Posted by Larry Fischer on December 9, 2008 at 8:27 AM
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Question: With digital imaging and the subsequent processing of the photo, does anyone else think many photos show too much color?
How does one measure against what "is" rather than what we want it to be. Or is what we want it to be the "art" of processing??? and photography?
Comments.
"We are only free because of the brave."
the fisch
Posted by Robert Fisher on December 9, 2008 at 8:54 AM
Larry, I get told all the time that my stuff is 'too saturated'. I even posted a very similar thread to yours in another forum asking whether people had some odd fear of colour.
Seems like a lot of people have forgot (or never knew) about films like Velveeta. Or that other one that Fuji made by accident, I forget the name (I've got a couple rolls in my freezer still) that was like Velvia on steroids. Kodak had a slide film that had really punched up colours to - Kodak something something Extra Color. Not quite to the Velvia level but certainly more than many others.
Colour can be taken too far, of course. If we push it too much then colours become clipped and blown out. Just like highlights can become blown out, so can colours. You start to get colour bleed and a loss of detail.
No one other than you can determine what 'is' or was. Unless you were with someone else, only you know what the colours were like at the moment in time and at the place where the shot was taken. Given that, only you know whether the colours have been bumped up in editing. Unless it's obvious that colours are being clipped, comments like 'it's too saturated' are pretty much meaningless. Now, if someone were to say 'it's too saturated for my liking' or 'I prefer colour that's a little more muted' that would be valid because that's a subjective interpretation of what they prefer. But in most cases an objective statement like 'it's too saturated' means nothing.
It depends entirely on the intended use. For art prints, that can be a fair criticism. But for advertizing, color sells and many AD's feel the more the better. I guess it depends on whether a photographer needs to feel like a "purist" or be flexible to match sales ops. After surviving and growing a photo business for over 20 years, you can bet that I'm flex. But I work really, really hard to understand and meet the needs of particular markets. No starving artists in our household, just well-fed pragmatists.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on December 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM
I've gotten that question fairly frequently, especially as digital has taken over. The assumption among many viewers is that the color has been digitally enhanced, rather than captured.
Interestingly, when I have the rare film photographer going through my work, I get often asked if it was Velvia.
And just to keep things different, I have one sunset that I actually had to tone *down* the color on to get it withint the realm of believeable. The slide has some really amazing color on it and it always gets responses when I show it.
My basic feeling is that I want to get back to the original slide, or at least as close to it as I can. For digital shots, to get to color that is reasonably natural, given the medium. It takes time to go significantly further and except for my top end show images, any more work violates my 7 minute rule. I am definitely Photoshop lazy!
(The 7 minute rule is if it takes more that 7 minutes to get the shot to 95% perfect, including dust spotting, the image gets deleted. 95% looks really good and exceeds stock requirements, 99% is my show stock, which occasionally reaches 3-5 hours+ of work, and I don't think I'll ever reach 100% perfect. I don't always adhere to this rule, but it keeps me moving through my images, extremely critical of in-camera mistakes and discourages wasting time on images that I am emotionally attached to without good cause).
In the end, I think it comes down to what you want from your images and what your target audience is. I'd be really careful about "enhanced" color on a natural history stock shot, but less picky for an art print (where the impact of the photo can become more important). And remember, the current DSLR's are designed to maximize the information saved in the file rather that the file itself, so you'll always have to do some work on the file anyway.
There really isn't a right answer to this. As Hank says, you really need to understand the needs of the market you are trying to appeal to.
It is simply speculation on my part, but I do wonder if many people who criticize colour are aware of post processing in film let alone camera filtration. Many of the post processing techniques were prohibitive due to cost but many software programs have diminished both cost and time making such techniques more readily available to a greater number of people.
There may also be a factor in that a greater number of people are aware of the possibilities of software manipulation than of film post processing. It may be that despite the advances of digital photography, many people regard photographic realism in film terms rather than the possibilities that new digital technology offers.
One of my mentors from the days of Black and White emphasized that a print should be made to best reflect the subject. I don't know that digital processing has changed that.
Posted by Les Barstow on December 9, 2008 at 5:54 PM
I try not to over-saturate my images to the point where they look "otherworldly". Beyond that, I attempt to capture the feeling of the image rather than the absolute accuracy of the sensor capture.
Some examples... My D2X produces extremely washed out images in foggy condition; I would be dishonest in my representation of the scene if I presented the image as the D2X says I should. On the other hand, how many times do you hear expressions of disbelief over as-is images of red rocks at sunrise or sunset? Or of sunsets themselves?
Posted by Larry Fischer on December 9, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Thanks for the replies so far.
Appears digital is art as is all photography.
I've had a few sunsets, right out of the camera, that had unbelievable color, too.
More recently I've played with D-Lighting in the Nikon format. It appears, that with NX2, the "best quality" d-lighting boosts color, or at least there appears to be a color shift in saturation.
So, know your craft and your audience.
I do like digital. I did not do much film darkroom stuff so the ability to do the things we can do is fun, and in some cases, profitable. Way to go Hank!!! ---- 20 years!!!
the fisch
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." -- Elmer Letterman
Well, if they think your images have too much color and they did not commission the work, then they don't have to buy it. They probably were not going to buy it regardless...they just felt the need to comment about something they have little understanding about. If they are genuinely interested in your answer, then fine. Otherwise...please move along!!!! (them that is!!) hahahah Wish it was that easy.
Oh yeah, the color is exactly what YOU desire it to unless it is a commissioned work and you have been told to be exact and not to saturate.
I just finished an experiment worth passing along since I see you're using Nikon, Larry.
I was shooting my D2X alongside several Canon shooters, then reviewing results each night on laptops. The Canon images were way more saturated and contrasty than mine. I went into the camera controls and changed the color and contrast settings from my usual "zero", and viola!! I'd turned my Nikon into a Nikanon. Results were very similar to those on the Canons.
Looking carefully at the results, many times I was getting images more like I see after processing. But in other cases results were absolutely lurid and unacceptable. I've since returned the camera controls to zero and rely on my own smarts to bring things to the level I want them in post processing.
But this should come through loud and clear: There really are differences in rendering between camera brands and I suspect even models in the same brand-- Before we ever get around to the question of post processing.
Posted by Robert Fisher on December 9, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Interesting experiment, Hank but it raises some questions. Were you shooting RAW or JPEG? Were you using the respective Canon and Nikon software to view the images or a 'neutral' third party like ACR? If JPEG, I can see where there'd be a difference based on in camera settings. Similarly if using the OEM software and shooting RAW, the software (Canon's does anyway) picks up the in camera settings for the RAW preview. But if shooting RAW and using ACR (or some other 'neutral' software) then the in camera settings aren't picked up except for exposure and WB (at least that's the way it is with ACR and I believe others too).
Digital photography did not create the incongruity of what was and what you show. The visible result of a camera->sensor->process->presentation is, and always was, far removed from reality. It doesn't matter if you use film, digital, glass plates or a stick in the sand - None of it is real. There is no way to measure against what "is" to what we chose to present.
We were shooting RAW, jpeg and tiffs, depending on the individual, Robert. We also were moving images back and forth between a few laptops and viewing them on a range of softwares. You could definitely sort the Canon images from the Nikon images, at least till I came up with my Nikanon solution.
Posted by Jerry Greer on December 10, 2008 at 1:18 AM
Yes, landscape photography has gotten way to unnatural over the past few years. However, it does sell! As a conservation based landscape photographer, I've found myself migrating back to the "believable landscape" photograph with a more neutral color palette. It doesn't make you a hit in the forums but the forums is not where I make my living.
Posted by Robert Fisher on December 10, 2008 at 8:23 AM
Sure, I can believe there would be differences even in the RAW files, Hank. I was just curious how the images were being made and viewed.
Discussion
13 repliesQuestion: With digital imaging and the subsequent processing of the photo, does anyone else think many photos show too much color?
How does one measure against what "is" rather than what we want it to be. Or is what we want it to be the "art" of processing??? and photography?
Comments.
"We are only free because of the brave."
the fisch
Seems like a lot of people have forgot (or never knew) about films like Velveeta. Or that other one that Fuji made by accident, I forget the name (I've got a couple rolls in my freezer still) that was like Velvia on steroids. Kodak had a slide film that had really punched up colours to - Kodak something something Extra Color. Not quite to the Velvia level but certainly more than many others.
Colour can be taken too far, of course. If we push it too much then colours become clipped and blown out. Just like highlights can become blown out, so can colours. You start to get colour bleed and a loss of detail.
No one other than you can determine what 'is' or was. Unless you were with someone else, only you know what the colours were like at the moment in time and at the place where the shot was taken. Given that, only you know whether the colours have been bumped up in editing. Unless it's obvious that colours are being clipped, comments like 'it's too saturated' are pretty much meaningless. Now, if someone were to say 'it's too saturated for my liking' or 'I prefer colour that's a little more muted' that would be valid because that's a subjective interpretation of what they prefer. But in most cases an objective statement like 'it's too saturated' means nothing.
Interestingly, when I have the rare film photographer going through my work, I get often asked if it was Velvia.
And just to keep things different, I have one sunset that I actually had to tone *down* the color on to get it withint the realm of believeable. The slide has some really amazing color on it and it always gets responses when I show it.
My basic feeling is that I want to get back to the original slide, or at least as close to it as I can. For digital shots, to get to color that is reasonably natural, given the medium. It takes time to go significantly further and except for my top end show images, any more work violates my 7 minute rule. I am definitely Photoshop lazy!
(The 7 minute rule is if it takes more that 7 minutes to get the shot to 95% perfect, including dust spotting, the image gets deleted. 95% looks really good and exceeds stock requirements, 99% is my show stock, which occasionally reaches 3-5 hours+ of work, and I don't think I'll ever reach 100% perfect. I don't always adhere to this rule, but it keeps me moving through my images, extremely critical of in-camera mistakes and discourages wasting time on images that I am emotionally attached to without good cause).
In the end, I think it comes down to what you want from your images and what your target audience is. I'd be really careful about "enhanced" color on a natural history stock shot, but less picky for an art print (where the impact of the photo can become more important). And remember, the current DSLR's are designed to maximize the information saved in the file rather that the file itself, so you'll always have to do some work on the file anyway.
There really isn't a right answer to this. As Hank says, you really need to understand the needs of the market you are trying to appeal to.
There may also be a factor in that a greater number of people are aware of the possibilities of software manipulation than of film post processing. It may be that despite the advances of digital photography, many people regard photographic realism in film terms rather than the possibilities that new digital technology offers.
One of my mentors from the days of Black and White emphasized that a print should be made to best reflect the subject. I don't know that digital processing has changed that.
Some examples... My D2X produces extremely washed out images in foggy condition; I would be dishonest in my representation of the scene if I presented the image as the D2X says I should. On the other hand, how many times do you hear expressions of disbelief over as-is images of red rocks at sunrise or sunset? Or of sunsets themselves?
Appears digital is art as is all photography.
I've had a few sunsets, right out of the camera, that had unbelievable color, too.
More recently I've played with D-Lighting in the Nikon format. It appears, that with NX2, the "best quality" d-lighting boosts color, or at least there appears to be a color shift in saturation.
So, know your craft and your audience.
I do like digital. I did not do much film darkroom stuff so the ability to do the things we can do is fun, and in some cases, profitable. Way to go Hank!!! ---- 20 years!!!
the fisch
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." -- Elmer Letterman
Oh yeah, the color is exactly what YOU desire it to unless it is a commissioned work and you have been told to be exact and not to saturate.
Troup
I was shooting my D2X alongside several Canon shooters, then reviewing results each night on laptops. The Canon images were way more saturated and contrasty than mine. I went into the camera controls and changed the color and contrast settings from my usual "zero", and viola!! I'd turned my Nikon into a Nikanon. Results were very similar to those on the Canons.
Looking carefully at the results, many times I was getting images more like I see after processing. But in other cases results were absolutely lurid and unacceptable. I've since returned the camera controls to zero and rely on my own smarts to bring things to the level I want them in post processing.
But this should come through loud and clear: There really are differences in rendering between camera brands and I suspect even models in the same brand-- Before we ever get around to the question of post processing.
Pete D.