I can't help wonder how this conversation would flow if it was about color saturation in some other artistic medium such as oil painting or water color. The level of saturation is one of our choices for artistic expression. We communicate visually with our audience. How can there be a standard?

To suggest one approach is preferable to the next is to imply that one form of artistic expression is superior to the others, be it photography, music, cooking, you name it. Do we want to constrain ourselves to merely being recorders of flat visual data, like statisticians - unable to offer our personal interpretations of a scene to evoke an emotion? Heck, no!

If manipulation of tones, contrast and color is an offense, then Ansel Adams may have been a felon.

Viva l'difference!

Just ignore them. Process your images the way you like them. Don't fall into step with them if you don't like it. Recently a very successful wedding photographer gave a talk at our club meeting and I was horrified by what I saw. I can't believe that people would pay a minimum of $6000 for his SHIT. He is a husband and wife team and his wife does most of the post processing. The post processing is where they are making me sick. But, it's just me I guess, and perhaps it's just not the vision I would have for a wedding. I know another Vietnamese wedding and engagement photographer, and I like his style. His style is a more blown out, bright, dreamy look. But I don't like it all the time. People should have a choice on what kind of wedding photos they want. My point is, if you don't like over saturated photos, I'm sure there are many of us that feel the same and you don't have to make your photos look the same way. Use your imagination. Hang your picture style on your walls and be proud.

I posted a bit to fredmiranda.com. My first few forays through their landscape section I was sooo put off by the ultra-slick and glossy, overly dramatic, over-saturated images. Always going for the huge WOW. (similar on 500px)

For nature and landscape shots, I've grown much more fond of shooting (and seeing) small, gentle moments that others might overlook.

All a matter of personal opinion and interests, though, and if you read the two articles linked in my signature line, you'll see better where I'm coming from.

I was a member of a large camera club in Arlington, VA around 1990. I entered all their monthly contests, often in both print (b&w) or color slides. But I would not do that today because I wouldn't want to fall into the trap of making my decision on what to submit based on what I thought would please someone else.

Would this one be in contention?

I have noticed the same thing and HATE it. I have always preferred B&W shooting because with color when you spend time getting the composition, visual story and lighting exactly right what I usually hear is "Ooooo pretty colors..." . Makes me nuts. I think between supersaturating colors and ridiculous overuse of HDR, we are losing the skill of photography. If I want a Thomas Kinkade painting, I will buy one !

Sorry - a really sore spot with me. I notice that many contributors here seem to follow the trend and turn their photos into stylized 'art' rather than true photography (by my definition) . If that is what you like, I have no problem with you liking whatever you prefer, just rubs me the wrong way that it is called photography. Thats why I don't comment on any posted pictures - My aesthetic has no place in evaluating anybody else's work and I know that. (Doesn't mean I can't complain about it if asked though...)

Can somebody help me off my soapbox now ???

As you said, many people simply want their images to have any immediate impact ("wow") as a way to get praise. HDR is definitely a way to get that kind of response, even when it is overdone. Rather than completely rejecting HDR, I have experimented with it to see what I can do to make the image truly my own. The pre-sets that HDR programs offer run the gamut of boring to interesting to weird, and often are somewhat "off the mark" in my opinion. But when it works, it really is pretty good.

What I do with HDR is choose the pre-set that looks the best to me, then edit that until I am satisfied. OR, I use that preset to give me some ideas for editing a single image in a way that is unique. It has worked very well most of the time. Because of this, using it as a "learning tool", I enjoy looking at what HDR can show me!

But I am still seeking to create images with natural-looking colors, fine detail, and with a "wow" factor...

Here are some different versions of one picture, showing how I "use" HDR. It was sunset in Portland, Maine, I was standing on the end of a pier looking back at the city. Colors were beautiful but hard to capture in one photo, so I bracketed.

We were just talking about this in aphotoshop class. Look at the sky, then look at the pics people are creating.... They dont look like the same sky. They look more like some type of painting. Some I like some I hate . andthis is the reason I dont belong to a photo club. I dont need some guy telling me that my pictures dont measure up to HIS standards. More colors more saturation. etc etc. The last club I belonged to, you had to enter a pic every month. You never learned anything, it was just members tearing your shopt up. It seemed the worse things you said about someones photo the better. I didnt need it. A bunch of blow hards trying to make themselves look good.