Why saturate . . . when mother nature does it for you
untouched by post processing. Why saturate this?
I usually do not post process. What my eyes see thru the camera is what I want to see on print or file. Sometimes post processing changes the photo so much from what you saw because some photographers want their photos to "pop". Sometimes photographers like you and myself want what we take to be just as it was when we viewed it (mind's eye); after all they are memories we store for years to come. Once in a great while i may post process in cases where the camera is not capturing what I am seeing and then and only then I will process a little. I always remind myself that my minds eye view and quality is what I want in the end; after all how do you process your minds eye? How my opinion helps.
Some shots need no more saturation.
Post processing is often needed to make the photograph look like what you saw before you took the photograph and is needed even more often when you want the final print to look like what you imagined long before you found the photo. In my experience, Raw images in particular seldom look right straight from the camera.
Some shots need post processing...this one does not.
jonjacobik wrote:
untouched by post processing. Why saturate this?
First let me compliment you on such an excellent photo. This is what you would call SOOC (Straight Out Of The Camera). There are pros and cons on this subject. PP is necessary to improve a photo that didn't come out so good. Some people use polarizing filters to enhance the color of the sky, if it is dull. Your photo needs no PP. Thanks for posting.
That is a wonderful photo. Thank you for sharing.
Thank you very much indeed. When I see over-saturated photographs at exhibitions, I just turn away.
When we see exhibitions that feature the finest photographers of a few decades ago, there are no
photographs that were post-processed. None at all. What stunning beauties!
fourg1b2006 wrote:
Some shots need post processing...this one does not.
Agreed!
PS I studied photography at the CW Post campus of LIU. The Island, the Sound and the Ocean give a lot of opportunities for photography.
When I first started I liked to over process. What I found out was that often what looks good on a computer screen does not look good on an actual print. I highly saturated. Now I do not saturate, usually, but I find I can do the same thing only better by using the clarity control in lightroom, or just slightly increase the contrast. Too much of a good thing is really too much, but a lot depends on context and what you want to do as well.
DMGill wrote:
Post processing is often needed to make the photograph look like what you saw before you took the photograph and is needed even more often when you want the final print to look like what you imagined long before you found the photo. In my experience, Raw images in particular seldom look right straight from the camera.
If you shoot in RAW most images will need to bump up the saturation +5 - 10.
dumbo wrote:
Thank you very much indeed. When I see over-saturated photographs at exhibitions, I just turn away.
When we see exhibitions that feature the finest photographers of a few decades ago, there are no
photographs that were post-processed. None at all. What stunning beauties!
Disagree. They all burned and dodged images and used filters to increase or decrease contrast in the darkroom. They push processed film in the development containers to get the effect they wanted. It should never be obvious that a photo has been worked on but I'd assert that the "finest professionals" all did it.
Nice one - just as it is.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.