Thoughts on Saturation?

Of all the photography sites, I respect the opinion of the NPN photographers the most.

With that in mind what are your thoughts on saturation? Here is an image to use as a baseline, however would really like to hear your personal opinions on how saturation is perceived by other photographers/editors/consumers etc. for ALL images as opposed to this one specifically. With so many tools at the photographers disposal, how do you personally determine the delicate balance between art and reality?

Drew,
Like the shot of Table Mt. Seems like a matter of personal preference, but if you want my take... I like color, although I think your magentas in the sky might be strong. When I have this question I don't look at the image for a couple of days and then come back and look at it with fresh eyes. I've found that consumers like lots of color (they'll always accuse you of using Photoshop) while the artsy folks (galleries, interior designers) like the saturation toned down. On this particular image I might try to pull some more detail out of the shadows. Hope that helps.

For most images, I'm trying to create a certain feeling. It may be the way the scene "felt" at the time; it may be something slightly different (moodier, darker, lighter, etc.). Saturation is a part of that creative process. Some images can withstand greater deviation from reality, some less, but the amount applied should be thoughtful and purposeful.

I don't get too concerned over how "real" an image is relative to the actual experience, but give more consideration to what achieves the desired effect.

At some point, however, you can go too far and if an image is too saturated (or less frequently, not saturated enough), that fact becomes evident to the viewer and can be a distraction. I see occasional images where excessive saturation is applied in an attempt to save an otherwise mediocre image; it rarely works well.

So I guess the short story is that I adjust saturation to achieve the desired effect without concern for what's "realistic", but also without making it noticeable in and of itself.

In this image, I think the blues are a little oversaturated in the sky; not egregiously so, but noticeable imo.

Hey Drew - Rick pretty much perfectly stated my own sentiments on this issue. I also agree with what David has to say about different potential buyers. I often go back and look at work that people like Galen Rowell were doing on film (usually Velvia) in the 80's and 90's just to keep a point of reference. Today everyone seems to suspect that digital processing is causing people to go overboard with saturation. However, I often find a lot of older images made with certain films go beyond much of what I see people doing digitally these days.

Sean -- Agreed 100%. In my more cynical moments, I think a Devil's Dictionary definition of "saturation" would be "That which every nature photographer believes other photographers use too much." Indeed, I think Velvia gave photographers a "license to saturate" that is now too easily condemned as "computer trickery."

I agree Sean. Also if you like it, a little extra color in life sometimes doesnt hurt :)

I've seen images that were way over the top and others that were in great need of "more" saturation. The problem is this is merely my opinion. In the end it's all in the eyes of the beholder/buyer/artist. One does NOT have to march to some pre-defined standard of how images ought to look. This is a totally subjective issue...

NEVER let some fool like ME direct how YOU do YOUR art! Do what satisfies your artistic itch!! If your goal is to be accurate in representing exactly what the camera saw then do that. If your goal is to interpret the mood you felt while being there in that stunning location then do that. The only rules that apply are the rules you apply to yourself.

The bounds of creativity in photography these days are limitless.

I like the way you put that Rick.

Great responses from all!

I just started taking photography seriously this past year and am trying to determine the limits of what is deemed "acceptable" from the viewpoint of consumers as well as other photographers.

I definitely agree with your comments Rick L. about freedom to express your personal vision which really is the root of photography. Sean, if I read your post right, it seems consumers expect/perceive images to be "reality" making for a delicate balance of expressing your vision and being able to pay the bills. I also agree with Rick D. that there's a point when saturation/processing starts to become the primary focus detracting from the impact and original intent of the image which again leads to the delicate balance between art and reality.

So it sounds like we really have 2 camps with different views on photography - consumers which are looking for reality (or close to it) and photographers which understand the process and don't mind a little more color to achieve a desired effect?

Now, we all know, a photograph is not an accurate portrayal of reality. If I put my 10.5mm lens on and take a picture of my friend, 3" from his nose, it'll be pretty clear that some, ehem, facts will be distorted. You see photographs of waterfalls with long exposure that obviously aren't showing something you'll ever see by just looking at the falls. Take a look at the picture on this post and there's no telling whether Drew's standing in a parking lot or if this is a 3 day backpacking trip into the wilderness (at least, unless you’ve been to the spot yourself). So, you can't not exert some degree of creative license with your photography.

One of the interesting things about photography, in my opinion anyway, is that we spend so much time trying to remove reality from the artistic work. Creating a accurate (at least subject to the issues I mention above) representation of reality is easy. Put any old lens on your body, put the exposure mode on “P”, point the camera in any reasonable direction, trigger the autofocus, and push the shutter release. Presto, you’ll have a (probably completely uninteresting) accurate representation of something. Generally, though, there’ll be no artistic value whatsoever in your photograph. The trick is to actually get an idea across. But, not just any idea will work; it ought to be something that comes across visually. (I went to Katmai National Park last June and none of the gazillions of pictures I took can even begin to convey what a brown bear cub sounds like as she’s drinking her mother’s milk. They purr! You ought to experience that that yourself. Ok, if you give me a video camera with a decent mic, a plane ticket, and a few days at the camp, I’m happy to go back and try to record it for you next spring. Perhaps I’m getting off topic…) Anyway, photography gives you a way to make the viewer see what you saw when you took the picture and that’s an awesome capability. However, when you see something, you’re generally doing more than just looking in its direction and taking in the visual stimulus. You’re thinking and, if you’re really involved, feeling a certain way as a reaction to what you’re seeing. Photography gives you a way to share that too. You (probably) want your viewer to feel like you felt when you made the image, but to do that, your viewer needs a certain amount of suspension of disbelief. It’s possible to stretch reality in Photoshop, and to some degree it may be necessary to in order to compensate for limitations in the medium, but if you go too far, it’s too hard for the viewer to believe and you’re just hurting your credibility. Another thing to bear in mind is that color is good for drawing attention to some part of the image, but once you’ve got the viewer’s attention, you need to do something with it.

To be concrete, take a look at this aereal shot of La Conte Bay from a trip to Alaska I made last year. Are the colors realistic? I’m pretty sure this is straight out of the camera (shot in JPEG because I’d lent the backup body to someone just before I took it on my trip, doh!). However, I’m worried that a viewer will assume I overused the saturation adjustments in Photoshop and won’t appreciate that the ice and water were actually that color.

In contrast, this shot this one of a mother and cub from my Katmai trip. I boosted the saturation quite a bit. I did it because I wanted the bears to stand out but I didn’t want to make them bigger or more central in the frame. Same goes for this but not this where I don’t think extra saturation would be anything but distracting.

I could have bumped the saturation quite a bit in this shot of a frog but I don’t think it would’ve added much (and might have made the image seem less genuine).

Similarly, this shot of the Straight of Juan de Fuca from Blue Mountain has the warm part of the a channel in L*a*b increased but intentionally left the cool part of the b channel unchanged because I wanted to focus attention on the sunset-lit fog. I think tweaking this more would make the image hard to believe.

Anyway, this is just my take on things. Think about the impact you’re creating with saturation and use that to temper or encourage changing it. In Drew’s shot here, I think that strong saturation makes the sky and the grass much stronger elements than they’d otherwise be. I think that’s a good thing for the grass, but the sky may have been overdone for my tastes. Again, just my opinion.

Sean

Very helpful Sean! I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned "Another thing to bear in mind is that color is good for drawing attention to some part of the image, but once you’ve got the viewer’s attention, you need to do something with it."

I've seen artistic images which use color as the primary subject combined with a few blades of grass in a reflection etc. which can work exceptionally well but in the case of the photo above, when your subject is the centerpiece of the image and is void of color, the saturated colors in the sky detract from the primary subject (mountains, foreground, trees and reflection). In this case I agree that color is used to grab the viewers attention, but the image lacks the ability to hold attention after the initial reaction and the viewer looses interest as a result.

Fascinating; of all things learned, its post processing that seems to be the most difficult to master. I am finding the monitor used for processing images, is at least as important as the choice in camera/lens. You can be at the right place at the right time/season with the best camera equipment, spend hours/days (and $) traveling to your destination, finding your composition, waiting for that one moment of capture and yet it is the post processing and equipment used to process the image which can make or break a shot in the end.

Saturation is like Cilantro, some like it heavy, some like it light, some hate it.