i feel dirty...

[ObiDon]

about a year ago, i ran a poll asking how saturated you guys liked colors to look in pictures. as i figured, "natural" pretty much ran away with the poll.

well, last month we went to the zoo and i took a couple pictures of the lorikeets. i took one of the pictures and cranked the colors up to "ugh" and then went a couple more notches past that. what i ended up with was this. unsuprisingly, it was one of my most popular photos and was even the first time i made it into flickr explore.

i knew what i was doing and intentionally did it, but i still feel dirty. if it's any consolation, i also made an alternate toned-down version but it's not online

p.s. feel free to browse around while you're there, but i think most of my stuff is "snapshotty." some photos were taken with a Panasonic DMC-FZ20 and some with an Olympus E-510.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: ObiDon
about a year ago, i ran a poll asking how saturated you guys liked colors to look in pictures. as i figured, "natural" pretty much ran away with the poll.

well, last month we went to the zoo and i took a couple pictures of the lorikeets. i took one of the pictures and cranked the colors up to "ugh" and then went a couple more notches past that. what i ended up with was this. unsuprisingly, it was one of my most popular photos and was even the first time i made it into flickr explore.

i knew what i was doing and intentionally did it, but i still feel dirty. if it's any consolation, i also made an alternate toned-down version but it's not online

p.s. feel free to browse around while you're there, but i think most of my stuff is "snapshotty." some photos were taken with a Panasonic DMC-FZ20 and some with an Olympus E-510.

You shouldn't feel "dirty." What you're doing is essentially the digital equivalent of loading Fuji Velvia 50 into a film camera and shooting away. Besides, color accuracy is not as important in landscapes and wildlife shots as it is in say, portraits.

 

[bobdole369]

People will click on something that doesn't look natural.

 

[Munky]

B&W photography desaturates all colors, and yet people often find it appealing and good-looking. Why should applying extra saturation be a "bad" thing?

 

[ObiDon]

the poor birds beaks are practically glowing

i should have put up a normal version at the same time to see how each was reacted to, but it's too late for that now. maybe next time, but most people are attracted to shiny things and bold colors. the outcome would likely be the same!

 

[spikespiegal]

I like saturated colors as much as the next guy, but there are a couple of ways to tell when you've overdone it.

First thing, is compare the detail in colors with a before and after. If you're driving colors so hard that they blow out detail, then you are clearly pushing things too hard. The birds here are a bit over the top..mostly red/magenta.

Next thing, just test the picture using levels, or by increasing the black level. Often by increasing the shadow/black contrast (decreasing shadow detail) in a digital image makes it look much more saturated because digital capture is by nature very linear, if not a bit drab for our aethestic tastes. Especially RAW / AdobeRGB

Films like Velvia don't have more color than the next film. They simply had more aggresive color ramps and hard midtone contrast which made them look more saturated, which is emulated with the digital analogy above.

 

[Alyx]

I've noticed very similar results on my flickr. But I've also noticed random interest in photos, where people come out of the wood works for one photo that isn't particularly interesting and isn't in explore. Could be a little of both.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Heh, I had to look up "Flickr Explore" to see what that was! Good for you - free exposure!

In general, I prefer photos that are saturated a little beyond "real", but not to the point of color clipping. Of course, thoughtful desaturation is also lovely.

Re: your bird shot, I found a couple a couple of comments humorous: "very good composition," one person writes, even though you cut off the poor birds' feet. A couple folks posted, "love the bokeh", even though there are distracting bright circles. Just part of the inanity involved in many "photo community" sites.

I really like your "geese" shot - the perspective is neat-o.

 

[extra]

Ehh, the composition really *is* good, so what if the feet are cut off. It is great composition. Though in this case it's not so much the composition as in it just *works* because the birds happen to be posing just perfect!

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: extra
Ehh, the composition really *is* good, so what if the feet are cut off. It is great composition. Though in this case it's not so much the composition as in it just *works* because the birds happen to be posing just perfect!

The birds' posing was just fine. It's the composition which was not good - the photographer did not take best advantage of the opportunity - a mistake I make all too frequently. Cutting off the feet and also the bottom of the left bird is just not good.

OTOH, I really like the composition of this one.

 

[Deadtrees]

One thing I figured out long time ago is that people like high contrast and high saturated colors even if it destroys gradation and detail. Majority of people seem to think good picture = very and very vivid picture.
Being a person who's crazy about fine gradation and subtle colors, I try not to fall into the easy way of attracting people's view. However, I, many times, find myself upping contrast and gradation because I know it sells. I, too, feel bad doing so.

 

[extra]

I don't know, I guess the composition of the zoo birds just works for me. Maybe it's not technically correct, but that's okay because it works great in this case. The rules are there as a general rule, not as in you hafta follow them all the time. Only thing not great about the photo is the neon reds, but it's still an awesome picture. ^_^

 

[troytime]

don't feel dirty about shit man.
don't apply any rules to your creativity.

its an art. and its your art.

 

[ObiDon]

thanks for the responses, compliments, and criticisms! i know you guys can be a tough crowd. it's always interesting to see the range of responses around here

flickr responses can be amusing, too. there's a higher percentage of average joes there. so there's a lot of "nice colors!" and "great focus!" comments thrown around even when they aren't really true. especially when you look at the larger pictures that a lot of those comments are on. on the other hand, there's also people there that do great work and manage to put good photos up daily. i don't know how they find the time!

i agree that my composition was a little off on the lorikeets picture. i wasn't quite paying attention at the time. however, i still like it as it is because the result was more "cute" rather than having a documentary feel to it.

the geese picture (linked above by Flipped Gazelle) is probably my favorite one right now. it turned out a lot better than i expected! i had to creep up to them on my stomach (they don't crap all over the place like canada geese) to get as close to them as i did. the whole time i expected them to either fly away or mob me. you can tell they're looking at me funny