I think It helps to know that I don't care much about accuracy of how it looked when I photographed it, I'm not a documentary photographer, never have been. What I strive to do is recreate the emotional impression the scene, and over all experience had on me. In this way I think I define myself as an artist, if we all had the same sensibility there would be no art, we would all just be taking snap shots. I know there are people who could be defined as traditional, who might find this approach offensive in some way, but this is just my artistic expression of the experiences I've had.
Guy Tal had a wonderful article not too long ago that touched on what I'm talking about. Each person's brain interprets the world differently. And I couldn't be happier about this, I love seeing how differently we all see the world, and photograph it.
In answer to you main question, I think I have seen a minor shift in the overall saturation and contrast in peoples work. I think it has always been the case that when people see a photographers work they like they start to incorporate some of that into their own work. Just look at the effect Galen Rowell had on landscape photography, there will always be trends, and always be a progression in photography. I think certain popular photographers have been driving the general trend lately, but I don't see that as anything new. Like I said, I think there are always trends in photography.
Posted by Marc Adamus on October 2, 2007 at 7:12 PM
" What I find surprising, however, is the fact that many photographers claim that what you see in the photo is exactly how the scene looked when the capture was made."
It seems to me such a claim actually quite a rarity in ESS.
But when and if such a statement has been made by a photographer, I have never had any reason to doubt that the photo was their best attempt at accurate color.
Posted by Richard Wong on October 2, 2007 at 7:54 PM
I don't think number of views correlating with colorful photos necessarily means that it is a trend. Look at the medium for which our photos on NPN are presented. They are little thumbnails grouped together in a big list so the brighter stuff is the easiest to catch ones eye. Subtlety is often lost in this sort of medium due to the presentation. In an art gallery or book setting, the opposite might be true.
From my own experience, I find the actual scenes to be much more vibrant than what I'm able to capture from my camera. The first sunset I ever saw in the Owens Valley was the finest sunset I have ever seen and there's no way a camera could ever capture the power of that light. Spectacular light is a relatively rare occurance for most areas so I can definetely respect it when I see it in other people's photos.
Thanks for all the additional comments on this thread.
For the record, I hope I am not coming across as someone who doesn't like the photos on display. I was just trying to understand the reasons behind what I consider to be a shift in the NPN/ESS audience toward being more accepting of high staturation/contrast images. My observation was a personal one and I hope you all take it as such. Additionally, I have stated very clearly up front, that while I have been fortunate to experience extraordinary light on several occasions, I have not seen it all by a long shot.
Posted by Doug Andrews on October 3, 2007 at 2:57 PM
I was going to respond to your question, but then I read Tom Nevesely's post. He has summed up exactly how I feel about this topic. Although he did it in a much more succinct and elegant manner than I could have. Like Zack Schnepf said about himself, I'm not a documentary photographer either.
Posted by David Bostedo on October 3, 2007 at 8:01 PM
Anil - When I joined this site, I had never even heard of Velvia (or Tri-X or Provia or , etc...I've never shot film.) But after spending a couple of months around here, I came to appreciate Velvia, or photos done in a Velvia style. I didn't always think the colors were necessarily accurate, but neither did I think they were "colorized" or anything. I think the grandeur, or beauty, or whatever we take from a scene necessarily colors (pun intended )our perception of it.
This is all conjecture, but : I always figured that, just as cameras don't perfectly record a scene, neither do our minds. I'd be willing to bet that if you took twenty people and had them photograph the same view, then asked them to color correct the photo a week later, you'd get widely varying ideas of what accurate color is. Just differences in the way we see, AND the way we remember. So just because someone says "these are accurate colors", doesn't mean that they really are accurate; But it also doesn't mean that they're lying.
As far as the brightness of the thumbnails goes, I just browse All Photos by using the "Next Photo" link, so I rarely see thumbnails Seems to me this is a good way to see a lot of variety, both good and bad.
A couple of days ago I posted a (rather mediocre, IMO) image in ESS of what is easily the most vibrant sunset sky I've ever seen. No boost in saturation was needed or applied. If anything, what I posted didn't do the scene justice in terms of bold color. The shot wasn't broadly indicative of my photographic style--assuming one exists in the first place; I merely posted it to share the spectacle.
The image was made in New Mexico; I spend the vast majority of my time in the American Midwest (Illinois and Indiana). After what I witnessed, I'm far less likely to wonder whether apparently highly saturated scenes are unreal or not.
In my opinion, this site and ESS is particular, posters and commenters are far more matured and professional-minded than most other image forum/posting sites (like photo.net, etc.). I see quality images and very quality feedback. But the central question of whether some photos are oversaturated? May be yes - but I take it that as a photographer's choice to do so - as he/she tries to present it from his view and stir emotion and other feelings in the viewers mind. More views or more comments do not neccesarily makes an image stand out - as this is a forum of really experienced and matured photographer. I agree with Guy here - I see a good combination of good and great images - hardly any below average image. And I dont see any new trend - saturating images been there all the time - since Velvia
Discussion
18 repliesAny thoughts/comments?
Best regards.
As many landscape photographers switched from film (often Velvia) to digital, I thought I noticed more images with less saturation and contrast than one would expect from Velvia.
Funny thing I noticed is that I've completely eliminated saturation slider from my 'work flow' but using other subtle techniques (TK's masks for one) and trying to keep it to minimum. And then all of a sudden number of comments have gone below 10 (that does not necessarily have got anything to do with the saturation as Peter mentioned but perhaps with the quality of image itself).
Guy
How bout the fact that most of the bold colors come from male photogs? (who also dominate the galleries) Think there's an evolutionary tie there??
Adam
Adam: I don't have a problem with the photos themselves. Actually, I happen to like many of them. I was just commenting on the fact that high saturation images seem to be very popular of late (and btw most of them are being made using digital capture, so this doesn't have anything to do with Velvia per-se). I have always belived that photographers should have the creative freedom to realize their vision as they see fit. No problems on this front. What I find surprising, however, is the fact that many photographers claim that what you see in the photo is exactly how the scene looked when the capture was made. Now this might also be true; its just that in my travels so far I have never come across light of that nature. Of course, one can say that I haven't seen all that there is to see.
Personally, I don't make my images reflect what I saw; I make them reflect the way I felt when I witnessed and photographed the scene. If that sometimes means boosting the saturation than that's what I do. Then again, sometimes I reduce the saturation to create a almost monochrome look.
Each to their own on what they post andsome of theimages I agree are very nice, but totally agree the saturation slider has just gone to far.
Guy Tal had a wonderful article not too long ago that touched on what I'm talking about. Each person's brain interprets the world differently. And I couldn't be happier about this, I love seeing how differently we all see the world, and photograph it.
In answer to you main question, I think I have seen a minor shift in the overall saturation and contrast in peoples work. I think it has always been the case that when people see a photographers work they like they start to incorporate some of that into their own work. Just look at the effect Galen Rowell had on landscape photography, there will always be trends, and always be a progression in photography. I think certain popular photographers have been driving the general trend lately, but I don't see that as anything new. Like I said, I think there are always trends in photography.
It seems to me such a claim actually quite a rarity in ESS.
But when and if such a statement has been made by a photographer, I have never had any reason to doubt that the photo was their best attempt at accurate color.
From my own experience, I find the actual scenes to be much more vibrant than what I'm able to capture from my camera. The first sunset I ever saw in the Owens Valley was the finest sunset I have ever seen and there's no way a camera could ever capture the power of that light. Spectacular light is a relatively rare occurance for most areas so I can definetely respect it when I see it in other people's photos.
For the record, I hope I am not coming across as someone who doesn't like the photos on display. I was just trying to understand the reasons behind what I consider to be a shift in the NPN/ESS audience toward being more accepting of high staturation/contrast images. My observation was a personal one and I hope you all take it as such. Additionally, I have stated very clearly up front, that while I have been fortunate to experience extraordinary light on several occasions, I have not seen it all by a long shot.
This is all conjecture, but : I always figured that, just as cameras don't perfectly record a scene, neither do our minds. I'd be willing to bet that if you took twenty people and had them photograph the same view, then asked them to color correct the photo a week later, you'd get widely varying ideas of what accurate color is. Just differences in the way we see, AND the way we remember. So just because someone says "these are accurate colors", doesn't mean that they really are accurate; But it also doesn't mean that they're lying.
As far as the brightness of the thumbnails goes, I just browse All Photos by using the "Next Photo" link, so I rarely see thumbnails
The image was made in New Mexico; I spend the vast majority of my time in the American Midwest (Illinois and Indiana). After what I witnessed, I'm far less likely to wonder whether apparently highly saturated scenes are unreal or not.