A simple question but maybe not: I grew up using Nikon..FM's FE's etc and Currently I have a D90. I've seen a lot of photo's with a lot of oversaturation. I'm from an artits background...

icemncmth Loc: Oklahoma

I grew up using Nikon..FM's FE's etc and Currently I have a D90. I've seen a lot of photo's with a lot of oversaturation. I'm from an artits background and I like the ability to do and feel how you want. My question is when I look at photos that are over processed or the saturation is huge...these photos look flat to me. They loose their artistic touch and their depth. I know art is subjective but maybe I'm getting old.

Quixdraw Loc: x

It is still art, theirs as they visualize it.
I tend to set my camera on vivid, and underexpose a touch. I generally like the results. All a matter of taste. I don't do a lot of post processing. It is "eye of the beholder" when it is for fun instead of money!

MarkD Loc: NYC

Like you say art is subjective. It also moves in cycles. Something can be popular for a time and then go out of favor.

MtnMan Loc: ID

icemncmth wrote:

I grew up using Nikon..FM's FE's etc and Currently I have a D90. I've seen a lot of photo's with a lot of oversaturation. I'm from an artits background and I like the ability to do and feel how you want. My question is when I look at photos that are over processed or the saturation is huge...these photos look flat to me. They loose their artistic touch and their depth. I know art is subjective but maybe I'm getting old.

Definitely subjective and possibly a physical result of aging (cataracts will wash out colors in bright sun...but not when reviewing images indoors).

I like vivid colors but not over saturated. I sometimes get accusations that they are but I know the accusations are from people who haven't experienced the true colors of the west. I always wear polarized sunglasses in the bright sun (initiated for fishing) so the colors with a CP are what I always see. Some have never seen a sky as blue as a high altitude western sky with polarized sunglasses.

MtnMan Loc: ID

oops

MMC Loc: Brooklyn NY

I do not see your question.

icemncmth wrote:

I grew up using Nikon..FM's FE's etc and Currently I have a D90. I've seen a lot of photo's with a lot of oversaturation. I'm from an artits background and I like the ability to do and feel how you want. My question is when I look at photos that are over processed or the saturation is huge...these photos look flat to me. They loose their artistic touch and their depth. I know art is subjective but maybe I'm getting old.

icemncmth Loc: Oklahoma

Yep...you are correct.. I'm sorry for that. When is oversaturation too much. At what point in time does it become flat and washed out. What point in time does it become a watercolor that uses the wrong paper that doesn't absorb and lets the water flow or the opposite the paper that absorbs everything and lets the colors just saturate the papter.

Is that a good enough quetion.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

You might be interested in discussions re "what is art" in the newest UHH forum, For Your Consideration.

Here is a link to page 8 of the forum's history, just as a sampling:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-119-8.html

On a different note, I read someone make mention of eyesight and specifically if cataract surgery is needed. Healthy eyes, along with all the different calibrations our various monitors and devices have, how do we ever know what is the true vision - so to speak - of the photographer? :)

icemncmth Loc: Oklahoma

Linda From Maine wrote:

You might be interested in discussions re "wh... (show quote)

LOL...My problem is years of art classes and training. I see the color wheel and can see the triangle vividly. So oversaturation can minimise the depth of field.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Throwing a fox in with the chickens, some philosophers believe that nothing we see is real!:-)

icemncmth Loc: Oklahoma

quixdraw wrote:

Throwing a fox in with the chickens, some philosophers believe that nothing we see is real!:-)

Yes and some philosophers will say that the fox is conflicted about eathing chickens and just wants to be friends but the natural instinct is to not be friends.
:lol:

jethro779 Loc: Tucson, AZ

MtnMan wrote:

Definitely subjective and possibly a physical resu... (show quote)

They have also never seen a Montana Sunrise or sunset or the colors up on the Rez after a good rain. The Sage & Juniper colors on the red clay are AWESOME!!!!!

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

icemncmth wrote:

I grew up using Nikon..FM's FE's etc and Currently I have a D90. I've seen a lot of photo's with a lot of oversaturation. I'm from an artits background and I like the ability to do and feel how you want. My question is when I look at photos that are over processed or the saturation is huge...these photos look flat to me. They loose their artistic touch and their depth. I know art is subjective but maybe I'm getting old.

Ice, just because it's posted doesn't mean it's any good and you're seeing the proof!
Junk in, junk out, no matter the processing of amount!
A poor photo, oversaturated to pass it off as art, doesn't make it art and certainly doesn't make it any better. It's still the same crappy pic possibly just made worse.
I'm with you on this.
I never get tired of going to a MOMA, but it's great art, not warned over garbage. There's a difference. At least their is to me.
You can really butcher great stuff and it's still great stuff.
You can really fix crap and it's still just that!!! :lol:
SS

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

icemncmth wrote:

I grew up using Nikon..FM's FE's etc and Currently I have a D90. I've seen a lot of photo's with a lot of oversaturation. I'm from an artits background and I like the ability to do and feel how you want. My question is when I look at photos that are over processed or the saturation is huge...these photos look flat to me. They loose their artistic touch and their depth. I know art is subjective but maybe I'm getting old.

The opinion that over processed and/or oversaturated images are bad is fairly universal among UHH members - you are preaching to the choir. Occasionally, an image is intentionally overdone for "artistic" reasons - whether we 'viewers' agree or disagree that the effect is truly art doesn't matter to the person who envisions it. If you don't like that person's vision, you are free to create one of your own. As I gain experience with the photo editing process, I've discovered that less can be more regarding the application of the sliders.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Sharpshooter -- point of view, personal taste -- 90% MOMA isn't worth my time -- I'll take the Metropolitan any time. If any photographer likes his work who am I to criticize it unless they request a critique-- then I'll try to ask first what they don't like, then suggest possible options for change. Fortunately we don't have a Ministry for Art -- yet. Supposed to be fun.