Over the Top -- Too Much TK-Actions???

I don't know if it is just my personal taste or not? It seems to be a trend in lots of photographers editing to over emphasize colors in their photos. I see it in many galleries, web sites etc. Sunrises or sunsets with neon glow colors like I have never witness in the real world. I used HDR sometimes and actually just purchased the TK Actions suite. As I have been viewing Sean Bagshaw's tutorial videos it seems like there is a strong tendency to overdo color enhancement & contrasts. Seems to be a strong urge to "improve upon" the reality nature had to show. As I edit my photos it try to make the final result look as much as possible like my mind's eye recorded in my brain.

I would be interested in what other photographers think about this topic? Are we just bowing to our customer's demand for overblown colors because they are used to the TV and magazine industries over done color emphasis? I recognize that as photographers we are also artists and each has their own "artistic expression". My wife is from Singapore and in that part of the world the people tend to like lots of bright colors in their home décor. She likes the look of the neon glow sunsets saying "it's so beautiful". My response is "but it's not natural".

As I venture into the world of TK Actions, I would solicit suggestions from you all as to what limits one uses TK Actions.

While I don't (yet) use TK's actions, I admit it, I am a saturated color junkie! The way I see it, if you are documenting the scene for some scientific reason (textbooks, etc.), then yeah, get it as close to reality as possible. However, if you are expressing yourself as an artist, do what you want! Do it for you. It's your art. If other people like it, great! If not, so what? (Unless, of course you are trying to make a living at it, then you better deliver what your customers want or you'll be eating out of a dumpster and living in a cardboard box under an overpass.) Art is in the eye of the beholder. My $0.02.

I kinda think that since digital is still fairly new people are still figuring things out and seeing what they can get away with. (I know I'm guilty of overdoing things at times, and I can see that now) I do agree with you on your sentiments about the over-saturation/processing on many new images out there right now, But I also think the pendulum is starting to swing back the other way, I'm starting to hear lots of complaints on how unnatural so much of the current landscape photography is out there. I think in a couple years we might look back at some of our work and wonder what the heck we were thinking when we processed some of our photos, I know I'm already at that point. Personally I think I'd rather have more subtle images hanging on my walls, instead of a bright neon pink and red sunsets, but that's just me.

I broke my back a couple years back and was laid up for quite some time, I do think that probably changed my view on image processing quite a bit, when I was lying in bed and wanting to get out, I much preferred more natural images, seeing super saturated processed images just did not make me feel like I was there and instead just had me thinking, "that's not how it looks/feels". Of course others have had different experiences and I'm sure some feel the exact opposite. In the end you can't please everyone, and that's a good thing, makes finding/taking that one photo that your really love that much more special.

Just do what YOU love and what you think is best, I think that might be one of the keys to becoming more satisfied as an artist. Just more satisfied, I don't know if its possible to ever become entirely satisfied with what your doing and that's ok as well, it'll keep pushing you to try new things.

I guess you create the art the way you want people to see it.
You also have to create what they will buy.
I find myself doing things outside my comfort box sometimes as that is what customers want and will buy.
And so far photographers will critique my work, but none have ever bought it. So yes I follow the money!

In my work, I strive for a believably natural appearance to my images. My reason for that is that it was the natural beauty that inspired me to get out with the camera in the first place so I want to capture the essence of that beauty in the final image. Having said that I have seen very saturated colors in nature and I have also seen more subdued color. Personally I struggle with finding the right balance in my processing.

Photography for me is a passion not a profession so I don't have the need to meet buyer's expectations. That said, I struggle to find the balance between the RAW file which is a low contrast, low saturation image and achieving the look that I want. I use TK's luminosity masks but I am still a novice. I also have Sean's tutorials and have found them to be great resources. While I strive for a natural look in my images, I'm not sure that I achieve it.

EDIT: As a side note about Sean's tutorials he says that he makes exaggerated adjustments because it makes it easier to see the effect of the adjustments that he is making in the tutorial videos but that is not necessarily the adjustment that he would actually make on the image. I really don't find most of Sean's work to have exaggerated contrast and saturation. I would also add that TK's actions are best used in moderation but of course that is a matter of taste. I have found that they work best with subtle adjustments.

There are two photography galleries in Moab: mine and another one. At least a few times every week our gallery visitors and clients tell us that they appreciate my work because it's vibrant but still natural. We've also heard people make negative comments about other work they've seen that is over-HDR'd and over-saturated. Every once in a while someone will tell us that the color in a print is too subdued (which I always find odd since I'd never walk into a gallery and tell the artist how he or she should create art).

I try to process my photos so that they pretty closely resemble what I remember seeing in the field when I pressed the shutter button. Yes, I do frequently add saturation and contrast, and blend exposures to increase dynamic range, but I do that because the RAW files from the camera are simply my negatives - they are a starting point. I use techniques that allow me to overcome the limitations of the camera's sensor. Bottom line: I think we should all do what makes us happy. If that's HDR's that have no shadows or highlights and Willy Wonka colors then by-golly, go for it. Not my cup of tea but that's okay. The world is big enough for all of us to produce our own art!

Permit me to wax philosophical for a moment. I don't sell my images, at least not yet, although I am thinking about doing so. That's why this thread interests me.

Awhile back, in an effort to get some guidance on what possible customers would and would not buy, I provided a range of sample images to test their reactions in response to several survey questions. One of the surprising findings (for me, at least) was that my respondents had an overwhelming preference for images whose sharpness would probably get labeled as "crunchy" in this forum. Apparently, my respondents, by and large, wanted landscape images to portray nature with a degree of clarity they themselves couldn't see with their own eyes.

What to do? Respond to meet your customers' expectations, or try to educate your customers as to what they should expect? I haven't reached a conclusion to that question in regard to sharpness yet, but it occurs to me that all non-journalistic professional photographers face this conundrum in a variety of ways, sharpness and saturation being only two examples. If you don't consider yourself a photo-journalist, then you are an artist (are at least trying to be one). If you're an artist, but feel the need to market your artistic endeavors, then you face the question of how much to compromise your personal view of artistic integrity in order to make the sale.

It seems to me, this isn't a simple question with a simple "one side or the other" answer. In truth, the answer lies in a wide grey boundary. Each of us has to conclude what the public will buy and decide how far we can stray from our own artistic integrity to satisfy those expectations before we conclude that we can't stand what we're doing. I personally can't imagine there ever being much of a market for over-the-top HDR images, but I'm pretty sure that even if there is, I won't be able to bring myself to sell in that market because I, personally, find such images repugnant. That said, it doesn't mean the photographer who can sell over-the-top HDR images has no artistic integrity; just a very different one than I have.

I don't know if the foregoing makes any sense, and if it doesn't, then it's truly disturbing that I wrote while completely sober.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and a Joyous and Prosperous New Year to you all.

John, I like vibrant images, but draw the line at "neon". The problem is we all define the crossover at different points, and I'm sure my point has drifted higher over the years.

The two galleries in Moab provide a good baseline. The newer images in one clearly cross the line for me, but apparently they sell well, at least to a certain segment of the market.

Where should YOU stop with the TK Actions? Whatever pleases YOU !
But I'm sure if you post an image, we'll be more than happy to let you know if it crosses OUR line.


Howard, you wrote that completely sober ??

Thanks everyone for the comments. Very helpful.

This image is one that I took in SW Colorado this fall. In it I pushed the saturation to the limit of my taste. I have not used TK Actions on this as the editing was done a few weeks ago. This panorama consists of 99 individual 22.5 megapixel images shot with Canon 5Diii at F 9.0, 1/50th second exposure time and ISO 100 using a 200mm lens. 2.32 Gegapixels 14400 x 28800 pixels, 48" x 96" 300 ppi original image size. A high resolution view is viewable here. http://www.abbascreationsphotography.com/Dallas_Overlook/virtualtour.html

Be interested in hearing what you all think of the saturation levels in this one

John, I think the saturation in the above image looks fine. Nothing too crazy here. Has a polarizer feel to it. Personally, I would extract some yellow from the blue. That would help reduce some super blue snow in the shadows, which could show up more noticeable in a large print.

There are two categories to think about. One is modest enhancements of color or contrast to make an image that may be a little more than what the eye observed at the time, but maybe would be entirely possible with better light or other environmental conditions, or on a different day.

The other is what maybe John is thinking about and what I see with more frequency, too. That is an image that would never really be possible or highly unlikely regardless of conditions, or maybe once in a blue moon with anomalous weather. While I don't think there are really any rules I wonder at this point in manipulation why not add clouds where there was only a featureless sky, or a moon, or lightning, or maybe an eagle carrying a rabbit. I remember when black velvet paintings of Elvis were popular. There were people willing to make them and people willing to buy them and in it's own way it was art. It was even available as a paint by number and we had one of those hanging in my house when I was a kid.

Some things take saturation better than others. Faces for example look really bad! (White-people anyway; I mean, pink-people, I guess) My point is not to make things look false. Sunsets can be brilliant oranges, reds and yellows, so a little over-saturation there doesn't look false. As Kane pointed out, the snow in shadow in John Freeman's picture above picked up reflections from the blue sky, and then was enhanced by saturation to the point where it doesn't look natural. Actually, snow in shadow does look kind of blue, but in a photo to much blue reads as false.

I didn't get a lot from Alan Briot's articles at LuLa, but there were a couple really valuable things. He is completely willing to create false colors for the sake of art; specifically by shifting or enhancing areas of complementary colors. He also tends to have normal-saturation in his images.

John, the saturation in the trees and scrub is also at my personal limits.

I agree, the blue in the shadows would look bad in a print. Some local adjustments are definitely needed.

I really dislike strong polarization gradients. I believe that is what is happening in your sky.
If skies are included, my polarizer stays in the camera bag, especially for wide angle compositions.

John: I think the saturation levels of the foliage in the image you posted are fine and could be pushed even harder. I've seen oaks and aspens in the La Sal Mountains that are considerably more colorful than the ones in this photo. I certainly wouldn't make them neon but I do think you've got some room to play. The blue snow could be toned down a bit.

Why do so many people that dislike the changes HDR software makes,also appreciate and recommend the use of black and white? It seems to me that Black and White is more of a change from what anybody's eye actually sees than the most neon HDR.photos.
It seems to me if they were consistent, they would also have a fit of black and white.

B&W vs. HDR ?! Well, I guess some people don't think neon red, green and blue are esthetically pleasing colors in landscapes. At least for me, the change from "reality" is not the primary issue. When I look at a well printed B&W landscape with great texture, detail and contrast it is a thing of beauty. I don't care about reality.

Who knows, maybe one day I will find the Ansel Adams of extreme HDR landscapes.

Arthur's comment on B&W not matching the real world is interesting. It would seem at first that removing color would handicap our understanding of what we are looking at, so it is kind of strange that our eyes (& brains) do such a good job of understanding an image with all the color information removed.

Read Roger Cicala (Lens Rentals) really interesting article about Fun With Color Vision. Apparently our eyes (or brains) actually have a Black and White channel and a color channel. B&W distinguishes shape and object definition, while color provides identification information (banana is yellow; leaf is green).

So, yes our eyes use both color and luminosity, but luminosity alone is objectively (ha!) very powerful.

It has been said that "If color isn't the subject, then a photograph should be in B&W." I don't take that as gospel, but I now spend time in Lightroom examining whether my images work with the color removed. I try to do adjustments in B&W so that they do, and then decide whether to choose B&W.

If I start with an image that isn't naturally vibrant, I won't go crazy and push the saturation sliders to try to make up for it. For example, this image - http://www.gcollier.com/New-Zealand-Beaches.html - was shot under overcast conditions. If I'd tried to mimic the colors produced by sunset or sunrise light by pushing the saturation sliders, I think it would have looked completely unnatural. I prefer the subdued look in this case.

If I want images that have bright colors, I'll shoot during the first or last light of day. Or sometimes the vibrant glow after sunset can produce really nice colors. I'll push the saturation / vibrance sliders a little in Lightroom but never to the point where I think it isn't representative of what I saw. I very rarely do HDR images and only do them if the dynamic range of the scene is too great for the camera to capture (something that I find to be rare with the D800e).

I think the image you posted here is about as saturated as I'd be comfortable with given the lighting conditions. If you'd shot this right at the first light of day, there would have been more natural vibrant glow to the scene. I know you don't have time to shoot 99 images right at the break of dawn to create a huge stitched image. But in this case, I think I'd prefer a stitch of maybe five or six images - or even just a single image - in better lighting conditions and, ideally, with some dramatic clouds for that light to bounce off of. Also, this is a minor point, but if the image you posted is 14400 x 28800, then it is 0.415 gigapixels not 2.32 gigapixels.

The TK actions can sometimes be used to make images that are too vibrant for my tastes. But there's a lot of other things that the actions can do that don't affect the saturation. I mainly use the basic burn/dodge layer and also the luminosity masks to bring out details in the shadows. These actions affect the luminosity of the image instead of the colors. So don't be turned off by the actions if, say, the Make it Glow action seems over the top. There's lots of useful functions. It's up to the photographer to decide how best to use them.

"Why do so many people that dislike the changes HDR software makes,also appreciate and recommend the use of black and white?"

I think part of the problem may be that photographers try and pass of the HDR and over saturation being true to the scene. Lots of "how it looked to my eye" ect..when its quite obvious that that isn't entirely the truth..We all know that a black and white image is a interpretation of the scene. I think that's changing though, now that everyone is becoming more familiar with what can actually be done in photoshop.

I've had the same thoughts about that matter as well, so it would be interesting hearing more opinions on the matter.

Thanks again for all your input. All very insightful comments. As I recognized in my original post color saturation is primarily individual taste. I am going to dig into the TK Actions and see what I can do with it.

Grant C. -- Thanks for your insight. I have admired your work. And yes in pure pixels it is .415 gigapixels. Photoshop under the image size reports 2.32 gigapixels. I think it is taking into account maybe the RGB info plus luminance??? When I load a RAW 22.8 megapixel image from my 5Diii it reports the image as 63.3 megapixels. I have always been puzzled by this difference.

Bill P -- Yes I was using a polarizer that morning. I am getting to the point that I agree that it should be left in the bag. I have had several good shots impacted by the polarizer.

Hi John -

I see the issue of over-saturation in landscape photography and the TK Actions to be completely separate. The action set includes a lot of really helpful tools to process photos according to your taste and personal preferences. The actions are only that - tools. How they are used is up to the individual photographer. Some of the defaults, like the Make it Glow action, are pretty intense at the default setting but you can easily adjust the opacity for that layer is you like the effect of the tool overall. Luminosity masks are also excellent for adjusting tones within an image and it is up to the user to determine how much the changes you make to a curve or a mask will affect your individual image. The tools themselves have nothing to do with the over-the-top final results that are common in landscape images today. So, as you start using the actions, I would recommend doing a lot of experimenting to see what works for your eye and preferences. Just like every other piece of processing software, they can be used to achieve a natural look or an unnatural look. It is up to the photographer to decide how to use them. I use Tony's actions on every single one of my photos and find them incredibly useful. I hope you do, too.

Hi John,

I think what you are seeing in Photoshop is the image size in gigabytes, which represents the amount of storage space that the image takes up on the computer. This size will increase as you add layers to the file and will be bigger if it's 16 bit instead of 8 bit. Gigapixels, on the other hand, is simply the total number of pixels in the image, so you calculate it just by multiplying the pixel width x pixel length. Of course 415 megapixels is still a huge file!

Well said, Sarah. I am always impressed with the look of your processing style. Your images always have a natural looking vibrance to them and the processing is invisible - by that I mean that it just looks natural and doesn't detract from the image.

My thoughts exactly mirror Sarah's words. I use TK's actions on almost every one of my images and they are invaluable.
Having said that, this was a pretty poor year for autumnal images in much of SW Colorado. Also, the uneven polarization is rather offputting. That's easily fixed should you choose, though.

Personally I find a lot of photographers overdoing the post-processing to compensate for a poor subject source. Rather than having the persistence to find that epic scene, they make one up themselves, artistically.

My "day job" is mostly spent at a computer, so I try to invest my time in photography out in the field. As such, I apply very little post-processing because (a) I like the more natural look and (b) I don't like spending time doing post-processing. I don't sell much of my work, but the stuff hanging in my house is almost identical to what it really looked like, and I'm proud to confirm that to both my visitors and clients, and offering to take them out in the field sometime!