If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I've posted two versions of this picture for your views please. I normally set my saturation level as in the first image, but have noticed that others seem to post much more saturated images. Is the second one better or have I gone over the top?
I've posted two versions of this picture for your views please. I normally set my saturation level as in the first image, but have noticed that others seem to post much more saturated images. Is the second one better or have I gone over the top?
I personally prefer the first, original, version.
To me the tones are more natural. The second one looks almost too contrasty, did you adjust the contrast as well?
Seems to me not only the saturation, but the colour temperature of the image is changed here, as well. It's particuarly noticeable in the sky. I don't think the saturation is overdone at all, but wonder about the change in colour temp, as that would normally not happen with a pure saturation increase.
Seems to me not only the saturation, but the colour temperature of the image is changed here, as well. It's particuarly noticeable in the sky. I don't think the saturation is overdone at all, but wonder about the change in colour temp, as that would normally not happen with a pure saturation increase.
I do see what you mean. Could this be poor software as I was trying out a free editing programme Paint.net. I'll run the same image through my usual editor and see if I get the same effect.
I've posted two versions of this picture for your views please. I normally set my saturation level as in the first image, but have noticed that others seem to post much more saturated images. Is the second one better or have I gone over the top?
Ron, I'm one who often increases saturation somewhere along the Post processing line. However it is often unnecessary to apply this to the whole picture in one go. It is often more effective to be selective about it. Photoshop for example has a Sponge tool which will increase or decrease saturation. If this is put on a low tolerance setting, say 10% then wafting the brush over selected areas can be most effective. In the darkroom it was like stopping down the lens further to give you longer exposures and therefore time to do dodging and burning etc.
Personally I doubt the software you used caused any problems, and I'm not sure about the issue of colour temp. The fact is that increased saturation often warms up areas, especially in evening light, and this is effectively a similar thing to increasing colour temp. This is something thats easily done in the Raw converter to good effect. I know however you don't use Raw or have ACR or other such converter.
With your picture I think it would be easy to selectively adjust the saturation in areas you think may benefit. With skys such as this, its often as well to apply a gradient and simply use levels to darken a tad, no saturation needed
Ron, I'm one who often increases saturation somewhere along the Post processing line. However it is often unnecessary to apply this to the whole picture in one go. It is often more effective to be selective about it. Photoshop for example has a Sponge tool which will increase or decrease saturation. If this is put on a low tolerance setting, say 10% then wafting the brush over selected areas can be most effective. In the darkroom it was like stopping down the lens further to give you longer exposures and therefore time to do dodging and burning etc.
Personally I doubt the software you used caused any problems, and I'm not sure about the issue of colour temp. The fact is that increased saturation often warms up areas, especially in evening light, and this is effectively a similar thing to increasing colour temp. This is something thats easily done in the Raw converter to good effect. I know however you don't use Raw or have ACR or other such converter.
With your picture I think it would be easy to selectively adjust the saturation in areas you think may benefit. With skys such as this, its often as well to apply a gradient and simply use levels to darken a tad, no saturation needed
Thanks Stephen for all the info. I really was just asking if my images needed a bit more saturation and did not take much care about the second example that I posted. As I had noticed that many other images here appeared to me to be over saturated, I got to wondering if it was me that was not applying enough colour. I have calibrated my monitor to the best of my ability, but even that could be out, so basically was looking for general guidelines on which one looked right to other viewers. Based on that I would aim to adjust to the most popular level. I'm not a cheapskate, but really can't afford the latest up to date gear, so I'm trying to squeeze all I can out of what I have.
I've posted two versions of this picture for your views please. I normally set my saturation level as in the first image, but have noticed that others seem to post much more saturated images. Is the second one better or have I gone over the top?
Hi Lumix,
I prefer the first natural color rendition, but the second is ok as it is the sort of image used for postcards, bright saturated and ideal for tourists to send back home. But in my humble opinion the first is far superior.
Ron, The first image reminds me of ektachrome and the more saturated one of kodachrome. The second is a little too saturated for my tastes. I would prefer something more toward the second shot, but with fewer artifacts.
(One of these days I'll contribute something for your comments!)
Many thanks everyone for taking the time to have a look and post your comments. The first image was given extra saturation after being re-sized and saved as a jpeg. This is probably why it has suffered some what quality wise. A better way would have been to add saturation before preparing for the web. From whats been said I think I will stay with my usual level of saturation. So thanks again for your guidance.
Personally I prefer the first (less saturated) image however the second is also acceptable and if that were the only version shown to me of this picture I would not crit it for being oversaturated. Its a great pic but I think not a good example to use in a demonstrate oversaturation.
"My own suspicion is that the universe is not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose."
--John Haldane
I've posted two versions of this picture for your views please. I normally set my saturation level as in the first image, but have noticed that others seem to post much more saturated images. Is the second one better or have I gone over the top?
Hi lumix,
I prefer the first photo (the not so saturated one). In second photo the sky has a more magenta look and the ground I think is too yellow intense.
Generally, I prefer photos to look as close as to original, regardless of extra saturation impressive effects, but everybody is entitled to his/her own opinion
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalise advertising, and to analyse site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment