Color vs. Content

[AlanKlein]

<p>I was looking through the Critique section. Something popped into my head about what pictures I like looking at. I prefer more natural looking pictures over more saturated ones. However, I am attracted to the over-saturated pictures of many photos. What's going on? </p>

<p>I think what happens with me, is that with saturated photos, it's like getting a 'high". The colors are what makes me feel good first. With "normal" saturated photos, it's the composition and content that makes me feel good. The colors are there to help of course but, it's not the first thing that makes the picture attractive.</p>

<p>What are your experiences about color saturation? PS: This is not a which saturation level is better question. Different people like different things. I'm trying to understand what's going on in your mind when color intensity is high vs. normal and how your view a photo and how it effects you vs. the other elements in a picture.</p>

<p> </p>

[frank_scheitrowsky1]

In some images, colour is the subject.

[Matt Laur]

<p>I expect that this effect is more pronounced when you're seeing a page full of thumbnails. Our brains have evolved to pick out details in large fields of visual information. This helps in spotting poisonous snakes, seeing ripe bits of fruit in dense foliage, etc., and plays in a role in why we like bright bits of decoration (as jewelry, for example). When you're seeing an endless page of image thumbnails, the contasty, jewel-toned, saturated images catch the eye. It's a natural reaction. I know I feel it. But once I see the images in a larger format - outside the context of several surrounding, unrelated images - that differentiation usually falls apart, and it becomes all about the image's actual merits, on its own. And then overwrought, oversaturated images often annoy, rather than please. <br /><br />What works at the thumbnail level frequently doesn't when seen larger.</p>

[indraneel]

<p>examples? I think it's probably more to do with contrast (both hue and value), but still, seeing is believing...</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p><em>"What works at the thumbnail level frequently doesn't when seen larger."</em> -</p>

<p>And visa versa. I find that looking at a thumbnail is a lot like the old painters' trick of intentionally squinting at a photo or painting to get an idea of where all the large visual masses are, how they interact, etc. In other words a simple way to get the big picture. </p>

<p>IMHO, the most successful pix "work" at all scales, thumbnails, all the way up to large prints.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

 

[saskphotog]

<p>I think saturation can often "startle" you into looking at it. It is strange, shocking, and catches attention. Perceiving content is often a very different process, to the point where black and white may well be the best way to display it. Content takes time to perceive. Unusual saturation attracts attention, but on examination may prove to be just ridiculous.</p>

<p>Colour can often be the content of a picture, however, as has been pointed out. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I'd only add to the above that another variable in how a picture ends up looking on the internet is the difference in color space. sRGB is different from Adobe RGB and "saving for web" often results in a less saturated looking image -- having learned this, sometimes people "punch up" their images before 'saving for web'. Sometimes, this produces unexpected results. :(</p>

 

[randrew1]

<p>Do you prefer blondes or brunettes? Regardless of your preference, you probably notice blondes. Color saturation gets noticed. </p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>One of the issues with digital imaging is that people are post processing their images with a shotgun instead of a rifle, this has resulted in a glut of poorly processed, overly saturated images. It's a lazy way to try and make mediocre images pop and have some impact. Some of the landscape images I see look more like science fiction movie stills than any representation of reality. This is not "art" or even necessarily shows any creativity at all, it's a just quick and easy way to try and add impact. Content, as ever, is king.</p>

<p>This isn't purely a digital thing - back in the day there was always Velvia if you wanted to achieve unrealistic, overly saturated images. However, because it was a transparency film and therefore not ubiquitous, you didn't see the volume of cartoonish, unrealistic colors nearly as much as you do now.</p>

<p>That these images stand out is not surprising, loud music will always be more apparent than quieter music regardless of it's merit or musicality. I think of most over saturated images as merely being "loud" - the fact that they are noticed says nothing about their content or merit.</p>

<p>This is not to say that there's no place for either loud music or highly saturated images - everything has a place and in some cases it's justified, right and works perfectly (in the right circumstances I love both). Like all tools though, it needs to be appropriate, considered and not just a way to try and make something out of nothing.</p>

[indraneel]

<blockquote>

<p>Do you prefer blondes or brunettes? Regardless of your preference, you probably notice blondes. Color saturation gets noticed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And I thought blondes were less saturated ! (no pun, no pun)</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Saturation levels in certain objects communicates spectral reflectance qualities inherent in the object when lit by direct sun.</p>

<p>It's usually when an object is in dim light or light that wouldn't bring out this spectral reflectance is where high saturation levels can look artificial especially if other objects under the same light don't have the same level of saturation. For instance really intense green carpet grass in the shade or under an overcast sky while the green garden hose looks much less saturated can make the entire image look off.</p>