Do you digitally increase saturation or contrast?

[david_senesac]

For those landscape and nature photographers that shoot with a

digital camera or scan their film and then edit images in a tool like

Photoshop. Do you increase color saturation or contrast controls to

enhance the images beyond the experience that was shot? This is just

one facet of the larger issues which have long been discussed here

and elsewhere. But I see saturation as the essence of much of what

the debate has been about.

 

Note when one adjusts contrast the result is similar to adjusting

saturation. By increasing these levels moderately the result is

almost always a more attractive image. For those which consider such

manipulations part of their freedom with the art form, that is their

choice and is valid as such. Personally the body of my work is from

the attitude of recreating nature as reasonable as possible to the

way I experienced it, which may be in the minority these days, but

again it is my freedom of choice to work within those limits. For

example never went to Velvia. As such I won't use such enhancements

but rather look at my originals, consider the limitations of film and

light, then attempt a reasonable match even though the result almost

always is less aesthetic. Such matching is approximate.

 

I like knowing that other outdoor photographers and persons who are

experienced enjoying the visual natural world will recognize the body

of my work as consistently believable. That is more important for me

than a greater appeal to the larger masses who haven't enough

experiences to know better. -David

[arnabdas]

I do, only if I find it necessary -- in order to have the closest resemblance (when viewed on a gamma-corrected display) to the original slide.

<P>

I scan all my slides with a lousy scanner, the infamous Canon D2400UF -- that means I have to do it almost all the time. I think all those who scan film do it.

<P>

Of course, I don't do it to exaggerate colors (beyond how much Velvia already does :-]) or to make a Provia slide scan look like a velvia slide!

<P>

That said, I believe manipulation of a perceived scene starts the moment it is photographed. No film/CCD can capture a scene exactly as perceived by the human eye. If I'm using Provia instead of Velvia, I'm still manipulating. If I'm using B/W -- that's a gross manipulation.

<P>

How much manipulation is ethical/acceptable is a secondary question. Probably as much manipulation as what most viewers are able to appreciate?

<P> /Arnab

[alan_woolnough]

Hello David,

 

I have similar views to you, on this subject, and it "seems" we may be in a minority. I only shoot for myself, but i think if i did it as a profession, then i would have have to consider what the general public prefered. I live in a touristy area, and it is noticable how people head straight for the highly saturated postcards/chocolate boxes/pictures etc.

 

Ive spent most of my life doing landscape/wildlife as a hobby, and will try to reproduce things, as they appear to me, at that moment. It often means waiting around for a light which will give me a suitable result, rather than using a film or filter to enhance flat lighting. Ive used epp 100, for many years, for landscape shots, which, after experimenting with a number of films at that time, i found most suitable for my taste. Ive never used velvia type films, but i have seen many superb images from that film.

 

During my period, living in Scotland, i found using an 81a to be enough to tone down the blueness in distant views, for some of the year. However, in late summer, when the heather is at its colourful peak, even an 81a, would warm the scene too much, and i think a film like velvia, would give a far to unrealistic result for my taste.

 

For wildlife, i am just as strict with myself, with choice of film for getting results as near as possible to realistic, however i will now contradict myself, as i often use black & white.

 

Generaly speaking, im always attracted to saturated, punchy images {like the above mentioned tourists}, and find many of them stunning, but for my own personal view of the world, i will continue with my preference, as i think nature has plenty of colour of its own. Its just a case of being in the right place, at the right time, in the right light.

 

All the best

[struan_gray]

<p>I'm on a low-saturation trip at the moment. I love the look of

hand-coloured B+W and autochromes, as well as certain

subdued styles of offset lithography and watercolour painting. I

therefore spend a lot of time turning down the saturation in

Photoshop.</p>

 

<p>Strangely, this places just as high demands on film and

scanners as high-saturation does. In the high saturation case

you have to worry about clipping and saturation, with low

saturation it's all too easy to end up with too much noise and

amplified grain.</p>

 

<p>I have a work in progress <a

href="http://www.sljus.lu.se/People/Struan/pics/rubhastoer.jpg">

here</a>. In this case I've used LAB space to seperate the

intensity and colour information so that I can play with contrast

and saturation independently of each other. I'm looking for a sort

of colour lith print effect.</p>

[matthew_cromer]

Yes.

 

I shoot with a Sony DSC-F707 right now, and while saturation is generally good, the Sony pics "out of the camera" are almost always flatter than the actual scene. This is very common for digital cameras which are trying very hard to increase dynamic range and avoid "blowing out" whites, which on a digital camera is the worst possible thing to happen when capturing a scene.

 

Hence, if I didn't increase contrast, almost all my pictures would look dark and musty. There is no "slide" in digital photography, so I generally just adjust to where the image "looks good" to me. Usually that is a contrasty, Velvia-like image, but sometimes I tone down contrast instead and create a pastel effect.

 

BTW, I always use adjustment layers and use an 'S' curve to punch up contrast, as that prevents clipping your dynamic range which the normal PhotoShop contrast control does.

[Ken Katz]

Yes.

 

I also lower saturation and contrast;

lighten and darken;

crop and resize;

burn-in and dodge;

sharpen and blur;

and eliminate distractions (like telephone wires).

IMHO, anything that could be done in a wet darkroom is OK.

[scott_eaton]

<I>That is more important for me than a greater appeal to the larger masses who haven't enough experiences to know better. </i><P>Amen.....explains why all our die hard Velvia users with their 4x5 shots of nuclear contaminated green forests can't be distinguished from Australia or Canada. I guess if your visual cortex is the size of a peanut you need that kind of stimulus. Take close note at the fans of this kind of work likely couldn't work a polaroid. 'Yup, yup, yup, the colors are brighter, yup, yup, yup...drool'<P>I rarely touch the saturation controls when doing slide scans but instead prefer to use the film that matches the conditions and artistic goal in the first place. Any condition that is too 'blah' for Provia can be fixed with Velvia. Any condition too 'blah' for Astia can be fixed with Provia. <P>Digital camera users on the other hand are exempt from this purist approach. Big differences in the way a Canon G1/G2 sees color saturation vs a Nikon D1.

[craig_bridge]

Being a D1X owner, I'm either stuck learning how to set the various white balance and color temperture offsets to fit various lighting conditions (e.g. tune the "film" to the lighting conditions), or adjust "film" characteristics in PhotoShop via selective color saturation, black level, curves, etc.

 

It is easier for me to make sure the exposure is appropriate in the field with the histograms and blown highlight displays and get the white balance close in the field and treat the digital image like an intermediate (not unlike a negative film) and fine tune it in the "darkroom" on images that warrant the extra effort.

[._kaa]

At its core this is a debate from the philosophy forum: is photography's goal to replicate as faithfully as possible what existed before the lens at the moment the shutter was pressed, or is it to create an image that will affect the viewer regardless of what raw imagery went into its making.

 

If you belive the goal of photography is to replicate, then, yes, digital manipulation is the work of the devil and, say, pushing saturation for additional snap is to be frowned on. People who take such position tend to look with a bit of contempt upon the unwashed masses which prefer bright colors.

 

On the other hand if the goal is to produce a striking image, then, obviously, most anything goes. People who think like this tend to look at the "purists" as dinosaurish weirdos, fossilized in their old ways.

 

And the truth? There is no spoon... :-)

[arnabdas]

<I>Kaa: If you belive the goal of photography is to replicate, then, yes, digital manipulation is the work of the devil </I>

<P>

And wet darkroom I believe is for the devil's assistants?

<BR>

What is the difference between --

<BR>

1. Shooting Velvia at ISO 50 and then digitally color-correct to match original slide,

<BR>

and

<BR>

2. Shooting Provia and then saturating in PS as if it was taken with Velvia?

<P>

True, digital increases the lattitudes of manipulation possible, but manipulation is built-in in all films as well.

<P>

<I>"If you are concerned with depicting reality, where does that leave black-and-white"</I> (an approximate/manipulated quote) -- John Shaw in his Landscape Photography book.

[jonathan_bundick]

��explains why all our die hard Velvia users with their 4x5 shots of nuclear contaminated green forests can't be distinguished from Australia or Canada. I guess if your visual cortex is the size of a peanut you need that kind of stimulus.�

 

Arrogant and demeaning as usual.

 

�But I see saturation as the essence of much of what the debate has been about.�

 

This may be the case, but I think it extends beyond saturation, or even color rendition. As you said, ��it is my freedom of choice.� Everyone that posts to these type of threads, including my self, should IMO get out and shoot what they want in the way they like, on the medium they like, and get over how someone else manipulates their images.

 

�Personally the body of my work is from the attitude of recreating nature as reasonable as possible to the way I experienced it, which may be in the minority these days, but again it is my freedom of choice to work within those limits,�

 

If reproducing nature as close to the natural as possible is your goal, then have at it. No photographic medium is going to do that, although you may get closer by shooting digital and applying a more subtle technique in your editing. I don�t think this photographic objective is any more or less valid than any other, but I think it might be a daunting task to recreate the natural world�s color and lighting on any photographic medium. It is about perception, and everyone�s is different, and I think that is at the root of these discussions.

[jonathan_bundick]

��explains why all our die hard Velvia users with their 4x5 shots of nuclear contaminated green forests can't be distinguished from Australia or Canada. I guess if your visual cortex is the size of a peanut you need that kind of stimulus.�

 

Arrogant and demeaning as usual.

 

�But I see saturation as the essence of much of what the debate has been about.�

 

This may be the case, but I think it extends beyond saturation, or even color rendition. As you said, ��it is my freedom of choice.� Everyone that posts to these type of threads, including my self, should IMO get out and shoot what they want in the way they like, on the medium they like, and get over how someone else manipulates their images.

 

�Personally the body of my work is from the attitude of recreating nature as reasonable as possible to the way I experienced it, which may be in the minority these days, but again it is my freedom of choice to work within those limits,�

 

If reproducing nature as close to the natural as possible is your goal, then have at it. No photographic medium is going to do that, although you may get closer by shooting digital and applying a more subtle technique in your editing. I don�t think this photographic objective is any more or less valid than any other, but I think it might be a daunting task to recreate the natural world�s color and lighting on any photographic medium. It is about perception, and everyone�s is different, and I think that is at the root of these discussions.

[jonathan_bundick]

��explains why all our die hard Velvia users with their 4x5 shots of nuclear contaminated green forests can't be distinguished from Australia or Canada. I guess if your visual cortex is the size of a peanut you need that kind of stimulus.�

 

Arrogant and demeaning as usual.

 

�But I see saturation as the essence of much of what the debate has been about.�

 

This may be the case, but I think it extends beyond saturation, or even color rendition. As you said, ��it is my freedom of choice.� Everyone that posts to these type of threads, including my self, should IMO get out and shoot what they want in the way they like, on the medium they like, and get over how someone else manipulates their images.

 

�Personally the body of my work is from the attitude of recreating nature as reasonable as possible to the way I experienced it, which may be in the minority these days, but again it is my freedom of choice to work within those limits,�

 

If reproducing nature as close to the natural as possible is your goal, then have at it. No photographic medium is going to do that, although you may get closer by shooting digital and applying a more subtle technique in your editing. I don�t think this photographic objective is any more or less valid than any other, but I think it might be a daunting task to recreate the natural world�s color and lighting on any photographic medium. It is about perception, and everyone�s is different, and I think that is at the root of these discussions.

[jonathan_bundick]

Sorry for the multiple posts. Computer froze, and it appeard that the entry did not go through.

[david_senesac]

We all agree that recreating close to natural light conditions isn't possible. No matter what media is used, the displayed image will have limitations particularly with color gamut, luminance, and resolution. The range of the human eye is certainly tremendous. On the other hand it might also be agreed among photographers that when an image is well within those parameters of media, that a reasonable good representation of the subject can be recreated. And I think most of us would also agree that we can easily distinguish between an image that was produced with good fidelity and one that was not. The more so the easier. Those who embrace artistic freedom to manipulate images, as we agree, should not generally be inhibited in such a choice by criticism that it is so. Particularly when it is not specifically promoted as natural. However it is also valid that there is some inate value in more accurate photographic reproduction that will obviously have a ring of more value to many viewers.

 

Let us say an audience viewed two photographs of an scenic landscape, the first obviously more saturated than the second and in this hypothetical case lets say it looks more appealing than a second print which was reasonably accurate. They were then asked to judge which print they preferred. Of course many would choose the first print. Particularly so for those who are not too experienced with the outdoor world. But one can also expect that if the audience were then told that the second print was much more naturally reaslistic than the first, that there would be some who would then switch their preference because of that inate value. -dave

[raymond_luk]

Answer is yes, but only to get it to match the slide as close as possible when I scan slides. Many times I will adjust saturation/contrast selectively to boost only certain colors to "target" to my Epson printer to get the final output to closely resemble the slide.

 

Shooting with a digital camera in RAW format, then playing with the white balance (to mention only one parameter) on the computer will definitely challenge anyone's idea of "recreating nature as reasonable as possible". Human memory is extremely fallible, and quite a few settings look "reasonable" on the computer depending on what my memory and emotions tell me at that moment. Then the slides from the same session come back from the lab and they don't look like any of the digital variations!!!!

 

"Oversaturation" may catch one's attention initially, but a rewarding image always stands on it's own merits, saturated or not. Keep the faith, David.

[alain hogue]

Hi,

 

I think that basically, most of the photographers try to make photographs to distract, astonish, amuse or draw the attention of those who look at the photographs. Now, if the viewers prefer colors saturated pictures, I think we should go this way and make saturated pictures. This with all the tools that we have. Let's give them what they want.

 

On the other hand, for sure there is a percentage of people who prefer soft colors pictures, it is also necessary to give them what they want. This again with all the tools availables.

 

In fact, I believe that most of the people who look at the photographs do not want to know how the photograph have been taken or if she had been modified on PS. No, people are simply interested to look at the photographs they like.

 

By the way, a photo begin to be alterated at the moment that I press on the button. It's start with the film, the treatment, the scan, the graphist, the printing and even the kind of support.

 

Alain Hogue