Many, many landscape images get posted here at NPN, especially at ESS. Quite many of them are – naturally – taken at sunrise/sunset. Yes, many of them are saturated in PS, how much and if TOO much, is often highly subjective. As some reduce down to b&w some do oversaturate – who is to judge what’s right or wrong? After all it is each ones celebration of the witnessed moment. Concerning “natural”: As so many images are very, very saturated (to put it this way) I sense a certain suspicion or tiredness of it among viewers and it does go so far, that most “sweet light”- images will first of all be judged on how natural the light or the colors appear to the viewer. (it is an internet/digital post processing- era phenomena)
I can in no way detect a general standard/rule on how this is done or how it is measured but can only guess it depends on how much and how often people themselves spend time outdoors, trying to get he most unusual light conditions. Sometimes images get critisized that were quite conservative in my mind - even desaturated! Then some photographers DO catch really great lightshows and get burned by saying it looks unreal and over the top… (it’s a different story when the high saturation brings some digital artifacts, halos and so on, which is more a question of processing skills) As someone who spends pretty many hours outdoors I have seen very special situations, when light is extremely intense, “painting” the landscape to a degree, that it does look oversaturated even when standing there just looking at it in person. But you have to be “out there” often to witness it and even then it will not be happening every week. So what IS real or natural?
Yes, there is an overflow of saturated sunset/sunrise images and we all should be carefuI to not overload our viewers with fantasy shots. Make it the exception in your portfolio not the rule, is probably a good idea. But I find it rather sad when all too often those intense images get analyzed only by “how natural” they look or “how real” they might be. There is a certain mistrust (and, yes, even disrespect) coming along with it and also a certain pessimism, that we won’t expect anything like this to really happen. It sure must be a lie, right? Does it come from looking at PS curves and levels too much, instead of getting out more often? Shouldn’t we all dream of fantasy like places (how small they might be) and of dreamy light conditions? For me, after all, it is a big part of my motivation of going outdoors to “find” these moments, I try to anticipate them as often as I can, most of the time in vain. Still, I always dream of a situation that beats all the other “light shows” before and somehow envy all others who seem to have been lucky to be there at the right time. I pushes me to try harder, for these few incredible moments I have seen in person lasted in my brain the longest and I really hope for all those “natural light”- makers and “real color”-specialists to witness something like it (or better) too, so they stop thinking about realness and naturalness too much. Reality can be quite unreal sometimes.
So – I just throw this out here, very selfishly, because I had to get it out. It sure would be interesting how much or less some of you disagree, but I won’t be able to directly communicate, because here it is late afternoon – work ends (children wait in eager anticipation…) and I’ll shut down the pc shortly.
cheers
georg
Posted by Brad Hill on February 12, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Hi Georg,
I come at this from a different perspective - one who rarely posts in the ESS gallery. This has nothing to do with having anything at all against the ESS gallery - it's simply because I'm going through a phase where I'm not shooting many landscapes. But, when I do poke my nose in there I almost feel like I need to put sunglasses on. Your point about the impossibility of assessing the "naturalness" of a scene is well taken and has a lot of validity to it, but I do get the feeling that we have a bit of a saturation "arms race" going on in digital landscape photography right now. I fully acknowledge how the colours of an RGB image on a calibrated monitor can look more vivid and punchy than their CMYK brethren in the print world, but when I pick up some of my "old classic" favourite landscape photography books, they look SO pale in comparison (yet for some reason they still do look quite realistic to me!). Please don't think I'm talking about old, faded images - I'm referring to books printed using hexachrome printing techniques (and images shot with Velvia film!!).
My first thought (and I really am open to suggestion or correction on this point) is that the frequency of over-saturated images in landscape photography has got to the point where if you DON'T DO IT, your images are at a distinct disadvantage - unless, of course, you successfully convert to B&W. Thus, figuring out a way to reverse the trend (if it even exists), is problematic and similar to the some of the problems in game theory: if everyone backs off on the saturation then the guy who doesn't (i.e., cheats) is rewarded...and soon the whole saturation race begins again.
This comment from a very novice landscape shooter...and based largely on first impressions when I glance through the ESS gallery and look at other landscape images online. Any trends I think I've noticed (and have now commented on) may be simply "sampling" errors based on seeing too few landscape images. I could easily be totally wrong...
Just two cents worth from a dumb bear photographer who knows diddly-squat about landscape photography...
Brad
Posted by Don Grall on February 12, 2009 at 2:01 PM
I agree that many posts, not just in ESS, but other forums as well, appear to be improved upon either with extra saturation, or extra contrast, etc. I'm sure there are many reasons for this.
One reason I'll throw out there is from my experience in past posts. I usually work in 1998 Adobe RGB color space, but if you post an image in this color space on the internet which is sRGB you will experience a good deal of desaturation and loss of contrast. So then either you have to guess what the sRGB color space will do to your 1998AdobeRGB image by increasing saturation and contrast, cross your fingers, and post, or you have to convert it to sRGB then adjust accordingly and post. But even after adjusting to sRGB I will still see some decreases in saturation and contrast once it is on the web and so it still becomes a guessing game which means some will possibly come out looking a bit overcooked and others won't.
The other aspect is what kind of monitor the person viewing it is using vs. the monitor it was prepared on. I still use a calibrated CRT monitor. Others use calibrated LCD monitors. Is there or should there be a CRT/LCD difference if both are calibrated? If so maybe the calibrations are not equal, is 1.8 or 2.2 gamma being used, etc.
Another factor is working with a specific image for too long. Being human your eye becomes accustomed to the adjusted condition of the image, after awhile you might question whether it needs a bit more of this or less of that, so you play with it a bit more. A few days later after viewing other images you may open that first one up again and think, gosh, geewhiz, it really does look like it needs a bit of a push here or there. At some point it may go beyond the realm of reality when you took it, but now your memory of the qualities at the moment of capture could be tainted by all the playing around you did with it.
It all boils down to a subjective rendition of what you saw when you pressed the shutter, balanced with how you want to present it to the rest of the world. Should reality be emphasized or artistic impression be emphasized. Only the photographer who took the image can decide that. So if a specific image appears overprocessed, post that in your response but don't forget to add that it is only your subjective opinion and in no way should it be considered right or wrong. Let the photographer decide to agree or disagree with you.
This is why I will rarely enter photography contests. One set of judges will pick a totally different set of winners than another set of judges and this is good, because if everybody thought the same way we wouldn't have the wonderful diversity of images we are flooded with on a daily basis.
Keep those images coming!
Don
Posted by Steve Foss on February 12, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Good thoughts thoughtfully presented, Don.
I was pondering whether to even bother posting my perspective, which would have been something along the lines of: "All art is up to the artist. Deal with it." But you've provided a much better reflection of ideas than my curt response. Thanks for so succinctly and levelheadedly echoing what I believe.
Posted by Wayne Rhodus on February 12, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Georg, you make some interesting observations. My question; is landscape photography by default to be held to editorial/photojournalist standards of realism? Or is it one's art, open to the photographer's individual intrepretation?
Posted by Brad Hill on February 12, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Hi Wayne,
I know your question wasn't addressed to me, but it brings up a lot of interesting issues. For example, I often wonder about the impact of the idea that nature photography is simply art and therefore exempt from "realism". One manifestation of this is that the non-photographic community is beginning to doubt the authenticity of any image of nature. I see this all the time when people look at one of my images in a gallery and instantly say "that can't be real...it must be Photoshopped" or (my favourite) "Is that real or has it been Photoshopped?" (which must mean that the mean we open an image in Photoshop it becomes "non-real" ). This increasingly common viewpoint of photos of nature being "faked" can have a negative consequence on the economic value of a print...
I'm not at all saying that I have the answer or that we should strive to make photographs of nature "real" (whatever that is). I'm simply pondering the consequences of the view that nature photography is "art" and therefore anything goes...
Brad
Posted by Robert Fisher on February 12, 2009 at 2:47 PM
This is interesting. I started a discussion on another forum a while back about a general 'chromophobia' I saw that was particular to that site. When someone posted a photo that had vibrant colour; regardless of how realistic it might have been, comments inevitably came back about the colour and how it was too much or oversaturated. Unless someone commenting on the photo was standing beside you at the time it was taken and knows whether or not it's realistic then comments about oversaturation or unrealistic colour are just falderal. Even then, so what if it's not strictly 'genuine' to the point in time? It can be taken too far, sure. If a channel has become clipped as a result of tweaking or if you start to get colour bleed then it's too much. Aside from that though, does it really matter? If it makes you happy as the photographer and it makes your target market happy then who cares? Is b&w realistic? No, not in the least. The world has colour. Why don't people get their knickers in a twist over b&w photos as being completely unrealistic? Why is this debate so prevalent now? Is Velveeta realistic (either as film or cheese)? No, not in the least; yet both have a big market and broad following (maybe less now for the film).
People are skeptical of digital. I entered one of my impressionistic photos in a juried show this past fall. It didn't make the cut but one of the organizers of the show bought it. I had printed it on canvas and stretched it so it had that nice 'painterly' look. I asked her if she wanted to know how it was done (she's a painter herself). She said she didn't really care how it was done, she just liked it. A couple other people who were standing around and overheard the conversation chimed in that it must have been a digital alteration. They were quite shocked when I told them that it was a single shot done in camera with a longish shutter speed and camera movement. In this day and age, they figured it just had to be a piece of digital art and not a 'real' photograph. But the woman who bought it telling me she didn't care how it was done, that she just liked it, told me all I needed to hear. If it's not for strict PJ purposes then what does it matter what's been done? Most people who make those types of statements or who are so skeptical are working from a position of ignorance. They don't know what it takes to produce a well made photo - digitally or traditionally. They don't know what machinations people went through with film to produce highly saturated photos (polarizers, enhancers) or shift the colour balance (warming filters, cooling filters) for example. So called 'traditional art' is accepted as a 'representation' of reality. Why shouldn't photography be accepted the same way (again, with the caveats of things like PJ or catalogue work where accuracy of reproduction is important)?
We all have our personal limits of what we will or won't do to a photo in editing. But who am I, or anyone else, to tell someone else that their personal ethic is wrong? We may not agree with what they do but that doesn't make them wrong or us wrong. I'm giving a presentation to a photo group next week. The topic is pretty nebulous "Creating Photographic Art" - their topic idea, not mine. I was a bit concerned when first presented with the topic because I wasn't sure whether I could come with 90 minutes of material on it. As I talked to the events organizer for this group more, it became very clear that he and I had very different ideas of what this topic should cover. That's when it hit me. The very subjectivity of the topic is going to be a big part of what I discuss. These very ideas - what's 'right' or 'wrong' to do in editing a photo, is highly saturated colour proper and so forth - are what I'm going to address for probably about half the time and my hope is to engage the group in a bit of a debate on the topic. The overriding theme though will be that in the end, we have to find our own inspiration for what we do and why we do it and the rest is just a philosophical argument.
I read Georg's comments about how we might be taking colour saturation too far, that we should reserve it for only a few, select photos then go look at his portfolio here and his website and I see a great number of very colourful, highly saturated photos. So the question I have for you Georg is this: Are you experiencing a philosophical shift in how you approach your photography? And if so, what is it that's caused this shift?
Posted by Wayne Rhodus on February 12, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Hey Brad,
I'm not sure the non-photographic community is just starting to doubt the authenticity of nature photography, I think that's been going on for some time now, but there's no denying that it exists. The people who make the observations of "that can't be real" have probably never witnessed a spectacular sunrise or sunset themselves and most often have experienced life in the flat light of mid day.
I'm not taking sides one way or the other here on the issue of over-saturation. For me it's simple, your images are your art and as such, each artist sets his or her own standards knowing that the community at large will form their own opinions as to their level of reality.
Great thread; I'm sure there will be lots of opinions on this one.
Hi Georg, no doubt like most all aspects of posted images it is all "subjective". Not to deviate too much from the heading of saturation there are times when a critique may be directed towards the composition including something or not including something. How could you judge that having not been there to see what the composition could or could not include? “Gosh, I wish there were some clouds in this image”. I’m sure the photographer wished there were too, maybe or maybe not.
So, back to over saturation, what could be totally judged on that item beyond what is viewed as a finished product as it is being presented? In keeping with the thoughts along the lines of purists, most images posted could be seen as being over saturated. But, unless you are there how could one really tell beyond the failed post processing errors of over saturation? Truly the answer should not be, "this does not look real". What it does maybe look to be is over saturated and nothing more. The answer should be, "turn down the saturation a bit and it should, OR, could present some more detail".
In order to present images with a "respectable" amount of saturation level agreeable to most, maybe PS should add Auto Saturation to go along with Auto Levels, Auto Contrast, and Auto Color. Now, what or who at Adobe would gauge the setting on that feature across all monitors, likes, dislikes, and opinions? If nothing else it might at least bring it into a ballpark setting giving the person a second look and thought as to how much the saturation crept up or down on them while they were processing it, basically, bringing it a bit more into “reality” as it were. Again, where ever that “reality” mark might be located. Obviously some fine-tuning off that point is open for one’s own final tastes. This would not only maybe save the image from nits on over saturation, but also save the image from the nits on bleached out under saturation too. Once again, all subjective IMO.
Posted by Mark Windom on February 12, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Oversaturation isn't unique to the digital age. Think Velvia...
In the stock industry saturation sells. Some fine art work looks better desaturated, depends on the subject matter.
If you're in the business of selling your work then the degree that you saturate or desaturate your image is often based on your target market(s). If you are shooting for yourself then do whatever makes you happy.
Posted by David Bostedo on February 12, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Is b&w realistic? No, not in the least. The world has colour. Why don't people get their knickers in a twist over b&w photos as being completely unrealistic?
My guess would be because a b&w image, being so totally different from reality, isn't expected to convey real colors. However, people's assumption about the color photograph is that it's intended to convey real colors. Therefore, you get "those colors can't be real" comments.
Just checking in before going to sleep…
Thanks to all who took time to write their opinion!
Funny – If you read the 2nd part of my entry, you’ll see I am not so hard on the photographers saturating their images. NOT AT ALL! (yea, why not Robert, you can even count me among them, if you wish) With some images I like it, with others I don’t) I just believe we have some oversensibilized viewers and images too often get JUST judged whether they are real or natural looking.
B&w real? : EXACTLY what David just wrote! I left that comparsion out because I believe it is common ground here anyways. But I see no reason why a color shot is supposed to be more real than a b&w. The same as I think it’s common ground, that we see a mighty huge number of sunsets or sunrises. My problem (if I have one at all) with these is, however, never the saturation itself, but mostly the fact, that they seldomly showcase more than the saturation. Maybe that’s part of the problem, because THEN (when there is not much else to see) this is where the images get measured… hmmm.
But here I often see very, very good images and the viewers tend to be too negative.
It seems WE VIEWERS are very oversaturated!
OF COURSE I am all for artists freedom, it’s up to each one how far you want go. I wanted to say I am still among the believers of those freaky light shows and I think we all should be a little more relaxed about the saturation-thing.
Also checking in before going to sleep - and having to add my thoughts.
I always find these discussions interesting.
Saturation and the emphasis of certain colours and high contrast increases the appeal of many images and I don't see a flaw in that. I think it is the purpose of photography to beginn with. There's a simple reason why velvia is so successful. I guess if I would go MF or LF, I also would choose Velvia. The simple truth for me is that in many cases, strong colors make a good image even stronger. Photographers AND "normal" people are drawn to saturated colors. Why is overcast light not favourable? Why do we all like sunsets and sunrises? So why not emphasize what we like it reality (colors and saturation) a bit more with a particular technique.
However I have to state something provocative. I think we photographers are a bit hypocritical and lying in the pockets with justification-statements like: "This is what I saw" Obviously one feels obliged to justify the saturation.? Why? I think it is as stupid as claiming that (This is what I saw) for a bw-image!
C'ome on guys. "This is what *I want* the image to look like" would be the correct nomenclature. Who dares to state this on his website or in his gallery?
I agree that many non-photographers are not aware of certain light and saturation levels of colors - because they are either not out there in the magic hours, or if they happen to be, then they do not consciously consider that the saturation-level and "sweetness" is quite high , and different from what they usually see when they are in the traffic jam on their way to work. I think their reaction to saturated images comes from that. But we have to admit that emphasizing all this evenmore with a high contrast, high saturation film and with filters will not help the casual consumer to believe the reality of that scene. And then trying to "explain that it yet is "real" is just not right either. Because it simply does not look like humans see. Not knowing much about this but: the mind corrects color-casts, while film does not, but that's often used to create a "rendered" reality. And I can only say for my self, that some stuff I see in photographers work in print does has a saturation which exceeds everyting I saw in real life. And I may not climb the high Sierras, but I do observe and if not everyday, not even every year I guess I have seen some crazy light already and I know what I do to my images, and I know what digi-velvia-filters do. I am not saying that this is a flaw, but it can be expected that non-photographers perceive this as manipulation. The problem is that they do not understand that "manipulation" and interpretation is the whole deal in all creative endeavors - so also in photography. How long must a painter "manipulate" the white empty canvass until it looks like he wants it too look? ;-)
Why bw is not questioned? Because here the abstraction and artistic rendition is so obvious that it really is just stupid to judge it based on comparisons with real conditions.
Color-photography at least is (only) similar to what we see, so here the human mind immediatly makes comparisons.
So, that's enough for now.
Regards
Dietrich
Posted by Lon Overacker on February 12, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Georg,
Great topic, although these kind of things usually just end up as circular discussions where ultimately it's just everyone's opinion and "it depends."
You've made a number of good discussion points, but I'm not really clear exactly what you're saying. "Make it the exception in your portfolio not the rule" is the "it depends" answer and I agree to a certain extent that we should be aware of what we are creating... then on the other hand, I think that most would agree that as artist's, we have the creative license to produce what ever we want; it's our personal interpretation of a scene or an event that makes us unique in a world of pretty pictures.
I think your other point is how we as photographers view and analyze photographic images. "We viewers are very oversaturated" and "But I find it rather sad when all too often those intense images get analyzed only by “how natural” they look or “how real” they might be." I'm reading this as something you don't care for when comments are made either saying: "this is very natural looking" or "this un-natural or unreal." Is that correct?
If this is the case, I don't really agree. How can we say on one hand that as a photographic artist, we are free to interpret and present our work creatively (which may include saturation among other things,) and then on the other hand not have the same principals when it comes to a viewer's opinion? In other words, I as a viewer of an image will have a reaction and interpret it much differently than you and everyone else. When I make a comment, "the colors look quite natural to me," I would make that comment because it in fact looks "natural" to me. It might look un-natural to the next viewer. So when I read comments along these lines, I'm not bothered by that because I understand that we are all individuals and we will all "see" things differently.
Which finally gets to something that I have never heard discussed before and I think is related to this discussion. I think it's safe to say that we all have unique dna, unique metabolisms and unique upbringing and influences. Think about how some people have sensitivities to different smells, different tastes and even different sounds or tones. Has it ever been discussed how we as individuals might be interpreting and processing color through our vision? Isn't it possible that when two people are staring in to a bright, clear summer blue sky, that they don't see the exact same color? We're so used to numbers between 0 - 255 and mathematically we can all understand that the primary color blue is 0,0,255.
Have you ever done this? I've stood outside looking at a blue sky. I then go back inside and try my best to match that color that's in my mind to a color on the computer. I can almost guarentee that a dozen or a hundred people wouldn't pick the same numerical values (not even considering monitors, our pal Kelvin, room lighting, etc.)
I guess my point is that both the photographer/creator AND the viewer have a creative license to interpret colors and saturation according to what they like and feel comfortable with. So in the end, I have no issues with folks making comments along the lines of being "natural" or "real." Those comments are more than likely exactly how that person feels about and reacts to an image. And just as the photographer is free to create, the viewer or critiquer is free to offer an opinion, natural or not.
I hope I didn't misinterpret your thoughts Georg and also that my thoughts made sense... :-)
yeah, yeah, it all depends... easy to say and easy to fall back to when not wanting to make a standpoint.
Dietrich: "...what I felt and saw"... that wasn't true when AA said it half a century ago, of course, and he most likely was very aware of it. But this was more innocent times... It's a phrase very often heard in the US of A but hardly anywhere else in photographers circles. So, very brave for you to say that( ), but I totally agree... And, yes, we photographers are very hypocritical when it comes to that. The "it all depends" defense is just a proof for that, after all. But you can get burned quite easily when saying that loud and it is especially dangerous when you just started out and want to make your way up in this field...
But these are different subjects and I don't want to be the bad guy (again) who have brought that up...
Lon, of course you are right that each one of us is unique and sees and smells and feels uniquely. I'm afraid sometimes you have to REMEMBER people that this is the case! I think we all (or lets reduce it to NPN... nature photographers are ESPECIALLY prone to this) tend to see things way too uniformly! We are made to. We are forced to do and taste and smell and dream and whatever as much as possible in the same way. (it's what I call the "Prokrustes Effect") Same thing with viewing images. And I do believe (nature) photographers nowadays are especially prone to view images with curves and levels etc. in mind and can hardly let go of all these preconceived expectations. While we like to scream how different we all are, we do as much as we can to all be the same... Yes, it's a reason why I personally don't care too much if somebody finds my image natural or not. It just doesn't mean a whole lot. But I know it is meant nicely and there is nothing wrong in saying it, it just should be one of the least important factors. I wouldn't have written that, if I wouldn't have seen it so often here at the ESS gallery.
It all depends, but it helps other photographers (when commenting on their images) and it help in a photographic way to analyze yourself a bit on what it actually IS, that is making yourself so unique after all and where are you just swimming with the stream or bark with the pack...
georg
This whole thread is a fascinating discussion. I want to add only two little things.
1. Even if nature photography is considered a fine art, there ought to be criteria that, once they are articulated clearly enough in words, most nature photographers can agree on. I'm retired from being a literature and writing professor, and even when I was in graduate school the "subjective" / "one's own opinion" kind of response to poetry (say) was crowding out the millennia-long tradition of aesthetic judgment. "It all depends" isn't a good enough answer because some things don't depend. I think it would be enlightening and helpful (and entertaining, in the formulation, the writing, and the reading) to discuss those aspects of nature photography that don't depend on the idiosyncrasies of photographers, of the people who look at photographs, of the editors and critics who fairly or unfairly set visual trends.
2. Closer to Georg's initial topic is the influence of the light one lives in on what one wants to see in photographs. On another forum I took part in one of those "challenges" to process a RAW file. My rendition made the landscape (mountains, lake, clouds) look like the photo was taken in the western US at 5,000 feet elevation. I live in the west at 4,200 ft. Another photographer, an Italian, treated the light so that it reminded me of Italian-Renaissance painters' depictions. I thought that was coincidence until the same light appeared in another Italian's photograph. This extends to comments about "harsh light": photos of mountains and canyonlands that I enjoy because they capture the color of the sky and the clarity of the air usually get comments about the desirability of "softer light" from people who almost inevitably live near sea level. I don't know exactly where this observation fits in terms of "idiosyncrasy," but the habitual altitude of photographers does seem to relate to what is "oversaturated" and what is "representational."
it is often a case in a local fotoclub georg. All the people find my images saturated and mention that they have never seen such colors. Which also means they are shooting with auto everything from 10AM to 4PM and then enjoying their stay in a hotel.
As I say - Photography is manipulation.
Posted by Andreas Resch on February 13, 2009 at 7:54 AM
That's a great discussion and some very interesting responses so far. Here are my 2c.
Initially we have to differentiate between saturation from a technical or a personal point of view. From a technical side there definitely is a point where saturation damages (or rather distorts) an image, from a personal standpoint the word "damage" doesn't enter into it.
Technically the issue of saturation is that is also inflicts color relations and tonality. So when some people speak about "oversaturation" they often refer to secondary problems that resulted from that. And I have to agree with that. Too much saturation doesn't necessarily "hurt the eye" but bring images out of their balance.
From a personal standpoint we all are leveled to a certain color standard and measure photographies relative to this point. In this situation any discussion is rather senseless and will probably never end. Whenever I dive into this pool I carefully add a "For my personal taste ..." at the beginning of the sentence and that's about it. The photographer has to take out of that opinion whatever he wants to. The more people mention it, the more the issue is worth considering of course.
So for me I always try to process the image as I experienced it. On top of that I often add a little punch if I feel it serves the purpose of the presentation. But I try to stay within reasonable borders and check for technical issues before I call it "finished" (if that's ever possible).
There's a nice little thing I've experienced concerning saturation. I usually post my hiking reports on a hiking forum as I also like to focus on the tours a bit. Along with a description I also post maps, GPS data as well as some photos. The images there usually serve the purpose of a descriptive value. So my images were labeled as "oversaturated" and "unnatural" quite often. The funny fact is the high number of images with totally blown-out white skies and massive color casts that nobody ever will label "unnatural" ... weird.
So ... do whatever you like. Photography is an "art" in my opinion and there are freedoms we can use. We can talk in technical terms but talking about taste is spending overtime.
Take care ... Andreas.
Posted by Robert Fisher on February 13, 2009 at 8:27 AM
But it does depend, Georg. It's not a matter of wanting to take a stand or not. There are both objective and subjective aspects of the exercise. And this addresses Rosemarie's first point as well. Take two photos that are the same in every respect except for the colours. Any discussion of objective differences between them (i.e., composition - and even then there's subjectivity at play) is removed because the two are identical. The only difference is now entirely subjective. And in that regard, which one is preferred over the other depends entirely on the personal tastes of the viewer. Ask 10 different people and you'll likely get 10 different responses.
Rosemarie's point about trying to find agreement on some fundamental principles is a good one. That's the more objective aspect of the discussion dealing with how the photo was composed, does it flow well, are good elements of design being used to entice the viewer into the scene. Even here; however, there will be disagreement.
There is very little that is truly objective about the appreciation of art.
Posted by David Senesac on February 15, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Georg Popp >>>"Yes, there is an overflow of saturated sunset/sunrise images and we all should be carefuI to not overload our viewers with fantasy shots. Make it the exception in your portfolio not the rule, is probably a good idea?"
David >>> Ah what an interesting statement reflecting the attitude that is really the issue. IF a photographer honestly relates up front how their images are merely artistic interpretations as many like to quote from Rowell, "in your mind's eye", why ought it matter how much or how often they manipulate their art creation even if it is a total Frankenstein creation of different images? The real issue is all too many of you don't choose or want to admit or say anything and instead just present images that you hope those in your audience for which such matters, will unknowingly accept was some accurate moment in nature captured. That you realize at least subconciously that a significant number in your public audience prefers what is historically at the essence of photographs and don't wish to alienate those who feel so. That photographs can potentially represent moments in time of a scene captured.
Of course I've been critical of the above status quo and just as I predicted long ago that these attitudes in our outdoor photography community would increasingly lead to mistrust and lack of respect for our work with the public.
Don Grall >>>"...I usually work in 1998 Adobe RGB color space, but if you post an image in this color space on the internet which is sRGB."
David >>> The amount one needs to jack up saturation and contrast because of conversion to sRGB space is trivial and not worthy of serious argument given the far more distorting facets of browsers and monitors.
Don Grall >>>"...So if a specific image appears overprocessed, post that in your response but don't forget to add that it is only your subjective opinion and in no way should it be considered right or wrong. Let the photographer decide to agree or disagree with you."
David >>> Indeed the issue has nothing to do with right or wrong. I see a fair number of posted images that are without any doubt in my own mind unnatural. Obviously many are made by those that haven't the experience yet to know what is and isn't possible in natural light. I also see even more images that are merely borderline as the status quo of most seems to be to process right up to the boundary of what will be believable to most peers and their intended public audience. It amuses me when several responders argue about such marginal rendering because either way it taint a moment naturally presented.
Don Grall >>>"...I'm simply pondering the consequences of the view that nature photography is "art" and therefore anything goes."
David >>> The consequences are some degree of lack of respect for our artform and mistrust.
Robert Fisher >>>"Unless someone commenting on the photo was standing beside you at the time it was taken and knows whether or not it's realistic then comments about oversaturation or unrealistic colour are just falderal."
David >>> It is true judging something marginally believable may be opinionated nonsense but I see quite a bit that is well beyond believable and I have no problem if I have reason for making a comment about such qualifying such as unnatural.
Wayne >>>"...The people who make the observations of "that can't be real" have probably never witnessed a spectacular sunrise or sunset themselves and most often have experienced life in the flat light of mid day. "
David >>> Quite true and a reason many outdoor photographers prefer to play some kind of game processing images to what they personally perceive as contrasty and saturated to the margins of general public believability. Because that public taint very experienced so doesn't really know. On the otherhand visiting galleries with an audience with an abundance of mountain savvy enthusiasts in a town like Bishop, one is likely to hear quite a lot of sarcastic comments.
David >>> Dietrich's provocative comment brings to the surface the real issues simmering in the subconscious of our community.
David >>> I agree with most of Lon's well posed thoughts. I am one that will occasionally make a comment on unnaturally contrasty and saturated images. I see far more than I selectively choose to post on as such are endless. I prefer to pick on the more prominent photographers on this board. And I prefer to post such after a length of predictably praising comments by others. My intent is to inject some balance into what otherwise is rather unanimously positive opinions to manipulated images. And doing so I am as always careful not to inject "right or wrong" but rather simply state that such appears unnatural to me as someone that quite publicly as a matter of style prefers natural to unnatural.
David >>> I as someone with a lifetime rambling about our mountains refreshingly enjoyed your well articulated input Rosemarie.
David >>> To Prashan I would suggest some further tuning to that all so common terse black and white opinion about these issues.
David >>>Andreas, one only needs to look at the way many non-photographer members of the summitpost community positively value postings of images with obvious unnatural often totally blown highlights. The way the general public views images often has little to do with critical aesthetics.
------------------------------
I've been putting my two cents in on these image manipulation issues for years. For a primer on my own very consistent public ideas, please refer to the following feature on my web site:
Posted by Cory Freeman on February 19, 2009 at 10:11 AM
I have been feeling the same way lately about the abundance of over saturated images. Yeah, there's artistic license, but come on...... I usually try to limit the saturation to no more than what velvia or any other high saturation films would produce. Though it's hard at times since I'm going off memory and there's no tranny to compare to. I really think a good color photographer uses color selectively w/ a fine brush and not w/ a paint roller or power sprayer. Do I succeed at this? I'm not sure. I look over some of my images occasionally w/ this in mind and pick a few out that are probably pushing it.
I get a kick out of reading or listening to other photogs proclaiming the image they show is "straight out of the camera" w/ no manipulation in PS. Well it's straight out of their spiffy digital camera. I know my 5D can really over do the reds. So that little statement doesn't hold water.
Discussion
21 repliesI can in no way detect a general standard/rule on how this is done or how it is measured but can only guess it depends on how much and how often people themselves spend time outdoors, trying to get he most unusual light conditions. Sometimes images get critisized that were quite conservative in my mind - even desaturated! Then some photographers DO catch really great lightshows and get burned by saying it looks unreal and over the top… (it’s a different story when the high saturation brings some digital artifacts, halos and so on, which is more a question of processing skills) As someone who spends pretty many hours outdoors I have seen very special situations, when light is extremely intense, “painting” the landscape to a degree, that it does look oversaturated even when standing there just looking at it in person. But you have to be “out there” often to witness it and even then it will not be happening every week. So what IS real or natural?
Yes, there is an overflow of saturated sunset/sunrise images and we all should be carefuI to not overload our viewers with fantasy shots. Make it the exception in your portfolio not the rule, is probably a good idea. But I find it rather sad when all too often those intense images get analyzed only by “how natural” they look or “how real” they might be. There is a certain mistrust (and, yes, even disrespect) coming along with it and also a certain pessimism, that we won’t expect anything like this to really happen. It sure must be a lie, right? Does it come from looking at PS curves and levels too much, instead of getting out more often? Shouldn’t we all dream of fantasy like places (how small they might be) and of dreamy light conditions? For me, after all, it is a big part of my motivation of going outdoors to “find” these moments, I try to anticipate them as often as I can, most of the time in vain. Still, I always dream of a situation that beats all the other “light shows” before and somehow envy all others who seem to have been lucky to be there at the right time. I pushes me to try harder, for these few incredible moments I have seen in person lasted in my brain the longest and I really hope for all those “natural light”- makers and “real color”-specialists to witness something like it (or better) too, so they stop thinking about realness and naturalness too much. Reality can be quite unreal sometimes.
So – I just throw this out here, very selfishly, because I had to get it out. It sure would be interesting how much or less some of you disagree, but I won’t be able to directly communicate, because here it is late afternoon – work ends (children wait in eager anticipation…) and I’ll shut down the pc shortly.
cheers
georg
I come at this from a different perspective - one who rarely posts in the ESS gallery. This has nothing to do with having anything at all against the ESS gallery - it's simply because I'm going through a phase where I'm not shooting many landscapes. But, when I do poke my nose in there I almost feel like I need to put sunglasses on. Your point about the impossibility of assessing the "naturalness" of a scene is well taken and has a lot of validity to it, but I do get the feeling that we have a bit of a saturation "arms race" going on in digital landscape photography right now. I fully acknowledge how the colours of an RGB image on a calibrated monitor can look more vivid and punchy than their CMYK brethren in the print world, but when I pick up some of my "old classic" favourite landscape photography books, they look SO pale in comparison (yet for some reason they still do look quite realistic to me!). Please don't think I'm talking about old, faded images - I'm referring to books printed using hexachrome printing techniques (and images shot with Velvia film!!).
My first thought (and I really am open to suggestion or correction on this point) is that the frequency of over-saturated images in landscape photography has got to the point where if you DON'T DO IT, your images are at a distinct disadvantage - unless, of course, you successfully convert to B&W. Thus, figuring out a way to reverse the trend (if it even exists), is problematic and similar to the some of the problems in game theory: if everyone backs off on the saturation then the guy who doesn't (i.e., cheats) is rewarded...and soon the whole saturation race begins again.
This comment from a very novice landscape shooter...and based largely on first impressions when I glance through the ESS gallery and look at other landscape images online. Any trends I think I've noticed (and have now commented on) may be simply "sampling" errors based on seeing too few landscape images. I could easily be totally wrong...
Just two cents worth from a dumb bear photographer who knows diddly-squat about landscape photography...
Brad
One reason I'll throw out there is from my experience in past posts. I usually work in 1998 Adobe RGB color space, but if you post an image in this color space on the internet which is sRGB you will experience a good deal of desaturation and loss of contrast. So then either you have to guess what the sRGB color space will do to your 1998AdobeRGB image by increasing saturation and contrast, cross your fingers, and post, or you have to convert it to sRGB then adjust accordingly and post. But even after adjusting to sRGB I will still see some decreases in saturation and contrast once it is on the web and so it still becomes a guessing game which means some will possibly come out looking a bit overcooked and others won't.
The other aspect is what kind of monitor the person viewing it is using vs. the monitor it was prepared on. I still use a calibrated CRT monitor. Others use calibrated LCD monitors. Is there or should there be a CRT/LCD difference if both are calibrated? If so maybe the calibrations are not equal, is 1.8 or 2.2 gamma being used, etc.
Another factor is working with a specific image for too long. Being human your eye becomes accustomed to the adjusted condition of the image, after awhile you might question whether it needs a bit more of this or less of that, so you play with it a bit more. A few days later after viewing other images you may open that first one up again and think, gosh, geewhiz, it really does look like it needs a bit of a push here or there. At some point it may go beyond the realm of reality when you took it, but now your memory of the qualities at the moment of capture could be tainted by all the playing around you did with it.
It all boils down to a subjective rendition of what you saw when you pressed the shutter, balanced with how you want to present it to the rest of the world. Should reality be emphasized or artistic impression be emphasized. Only the photographer who took the image can decide that. So if a specific image appears overprocessed, post that in your response but don't forget to add that it is only your subjective opinion and in no way should it be considered right or wrong. Let the photographer decide to agree or disagree with you.
This is why I will rarely enter photography contests. One set of judges will pick a totally different set of winners than another set of judges and this is good, because if everybody thought the same way we wouldn't have the wonderful diversity of images we are flooded with on a daily basis.
Keep those images coming!
Don
I was pondering whether to even bother posting my perspective, which would have been something along the lines of: "All art is up to the artist. Deal with it." But you've provided a much better reflection of ideas than my curt response. Thanks for so succinctly and levelheadedly echoing what I believe.
I know your question wasn't addressed to me, but it brings up a lot of interesting issues. For example, I often wonder about the impact of the idea that nature photography is simply art and therefore exempt from "realism". One manifestation of this is that the non-photographic community is beginning to doubt the authenticity of any image of nature. I see this all the time when people look at one of my images in a gallery and instantly say "that can't be real...it must be Photoshopped" or (my favourite) "Is that real or has it been Photoshopped?" (which must mean that the mean we open an image in Photoshop it becomes "non-real"
I'm not at all saying that I have the answer or that we should strive to make photographs of nature "real" (whatever that is). I'm simply pondering the consequences of the view that nature photography is "art" and therefore anything goes...
Brad
People are skeptical of digital. I entered one of my impressionistic photos in a juried show this past fall. It didn't make the cut but one of the organizers of the show bought it. I had printed it on canvas and stretched it so it had that nice 'painterly' look. I asked her if she wanted to know how it was done (she's a painter herself). She said she didn't really care how it was done, she just liked it. A couple other people who were standing around and overheard the conversation chimed in that it must have been a digital alteration. They were quite shocked when I told them that it was a single shot done in camera with a longish shutter speed and camera movement. In this day and age, they figured it just had to be a piece of digital art and not a 'real' photograph. But the woman who bought it telling me she didn't care how it was done, that she just liked it, told me all I needed to hear. If it's not for strict PJ purposes then what does it matter what's been done? Most people who make those types of statements or who are so skeptical are working from a position of ignorance. They don't know what it takes to produce a well made photo - digitally or traditionally. They don't know what machinations people went through with film to produce highly saturated photos (polarizers, enhancers) or shift the colour balance (warming filters, cooling filters) for example. So called 'traditional art' is accepted as a 'representation' of reality. Why shouldn't photography be accepted the same way (again, with the caveats of things like PJ or catalogue work where accuracy of reproduction is important)?
We all have our personal limits of what we will or won't do to a photo in editing. But who am I, or anyone else, to tell someone else that their personal ethic is wrong? We may not agree with what they do but that doesn't make them wrong or us wrong. I'm giving a presentation to a photo group next week. The topic is pretty nebulous "Creating Photographic Art" - their topic idea, not mine. I was a bit concerned when first presented with the topic because I wasn't sure whether I could come with 90 minutes of material on it. As I talked to the events organizer for this group more, it became very clear that he and I had very different ideas of what this topic should cover. That's when it hit me. The very subjectivity of the topic is going to be a big part of what I discuss. These very ideas - what's 'right' or 'wrong' to do in editing a photo, is highly saturated colour proper and so forth - are what I'm going to address for probably about half the time and my hope is to engage the group in a bit of a debate on the topic. The overriding theme though will be that in the end, we have to find our own inspiration for what we do and why we do it and the rest is just a philosophical argument.
I read Georg's comments about how we might be taking colour saturation too far, that we should reserve it for only a few, select photos then go look at his portfolio here and his website and I see a great number of very colourful, highly saturated photos. So the question I have for you Georg is this: Are you experiencing a philosophical shift in how you approach your photography? And if so, what is it that's caused this shift?
I'm not sure the non-photographic community is just starting to doubt the authenticity of nature photography, I think that's been going on for some time now, but there's no denying that it exists. The people who make the observations of "that can't be real" have probably never witnessed a spectacular sunrise or sunset themselves and most often have experienced life in the flat light of mid day.
I'm not taking sides one way or the other here on the issue of over-saturation. For me it's simple, your images are your art and as such, each artist sets his or her own standards knowing that the community at large will form their own opinions as to their level of reality.
Great thread; I'm sure there will be lots of opinions on this one.
So, back to over saturation, what could be totally judged on that item beyond what is viewed as a finished product as it is being presented? In keeping with the thoughts along the lines of purists, most images posted could be seen as being over saturated. But, unless you are there how could one really tell beyond the failed post processing errors of over saturation? Truly the answer should not be, "this does not look real". What it does maybe look to be is over saturated and nothing more. The answer should be, "turn down the saturation a bit and it should, OR, could present some more detail".
In order to present images with a "respectable" amount of saturation level agreeable to most, maybe PS should add Auto Saturation to go along with Auto Levels, Auto Contrast, and Auto Color. Now, what or who at Adobe would gauge the setting on that feature across all monitors, likes, dislikes, and opinions? If nothing else it might at least bring it into a ballpark setting giving the person a second look and thought as to how much the saturation crept up or down on them while they were processing it, basically, bringing it a bit more into “reality” as it were. Again, where ever that “reality” mark might be located. Obviously some fine-tuning off that point is open for one’s own final tastes. This would not only maybe save the image from nits on over saturation, but also save the image from the nits on bleached out under saturation too. Once again, all subjective IMO.
In the stock industry saturation sells. Some fine art work looks better desaturated, depends on the subject matter.
If you're in the business of selling your work then the degree that you saturate or desaturate your image is often based on your target market(s). If you are shooting for yourself then do whatever makes you happy.
My guess would be because a b&w image, being so totally different from reality, isn't expected to convey real colors. However, people's assumption about the color photograph is that it's intended to convey real colors. Therefore, you get "those colors can't be real" comments.
Thanks to all who took time to write their opinion!
Funny – If you read the 2nd part of my entry, you’ll see I am not so hard on the photographers saturating their images. NOT AT ALL! (yea, why not Robert, you can even count me among them, if you wish) With some images I like it, with others I don’t) I just believe we have some oversensibilized viewers and images too often get JUST judged whether they are real or natural looking.
B&w real? : EXACTLY what David just wrote! I left that comparsion out because I believe it is common ground here anyways. But I see no reason why a color shot is supposed to be more real than a b&w. The same as I think it’s common ground, that we see a mighty huge number of sunsets or sunrises. My problem (if I have one at all) with these is, however, never the saturation itself, but mostly the fact, that they seldomly showcase more than the saturation. Maybe that’s part of the problem, because THEN (when there is not much else to see) this is where the images get measured… hmmm.
But here I often see very, very good images and the viewers tend to be too negative.
It seems WE VIEWERS are very oversaturated!
OF COURSE I am all for artists freedom, it’s up to each one how far you want go. I wanted to say I am still among the believers of those freaky light shows and I think we all should be a little more relaxed about the saturation-thing.
Georg
I always find these discussions interesting.
Saturation and the emphasis of certain colours and high contrast increases the appeal of many images and I don't see a flaw in that. I think it is the purpose of photography to beginn with. There's a simple reason why velvia is so successful. I guess if I would go MF or LF, I also would choose Velvia. The simple truth for me is that in many cases, strong colors make a good image even stronger. Photographers AND "normal" people are drawn to saturated colors. Why is overcast light not favourable? Why do we all like sunsets and sunrises? So why not emphasize what we like it reality (colors and saturation) a bit more with a particular technique.
However I have to state something provocative. I think we photographers are a bit hypocritical and lying in the pockets with justification-statements like: "This is what I saw" Obviously one feels obliged to justify the saturation.? Why? I think it is as stupid as claiming that (This is what I saw) for a bw-image!
C'ome on guys. "This is what *I want* the image to look like" would be the correct nomenclature. Who dares to state this on his website or in his gallery?
I agree that many non-photographers are not aware of certain light and saturation levels of colors - because they are either not out there in the magic hours, or if they happen to be, then they do not consciously consider that the saturation-level and "sweetness" is quite high , and different from what they usually see when they are in the traffic jam on their way to work. I think their reaction to saturated images comes from that. But we have to admit that emphasizing all this evenmore with a high contrast, high saturation film and with filters will not help the casual consumer to believe the reality of that scene. And then trying to "explain that it yet is "real" is just not right either. Because it simply does not look like humans see. Not knowing much about this but: the mind corrects color-casts, while film does not, but that's often used to create a "rendered" reality. And I can only say for my self, that some stuff I see in photographers work in print does has a saturation which exceeds everyting I saw in real life. And I may not climb the high Sierras, but I do observe and if not everyday, not even every year I guess I have seen some crazy light already and I know what I do to my images, and I know what digi-velvia-filters do. I am not saying that this is a flaw, but it can be expected that non-photographers perceive this as manipulation. The problem is that they do not understand that "manipulation" and interpretation is the whole deal in all creative endeavors - so also in photography. How long must a painter "manipulate" the white empty canvass until it looks like he wants it too look? ;-)
Why bw is not questioned? Because here the abstraction and artistic rendition is so obvious that it really is just stupid to judge it based on comparisons with real conditions.
Color-photography at least is (only) similar to what we see, so here the human mind immediatly makes comparisons.
So, that's enough for now.
Regards
Dietrich
Great topic, although these kind of things usually just end up as circular discussions where ultimately it's just everyone's opinion and "it depends."
You've made a number of good discussion points, but I'm not really clear exactly what you're saying. "Make it the exception in your portfolio not the rule" is the "it depends" answer and I agree to a certain extent that we should be aware of what we are creating... then on the other hand, I think that most would agree that as artist's, we have the creative license to produce what ever we want; it's our personal interpretation of a scene or an event that makes us unique in a world of pretty pictures.
I think your other point is how we as photographers view and analyze photographic images. "We viewers are very oversaturated" and "But I find it rather sad when all too often those intense images get analyzed only by “how natural” they look or “how real” they might be." I'm reading this as something you don't care for when comments are made either saying: "this is very natural looking" or "this un-natural or unreal." Is that correct?
If this is the case, I don't really agree. How can we say on one hand that as a photographic artist, we are free to interpret and present our work creatively (which may include saturation among other things,) and then on the other hand not have the same principals when it comes to a viewer's opinion? In other words, I as a viewer of an image will have a reaction and interpret it much differently than you and everyone else. When I make a comment, "the colors look quite natural to me," I would make that comment because it in fact looks "natural" to me. It might look un-natural to the next viewer. So when I read comments along these lines, I'm not bothered by that because I understand that we are all individuals and we will all "see" things differently.
Which finally gets to something that I have never heard discussed before and I think is related to this discussion. I think it's safe to say that we all have unique dna, unique metabolisms and unique upbringing and influences. Think about how some people have sensitivities to different smells, different tastes and even different sounds or tones. Has it ever been discussed how we as individuals might be interpreting and processing color through our vision? Isn't it possible that when two people are staring in to a bright, clear summer blue sky, that they don't see the exact same color? We're so used to numbers between 0 - 255 and mathematically we can all understand that the primary color blue is 0,0,255.
Have you ever done this? I've stood outside looking at a blue sky. I then go back inside and try my best to match that color that's in my mind to a color on the computer. I can almost guarentee that a dozen or a hundred people wouldn't pick the same numerical values (not even considering monitors, our pal Kelvin, room lighting, etc.)
I guess my point is that both the photographer/creator AND the viewer have a creative license to interpret colors and saturation according to what they like and feel comfortable with. So in the end, I have no issues with folks making comments along the lines of being "natural" or "real." Those comments are more than likely exactly how that person feels about and reacts to an image. And just as the photographer is free to create, the viewer or critiquer is free to offer an opinion, natural or not.
I hope I didn't misinterpret your thoughts Georg and also that my thoughts made sense... :-)
Lon
That's because...well, ultimately it's just everyone's opinion and "it depends."
You essentially went on to say just that yourself in your extended response...and I think you hit the nail squarely on the head.
Dietrich: "...what I felt and saw"... that wasn't true when AA said it half a century ago, of course, and he most likely was very aware of it. But this was more innocent times... It's a phrase very often heard in the US of A but hardly anywhere else in photographers circles. So, very brave for you to say that(
But these are different subjects and I don't want to be the bad guy (again) who have brought that up...
Lon, of course you are right that each one of us is unique and sees and smells and feels uniquely. I'm afraid sometimes you have to REMEMBER people that this is the case! I think we all (or lets reduce it to NPN... nature photographers are ESPECIALLY prone to this) tend to see things way too uniformly! We are made to. We are forced to do and taste and smell and dream and whatever as much as possible in the same way. (it's what I call the "Prokrustes Effect") Same thing with viewing images. And I do believe (nature) photographers nowadays are especially prone to view images with curves and levels etc. in mind and can hardly let go of all these preconceived expectations. While we like to scream how different we all are, we do as much as we can to all be the same... Yes, it's a reason why I personally don't care too much if somebody finds my image natural or not. It just doesn't mean a whole lot. But I know it is meant nicely and there is nothing wrong in saying it, it just should be one of the least important factors. I wouldn't have written that, if I wouldn't have seen it so often here at the ESS gallery.
It all depends, but it helps other photographers (when commenting on their images) and it help in a photographic way to analyze yourself a bit on what it actually IS, that is making yourself so unique after all and where are you just swimming with the stream or bark with the pack...
georg
1. Even if nature photography is considered a fine art, there ought to be criteria that, once they are articulated clearly enough in words, most nature photographers can agree on. I'm retired from being a literature and writing professor, and even when I was in graduate school the "subjective" / "one's own opinion" kind of response to poetry (say) was crowding out the millennia-long tradition of aesthetic judgment. "It all depends" isn't a good enough answer because some things don't depend. I think it would be enlightening and helpful (and entertaining, in the formulation, the writing, and the reading) to discuss those aspects of nature photography that don't depend on the idiosyncrasies of photographers, of the people who look at photographs, of the editors and critics who fairly or unfairly set visual trends.
2. Closer to Georg's initial topic is the influence of the light one lives in on what one wants to see in photographs. On another forum I took part in one of those "challenges" to process a RAW file. My rendition made the landscape (mountains, lake, clouds) look like the photo was taken in the western US at 5,000 feet elevation. I live in the west at 4,200 ft. Another photographer, an Italian, treated the light so that it reminded me of Italian-Renaissance painters' depictions. I thought that was coincidence until the same light appeared in another Italian's photograph. This extends to comments about "harsh light": photos of mountains and canyonlands that I enjoy because they capture the color of the sky and the clarity of the air usually get comments about the desirability of "softer light" from people who almost inevitably live near sea level. I don't know exactly where this observation fits in terms of "idiosyncrasy," but the habitual altitude of photographers does seem to relate to what is "oversaturated" and what is "representational."
As I say - Photography is manipulation.
Initially we have to differentiate between saturation from a technical or a personal point of view. From a technical side there definitely is a point where saturation damages (or rather distorts) an image, from a personal standpoint the word "damage" doesn't enter into it.
Technically the issue of saturation is that is also inflicts color relations and tonality. So when some people speak about "oversaturation" they often refer to secondary problems that resulted from that. And I have to agree with that. Too much saturation doesn't necessarily "hurt the eye" but bring images out of their balance.
From a personal standpoint we all are leveled to a certain color standard and measure photographies relative to this point. In this situation any discussion is rather senseless and will probably never end. Whenever I dive into this pool I carefully add a "For my personal taste ..." at the beginning of the sentence and that's about it. The photographer has to take out of that opinion whatever he wants to. The more people mention it, the more the issue is worth considering of course.
So for me I always try to process the image as I experienced it. On top of that I often add a little punch if I feel it serves the purpose of the presentation. But I try to stay within reasonable borders and check for technical issues before I call it "finished" (if that's ever possible).
There's a nice little thing I've experienced concerning saturation. I usually post my hiking reports on a hiking forum as I also like to focus on the tours a bit. Along with a description I also post maps, GPS data as well as some photos. The images there usually serve the purpose of a descriptive value. So my images were labeled as "oversaturated" and "unnatural" quite often. The funny fact is the high number of images with totally blown-out white skies and massive color casts that nobody ever will label "unnatural" ... weird.
So ... do whatever you like. Photography is an "art" in my opinion and there are freedoms we can use. We can talk in technical terms but talking about taste is spending overtime.
Take care ... Andreas.
Rosemarie's point about trying to find agreement on some fundamental principles is a good one. That's the more objective aspect of the discussion dealing with how the photo was composed, does it flow well, are good elements of design being used to entice the viewer into the scene. Even here; however, there will be disagreement.
There is very little that is truly objective about the appreciation of art.
David >>> Ah what an interesting statement reflecting the attitude that is really the issue. IF a photographer honestly relates up front how their images are merely artistic interpretations as many like to quote from Rowell, "in your mind's eye", why ought it matter how much or how often they manipulate their art creation even if it is a total Frankenstein creation of different images? The real issue is all too many of you don't choose or want to admit or say anything and instead just present images that you hope those in your audience for which such matters, will unknowingly accept was some accurate moment in nature captured. That you realize at least subconciously that a significant number in your public audience prefers what is historically at the essence of photographs and don't wish to alienate those who feel so. That photographs can potentially represent moments in time of a scene captured.
Of course I've been critical of the above status quo and just as I predicted long ago that these attitudes in our outdoor photography community would increasingly lead to mistrust and lack of respect for our work with the public.
Don Grall >>>"...I usually work in 1998 Adobe RGB color space, but if you post an image in this color space on the internet which is sRGB."
David >>> The amount one needs to jack up saturation and contrast because of conversion to sRGB space is trivial and not worthy of serious argument given the far more distorting facets of browsers and monitors.
Don Grall >>>"...So if a specific image appears overprocessed, post that in your response but don't forget to add that it is only your subjective opinion and in no way should it be considered right or wrong. Let the photographer decide to agree or disagree with you."
David >>> Indeed the issue has nothing to do with right or wrong. I see a fair number of posted images that are without any doubt in my own mind unnatural. Obviously many are made by those that haven't the experience yet to know what is and isn't possible in natural light. I also see even more images that are merely borderline as the status quo of most seems to be to process right up to the boundary of what will be believable to most peers and their intended public audience. It amuses me when several responders argue about such marginal rendering because either way it taint a moment naturally presented.
Don Grall >>>"...I'm simply pondering the consequences of the view that nature photography is "art" and therefore anything goes."
David >>> The consequences are some degree of lack of respect for our artform and mistrust.
Robert Fisher >>>"Unless someone commenting on the photo was standing beside you at the time it was taken and knows whether or not it's realistic then comments about oversaturation or unrealistic colour are just falderal."
David >>> It is true judging something marginally believable may be opinionated nonsense but I see quite a bit that is well beyond believable and I have no problem if I have reason for making a comment about such qualifying such as unnatural.
Wayne >>>"...The people who make the observations of "that can't be real" have probably never witnessed a spectacular sunrise or sunset themselves and most often have experienced life in the flat light of mid day. "
David >>> Quite true and a reason many outdoor photographers prefer to play some kind of game processing images to what they personally perceive as contrasty and saturated to the margins of general public believability. Because that public taint very experienced so doesn't really know. On the otherhand visiting galleries with an audience with an abundance of mountain savvy enthusiasts in a town like Bishop, one is likely to hear quite a lot of sarcastic comments.
David >>> Dietrich's provocative comment brings to the surface the real issues simmering in the subconscious of our community.
David >>> I agree with most of Lon's well posed thoughts. I am one that will occasionally make a comment on unnaturally contrasty and saturated images. I see far more than I selectively choose to post on as such are endless. I prefer to pick on the more prominent photographers on this board. And I prefer to post such after a length of predictably praising comments by others. My intent is to inject some balance into what otherwise is rather unanimously positive opinions to manipulated images. And doing so I am as always careful not to inject "right or wrong" but rather simply state that such appears unnatural to me as someone that quite publicly as a matter of style prefers natural to unnatural.
David >>> I as someone with a lifetime rambling about our mountains refreshingly enjoyed your well articulated input Rosemarie.
David >>> To Prashan I would suggest some further tuning to that all so common terse black and white opinion about these issues.
David >>>Andreas, one only needs to look at the way many non-photographer members of the summitpost community positively value postings of images with obvious unnatural often totally blown highlights. The way the general public views images often has little to do with critical aesthetics.
------------------------------
I've been putting my two cents in on these image manipulation issues for years. For a primer on my own very consistent public ideas, please refer to the following feature on my web site:
http://www.davidsenesac.com/david_philosophy1.html
I get a kick out of reading or listening to other photogs proclaiming the image they show is "straight out of the camera" w/ no manipulation in PS. Well it's straight out of their spiffy digital camera. I know my 5D can really over do the reds. So that little statement doesn't hold water.