| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/09/2004 12:30:21 PM · #1 |
Not entirely sure the best way to broach this and certainly how best to address this. To a certain extent it is obviously a matter of taste and personal preference. But only to a certain extent.
What am I talking about ?
The over use of saturation and colour enhancement. It seems that in the digital world +10 saturation is good so +20 saturation must be better and if you can get to the end of the slider without the colours making your eyes bleed, then you are just about saturated enough.
Now, it is a personal taste thing and there is also the well worn discussion on Velvia in the film world too. But in the digital case there seems to be a trend to go above and beyond personal taste. There are plenty of images were the saturation has been used to strip detail and tonality from the image, giving a strong, garish solid block of colour. This goes beyond plain increasing saturation (which is arguably useful in some cases) and well in to bad editing.
Never mind the fact that none of these images are remotely printable in this over-extended state. But I don't see an easy way back. Over sharpening and saturation abuse appear almost like an arms-race of cold war proportions. Sharper, brighter, stronger all the way.
Every now and then I try to go cold turkey and back down on this and get comments telling me to 'boost' the saturation to make it 'pop'
Real life doesn't like like this. Real photos don't look like this.
(yes I've phrased this slightly contentiously - hopefully to provoke some discussion of the topic. If you want to call me elitist or generally insult me, I'll happily read your PMs)
 e me. Let's be subtle. (Yes this thumb is supposed to show that I have the same affliction)
Message edited by author 2004-11-09 12:51:25. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 12:46:50 PM · #2 |
I think there certainly is a place for over-saturated colors, and I have to confess to occasionally boosting saturation (either all or some specific colors). Usually, though, I try to make it appear realistic.
Like Velvia abuse, abuse of the saturation slider(s) seems to be an addiction that can ONLY be cured by forcing oneself to shoot B&W or by liberal application of electric shock that administered when any saturation control is boosted over 5 pts.
Sharpening is another matter, where the local thought seems to be that if it isn't sharp enought to cut yourself just by looking at it, it's just crap. To quote Col. Potter: "Horse Puckey"
I'll insult you and call you elitist if you want, but I'd rather not.....
Message edited by author 2004-11-09 12:50:55.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 12:49:58 PM · #3 |
I agree wholeheartedly, though my submission this week is, uh, a tad leaned on.
As a personal example, in this submission to photo.net I was really pleased with the photo. It was taken at 5am this spring in Parksville on the east coast of Vancouver Island (no I'm not that keen...I got up to go pee and saw this out the window and so whipped out the gear).
This, taken with the 70-200 F4L on the tripod, was pretty accurate for colour and contrast. I thought it to be very subtly coloured.
All it got on photo.net was 'colours could use more pop'.
This one, taken with the 17-40 F4L, had a similar look when taken (the nice thing about that pair of lenses is that they behave very similarly) but I increased saturation and contrast in the RAW conversion.
Which is better? Well, I still like the top one better because it looks like how I remember the morning, and the weekend, and it's a good memory.
As for the unsharp mask, again I couldn't agree more. I cringe when I see a winning photo which has clear sharpening artifacts. It ruins the photo. For a 640x427 photo I typically use a 200 at 0.2 or 0.3, just to offset the effects of resampling.
Message edited by author 2004-11-09 12:53:03.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 12:55:26 PM · #4 |
Hi, I'm Laurie, and I'm a saturation abuser...
Is there a 12-step program for me? |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 01:17:00 PM · #5 |
An interesting post Gordon, given your thrid-highest scoring photo (and one of my first favorites).
I look at it like this: people remember colors as more saturated than they really are. When editing a shot to match your recollection, the tendency will be to favor more vivid color saturation.
One of my favorite artists was Maxfield Parrish, specifically for his use of breathtaking color. If photography can be considered another form of art, then I see nothing wrong with punching up the color to titillate the eyeballs of the viewer. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 01:17:27 PM · #6 |
I would concur with Gordon...it's not just the over-saturation, it's the over-sharpening that produces weird halos, it's the over-neatimaging that turns everything into plastic...
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 01:19:49 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... then I see nothing wrong with punching up the color to titillate the eyeballs of the viewer. |
I'm not talking about punching up the saturation a bit, I'm talking about the extremes, so oversaturated that everything looks fake and hurts your eyes... |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 01:21:54 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
...I'm talking about the extremes, so oversaturated that everything looks fake and hurts your eyes... |
Like hot peppers in Mexican food. Bring it on!
 |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 01:27:24 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by doctornick:
...I'm talking about the extremes, so oversaturated that everything looks fake and hurts your eyes... |
Like hot peppers in Mexican food. Bring it on!
|
LOL, that's Gordon's ;)
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 01:28:01 PM · #10 |
Sorry. I didn't mean to give the impression that I've not been guilty of this in the past, or even in the future if I felt it was warranted (my impressionism entry will also be as guilty of this as I think it deserves, to mimic the saturated, unmixed colour look of impressionistic paintings) It is addictive and also hard to notice - your eye being good at seeing realtive changes and not so much the absolutes. I have to walk away and come back 'fresh' to see clearly when I'm editing.
But right now, I'm certainly heading in the opposite direction of what appears to be the majority. For context, here is a version of that same shot about 6 months later. Today, I think even that is too saturated in some areas.
These aren't accidental differences in processing, but deliberate in both cases. In fact, in that newer one, I'd prefer to dial back some of the yellow channel now.
These issues become more critical in particular when looking at larger, printed versions of an image where this sort of abuse is 1/ far more visible and 2/ much more constrained by the realities of ink.
Message edited by author 2004-11-09 13:31:25. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 01:37:40 PM · #11 |
I have a theory that super saturation and over unsharp masking is liked mostly by people newer to photography and this site contains a lot of people getting started. They vote on what grabs them. And the more experienced photographer photoshops their images accordingly (they know the "formula").
Anyway, my theory is that if the membership cost say 100 dollars per year, only those with more experience would join (as apposed to the more casual person with a new digicam) .... and I think the winning photo's would look much different.
... but it's just a theory.
ps ... please do NOT raise the membership price to $100 ... thank you :) |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 01:42:17 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by hopper:
I have a theory that super saturation and over unsharp masking is liked mostly by people newer to photography and this site contains a lot of people getting started. They vote on what grabs them. And the more experienced photographer photoshops their images accordingly (they know the "formula"). |
I hope so.
I've just entered Macro on those very principles. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 01:57:19 PM · #13 |
Gordon, there seems to be consensus that excessive saturation is bad.
Would you care to comment on excessive Dodge & Burn so much in evidence recently. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 02:07:21 PM · #14 |
I think for all these things (dodge, burn, saturation, sharpening)
that the principle that some is good, thus more is better, is the problem.
You then get in to something of a bizzare escalation, which self-enforces. Highly saturated images win, so people vote for highly saturated images, which encourages even more saturated entries and so on.
The same is happening for heavily D&B'ed images right now, on the back of Heida's undeniable success with that technique.
There are images where all of these things are probably justified. Certainly there isn't a 'cap' that could be put on any of them and it is absolutely on a case by case basis. But the trend appears to be further and further from subtle use.
I don't know that this is a solely dpc malaise, but I haven't witnessed it so completely on other sites. Perhaps the motivating drive for 'impact' and quick review encourages this here. If you don't hit the voter between the eyes, they probably don't stop and look. Maybe.
Perhaps some appropriate challenges can turn the tide or at least give visibility to the use of subtle colour.
Minimalism as a challenge.
Pastel as a challenge.
Soft as a challenge.
Message edited by author 2004-11-09 14:09:00. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 03:14:51 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by JEM:
there seems to be consensus that excessive saturation is bad. |
Excessive anything is "bad". That's why it's called excessive ; )
I love the boosted saturation look, especially in my motorsports stuff. I believe a lot of motorsports photographers use(d) velvia anyway, so I'm not the first to realise that a brightly coloured car looks better when the colours jump out at the viewer. It also fits well with my keep-it-simple style.
It probably doesn't help that all my dpc ribbons have been brightly coloured either.
As I'm a fan of saturated images it bothers me more when I see the slider pushed the other way. I see (or I did when it was fashionable at DPC) a lot of B&W/Duotone shots which to me have been desaturated for the sake of it. I'm left wanting to see the colours!
I guess everything that can be done in the editor will be abused. If it consistantly scores well then it's going to get abused more, and by more people. I'd welcome a challenge* which dragged me, and the other 99% of DPC, out of our comfort zone : )
(* Assuming I could find the time to actually enter!)
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 03:30:11 PM · #16 |
I was just thinking about this same question of over saturation and sharp this week.
I went out this week in the rain and shot a series of pictures in less than desirable light. I decided to play with all the unknown buttons on my camera that I have not yet figured out. I have normal sharp, auto sharp, sharpen more. I have hue adjustment 1 to 6 I have contrast adjustments and saturation levels all within the camera. I took 85 shots of the same landscape and ended up with some cool pink skies and over burned clouds with brilliant over saturated color even in a bad light situation.
My entry is getting comments like "This is over photoshopped to an unnatural look". (As I expected).
I think it all falls back to what is more appealing. I like both of your city shots Gordon, I must admit, I like the saturated one more. I think with a little work, you could get that look in some cameras without the help of Photoshop. But it won't change the perception of the viewer or give him any knowledge of how you arrived at the chosen color. So, if the photo looks the same either way, does it really matter how you achieved the finished look? After all, isn't is the artists creation?
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 03:40:38 PM · #17 |
How important is accurate color to the goal of the photo?
Take a look at some of Monet's later paintings when his vision was deteriorating in a way that distorted his color perception. As a result, the colors he used in his paintings were very bright and saturated, certainly not realistic, yet these distorted color paintings are valued no less than his other works.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 03:41:05 PM · #18 |
Yes, I agree, you can make a picture look terrible by using inappropriate settings in the camera too. I wouldn't argue about that at all.
I also agree with Bod's point, inappropriate desaturation is unpleasant too. Saturation when it is appropriate is a fine thing.
Excessive saturation where the actual quality of the image is diminshed, isn't such a good thing. My winning Melbourne shot is a fine example. I've ruined the colours. Any subtle tonality in the image is destroyed by my heavy handed application of the saturation controls.
Vaguely in my defense, I edited that on a machine in Australia with some freebie tools and I was young and innocent. In other words, I didn't realise how garish it was until I saw it at home. It was worse when I saw the print - only then did I compare to the screen version and realise it wasn't bad printing - it was bad editing in the first place.
What does bother me is when I see radically technically flawed images getting high scores. It doesn't bother me because they get high scores, but it bothers me that they could be so much better with a more subtle application of the tools available to the photographer (camera, photoshop, taste, any tool you like in this case)
It also bothers me that this does feed on its self. Newer users of the site see these win and emulate/ copy the style. It marches ever onward.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 03:57:30 PM · #19 |
This is what I'm thinking:
If beauty is 'aptness to purpose', aesthetics, I believe, would be more than just a 'matter of personal taste'.
If we follow this way of looking at photographs, I think, we'll find that the image itself (the very nature, feel and context of it) dictates a 'treatment' and the degree to which it should be saturated, dodged, sharpened or otherwise be enhanced.
I want to use Jimmy's sample image to illustrate: .
It is, the way I see it, a classic landscape (or seascape, if you prefer) in subtly gradated pastels, both in hue and colour. The subject of this photo is, primarily, light, hue and colour. It speaks, to me, of dawn more than of the Pacific or of the sky or of lines and texture, even though all of these elements are depicted. One might also say that it is a quiet picture and subtly 'sweet' in colour and tone, which would benefit from a holistic (an inclusive) examination (one best viewed and enjoyed without selective emphasis).
It is easy to see, that if we were to boost colour and hue (by whatever technique), that the intrinsic subject of this particular photo would be just as easily jeopardized. That in itself would not necessarily stop me from messing with it, unless of course, I'd be unable to either match or exceed the intrinsic energy of the image by credibly creating something else.
If that 'something else', however, 'competes' with its natural essence within a single image, I would have perverted it.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 04:01:33 PM · #20 |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 04:02:59 PM · #21 |
To me, the real distinction here is capturing what you "see" vs. what you "envision." If you are seeking realistic photos of actual scenes, then oversaturation, etc. is a Bad Thing. If you are trying to capture a scene as you imagine it, then I look forward to sharing your vision. Heida's winner is a great example of the latter.
 |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 04:11:04 PM · #22 |
I had someone tell me "maybe not so much saturation, less is more" in the "indecision" challenge (i only bumped it up maybe +3-5 it just looks more saturated, well, because it's surrounded in BW, and the boots, shirt, and skirt are very red. So, you see, maybe it's not really oversaturated in PS, maybe that's what it looks like in real life.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 04:13:20 PM · #23 |
I am someone who loved Velvia. When I process, the final image in my head looks like if it was properly exposed on Velvia. I use Curves for almost every image and I do increase saturation and contrast. It's just what I like.
And for burn, I have never done burning on any digital images, but I have got comments suggesting that I have. I have used different methods to create contrast or different results. My OFS entry is one of them, trying to find out what I can achieve with contrast filters and digital. But, for some people it's PS work. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
edit: typo, hope there aren't many
Message edited by author 2004-11-09 16:19:33. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 04:21:47 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
To me, the real distinction here is capturing what you "see" vs. what you "envision." If you are seeking realistic photos of actual scenes, then oversaturation, etc. is a Bad Thing. If you are trying to capture a scene as you imagine it, then I look forward to sharing your vision.
|
To me, this is a misunderstanding of what I was trying to say.
I'm not saying strongly saturated colours are a bad thing.
Strongly saturating colours to a point that you destroy the information in the picture is a bad thing - if you don't mean it.
Sharp pictures are not a bad thing.
Sharpening a picture so much that the halos ruin the presentation is a bad thing - if you don't mean it.
I think in a lot of cases people do these things without even realising it. I know I didn't even start noticing them until I started looking for it.
Most things, done with serious intent, are usually okay. Blind adherence to the saturation or USM sliders ruins the picture. It makes
a lot of potentially fine images unpleasantly digitally trashed.
In much the same way that excessive JPEG compression can ruin the apperance of an image, too much saturation processing ruins the image.
To a certain extent this is taste. But there is also a fairly clear point where it is 'bad' especially if it isn't intentional, in general.
I have plenty of what I'd consider fine, deliberately oversaturated images. The AMAZ shot at the top of this thread is a good example. But it isn't brightly coloured and oversaturated for the sake of it.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 04:37:36 PM · #25 |
| In that case, choice of sharpening or saturation is no diffferent than choice of aperture, focus or composition. Some people just make better judgements in this regard than others, either by nature or through experience. The digital realm allows a few more opportunities to polish [or destroy] your image. What you are seeing now in digital photography is analogous to the first decade of computer typography- script fonts in all caps, garish shadows, etc. Ugh! Just because you CAN use an effect doesn't mean you SHOULD, and the voters will tend to correct any problems as time wears on. |
|
