Too much colour

[geoff....]

I look at the images being posted these days and cannot help but

feel that most images have had their colours boosted or filters

added.

 

The images look dramatic but somehow it detracts from what we are

attempting to capture - nature at its finest.

 

This seem to be particularly so in scenic shots.

[vivek iyer]

Did you miss the Velvia era?

[davidroossien]

If you do some digging there are many nature photos on this site that are not overly saturated. It's just harder to find those types of photos because they aren't as popular with the masses and there are fewer of them.

[ilkka_nissila]

Yeah, the main reason is simply that people rate pics with bright colours highly. So this is what you see in the top-rated gallery.

[SCL]

If it is online, by definition it has been digitally manipulated.

[justinblack]

Keep in mind that rich color is also a factor of the subject, quality of light, contrast and

exposure. It is perfectly possible to capture brightly colorful, vibrant photographs on film,

without boosting saturation in Photoshop or using color enhancing filters. The problem is

that too many people are unwilling to master the discipline, patience, and deliberate

approach required to seek out, plan for and/or wait for the optimal combinations of

subject, weather, quality of light, etc., and so they fake it digitally. This tendency results in

the automatic questioning of all authentic scenes that are dramatically colorful, which is

understandable, but unfortunate. I would only suggest that before writing off an image as

digitally enhanced, take a second look and ask yourself if the colors might in fact be

accurate. It's usually fairly easy to tell the difference with thoughtful consideration, though

one's initial reaction might not be correct. Sometimes, a colorful image is simply capturing

"nature at its finest."

 

The attached image, for instance, is an example of good location scouting, being prepared

to take advantage of optimal lighting conditions, and a proper exposure for the situation.

It is an entirely straight shot with no filter used, and only such Photoshop work required to

return the raw scan to matching the qualities of the original transparency as viewed on the

lightbox. Could this image have been created in Photoshop from a far less colorful

original? Maybe, but it wasn't.

[geoff....]

I guess we have to live with the limitations of SRGB too. I found posting an image OK for printing becomes flat when converted to web display, the contrast has to be increased as well.

[geoff....]

In reply to Justin, yes I agree with you. I too seek to just make the print/image match the slide. Which also means being there at the right place, the right time, for the right light.

 

Perhaps I am being a bit of purist. I just want to represent nature as it is - remarkable, we just need to learn to see it.

 

In regard to the photo, ahh to live in a country which is not dominated by evergreen trees.

[peter_berger]

Whether one can representing nature "as it is" is a philosophical question. At a bare

minimum, the decision of what to include in the frame and when to press the shutter release

is a conscious decision which by its nature presents only a certain perspective of "what nature

is."

 

I have never seen a flower in real life that looked as detailed as flowers photographed with

good macro lenses, even if I stick my face right up to it. Does using a macro lens present

nature as other than what it is?

[vivek iyer]

"I have never seen a flower in real life that looked as detailed as flowers photographed with good macro lenses, even if I stick my face right up to it. Does using a macro lens present nature as other than what it is?"

 

Darn! I always thought everyone see things as my eyes see them. Down to the micrometer details. Not the case, Peter?

[dan_fromm1]

Peter Berger wrote "I have never seen a flower in real life that looked as detailed as flowers photographed with good macro lenses, even if I stick my face right up to it. Does using a macro lens present nature as other than what it is?"

 

Near vision going, Peter? Mine went years ago, that's why I wore bifocals and now wear trifocals. More seriously, I see less in my good macro shots, up to 1:1, than I can discern in nature. This because my eyes deliver more DoF than my macro lenses do. Above 1:1 is another matter. Is that where you routinely shoot?

 

Geoff, you can always use EPN. It reproduces muted colors as muted. It also reproduces vivid colors -- they do sometimes turn up -- as vivid colors too. Why run with the herd?

 

Cheers,

[john_murphy1]

Check out photo.net member Leigh Perry's portfolio. His colors are fairly neutral.</p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=240097">Leigh Perry</a>

[david_senesac]

Geoff you sound like someone just now taking a look at what is going on. This has all been hashed around for many years especially since Velveta came out and was embraced by legions of outdoor photographers. Overwhelmingly the saturators and manipulators dominate these day. Of course vast numbers of new photographers playing with their new digital toys are just coming on the scene and maybe you are one of them. From the way many post on photog forums it is obvious by far they embrace photography as just another mode of creative art instead of the capture of traditional realistic nature. There was a day when a photograph meant something captured close to real but those days are long long gone.

 

There are many reputable pros that have long essentially droned the line that since it is impossible to really capture reality given limitations of photographic technology, it is nonsense to strive to capture such. Personally I don't buy the necessity of that attitude at all because if one uses equipment and film readily available with the intent of capturing nature with fairly accurate fidelity, then reasonable results can be attained. The throwing the baby out with the bathwater fallacy. That said, there are certainly types of natual subjects which cannot be captured as our eyes see. For instance macros or flash closeups.

 

Each of we photographers decides what style of work we will produce. For some everything goes and if one is honest about that approach when representing their work, it is perfectly legitimate and ethical. Unfortunately because saturation and manipulation are the status quo now, those who do so don't feel any need to explain. In other words people expect that is what is going on. For others like me that strive to capture natural landscapes as accurately as is reasonable and define my work so, such is also valid. I am up front about my own styles and attitude, eager to distance my work from the dominant pack, and hope some people will find greater value in knowing my work is realistic. Also I value work of other landscape photographers with a similar attitude more than those that produce images though manipulated to be aesthetic did not really occur. From my perspective, our natural world which I enjoy immensely is just fine the way it is.

 

...David

 

www.davidsenesac.com

[aaron meyer]

In response to David's "Velveta" comments, I have to respectfully disagree. For photographs where people are the main subject and the rest is background, films like E100G, Provia, or Astia are clearly superior to Velvia 50 (I have my first role of Velvia 100F out for processing, so I can't speak to how that deals with flesh tones), but for other photography I have yet to find anything more accurate than Velvia 50.

 

I fully admit that it may just be me, but when I look at photographs that I shoot with Provia or any other lower-saturation film, they just look flat to me and do not at all match my own memory of the scene. Velvia and other high-saturation films are the only films I've seen that match what I see. To me, and this is, as always, personal preference, a photograph is not about re-creating the scene itself, but rather about re-creating the effect of the scene on the viewer. I don't see pale, washed-out colors when I look at nature, I see deep, rich, vivid colors and it takes a film like Velvia to achieve that look with a camera.