[Barbara Fu]

I'm fairly new to photography, still playing with a point-and-shoot. I like it because it fits neatly in a purse, and it doesn't hurt that it's seriously easy to use. Optio Vs20, if you're curious.

I also like ease in processing, and this brought me to this question. I don't like obvious processing, and yet judging by the monthly photo contests most folks here do. Colors are beautiful but unnatural to my eyes. Rather than pick on anyone here, I'll show you an ad that sums it up for me.

I like the picture on the left better than the reindeer on the right, by far. If this were my photo I'd maybe sharpen a little bit, maybe soft-focus/fog the tree directly behind the buck a little, but otherwise leave the picture alone.

What do you consider ideal for a picture? Is my taste for the natural unusual, out of fashion, or does it mark me as an amateur?

Attached Images

 

[stevebrot]

The photo on the right is overprocessed, in my opinion and I would be unlikely to buy the tool. It is a matter of taste and as we all know, there is no accounting for taste.


Steve

[kiwi_jono]

Thats been my observation too. I find the one on the right a bit over processed for my liking. The one on the left looks better to me.

On Flickr people seem to love photos that processed to the point they look artificial. To be fair sometimes that can work (depending on the scene and story its telling) but the problem is just regular landscapes are often tweaked to the point that it doesn't look like pleasant scene anymore. My other pet hate is over done + over used HDR photography - again obviously a lot of people must like it as some of these photos have a lot of views and favourites.

In the past I have experimented on Flickr with the odd photo thats a bit over done and often gets plenty of interest.

[baro-nite]

Is my taste for the natural unusual, out of fashion, or does it mark me as an amateur?

As an amateur, no: a heavy hand in processing is all too common among pros and hobbyists alike. Out of fashion, so it seems, going by what usually gets the most "likes" on social media. Over-saturated colors and high contrast are eye-catching, and image processing is easy for anyone nowadays, so it's no surprise we see a lot of heavily-processed images. On the other hand, the ease of processing and the control we have over how to present our images is a real boon. So be proud of your naturalistic taste; there will always be some who will appreciate it.

[Kozlok]

Me personally, I run the gamut from adding a lot of saturation to being very muted, depending on the subject and the mood I want.

[photoptimist]

Over-processed photos are just like over-processed junk food.

Hypersaturated photos are the greasy-salty-sugary version of the image. Unfortunately, a lot of people love that junk and that forces many pros to produce it because it sells.

One of the hardest questions a photographer faces is the question of who the image is for. The selection of an audience then influences what images they take and how they process them.

[Tas]

I can't say I'd heard of this program until you made this post, so I Googled it and checked it out.

It seems to be using tone/colour masking as a primary tool, though that's my impression of what I'm seeing not an in depth assessment. I'm thinking it might be a tool more aimed at photo composites but that is just an assumption based on how the program works and the number of 'gallery' images with sky replacements.

So far as your preference goes I'm like the other's who've posted replies; the first image appears more natural, the second has had way too much saturation pushed into the background. It's also had more contrast added as well as what could be some blur in the outer portion of the frame. I do find something more appealing about the stag in the second image beyond that the radiant orange of the background is way too distracting.

What you prefer taste wise is up to you but you're right in your preference out of these two images, IMHO etc.

Tas

[awscreo]

That landscape pro app is a terrible app anyway. If I'm not mistaken, I've seen their "magically replaced skies" features, and it looks horrendous, with clear separation with the replaced image. It looks like a collection of Instagram filters and some horrible masking algorithms for folks that don't feel like learning more comprehensive tools. Imo)

[pentaxfall]

What do you consider ideal for a picture? Is my taste for the natural unusual, out of fashion, or does it mark me as an amateur?

First one looks authentic, not much post-processing. I give more importance to authenticity.

[normhead]

It reminds me of a scene I took once that was so dramatic I posted it almost "as is." I was chastised by a forum user for over processing to which I replied "pfffft" .My guess is the first image is straight from the raw and seriously under processed, yes folks, raw must be processed and what comes off the camera is not "natural."

The second image is probably bit over processed. That being said, what was the light like, what would those autumn reds look like in sunrise or sunset? It's possible they were even more dramatic. Our usual rule of thumb is it's definitely over processed if you've lost subject detail through saturation or contrast. If it was a fall sunset the colors on the second may be more accurate than the colors in the first, but in any case the legs are black blobs and seriously under-exposed suggesting the contrast may have been bumped to much, although the original doesn't look any better.

enough for the technical stuff. Lets do some art.
What I worry about is not technical accuracy. I took the picture because the scene slapped me upside the head, and said "take this picture knucklehead", I want my image to have the impact of the original scene. I want it to slap the viewer upside the head and say "look at this picture knucklehead," You don't do that with flat images, So are you going for technical accuracy or emotional integrity. A lot of the time you can't have both. If it's the shocking red autumn leaves that caught your attention, there should be shocking red leaves that catch your attention in our image.

Way to often, I see these kinds of threads as excuses for not doing enough. If you made a statement taking the photo, your post processing should augment that process by putting an exclamation mark on it. I personally think way to many people think the way an image comes off the camera is in some way "natural". I see it as unfinished. When I look at a photo I know what image it left in my gray matter. I'm going to post process until it looks like that. But that's looking for something so far out it captures the spirit of the original, of which it will always be a weak approximate, no matter how much you process it.

There have been times when I said " You really need to have been there, but it wasn't a flat boring scene, and it should't be a flat boring image."

[Bruce Clark]

I am not familiar with the program but I do find the processed image to be over cooked. I would have no hesitation in an image like this to boosting contrast a saturation slightly and selectively. The vignette applied in the finished product is way over the top. Judgement on how far to take it is the key. I frequently overdo my processing in Lightroom. By leaving it overnight and having a second look in the morning, I often find I need to lower my initial saturation. However as several have already stated it is a question of personal preferences.

[travelswsage]

I think on this particular shot I'd fall somewhere in the middle -- the first shot is to bland while the second is overdone. This conversation is not just limited to digital -- for many years Velvia was my film of choice and if you shot in the long fall misty days we often have here in the east with a circular polarizer to boot, the colors would almost drip from the film. When I scan some of the transparencies now I need to desaturate a bit to bring them more in line with reality.


It's really been quite interesting to watch over the years but there has been a long slow trend toward hypersaturation. If anyone remembers the original Kodachromes or Fuji 50 (to this day one of my favorite films) the trend was to ever more saturated films with the reformulation of the Ektachromes and of course, the introduction of Velvia. This continues today with HDR and all the digital processing techniques and algorithms that folks have at their fingertips. OLED screens and 4k films with HDR processing are another example of the trend. I think some of the overprocessed HDR shots finally got some folks to say enough but it seems there are just quite a few folks who love the supersaturated look. In the end it all just comes down to what your personal vision is ....

[DeadJohn]

Heavy saturation and HDR is popular. I think part of the appeal is that on small phone screens it's difficult to see details in a photo so people get drawn to the colors.

Keep in mind that someone built a whole industry around oversaturation. Granted, paintings rather than photos, but I think the same mechanics are at work. thomas kinkade - Buscar con Google

[rod_grant]

Barbara, continue to like what you like, and process accordingly. I try and reproduce what I saw (after a fortnight's holiday how much to I remember anyhow?) My processing often is limited to adjusting shadow and highlights and adding a bit of clarity.

[bm75]

Way to often, I see these kinds of threads as excuses for not doing enough. If you made a statement taking the photo, your post processing should augment that process by putting an exclamation mark on it. I personally think way to many people think the way an image comes off the camera is in some way "natural". I see it as unfinished. When I look at a photo I know what image it left in my gray matter. I'm going to post process until it looks like that. But that's looking for something so far out it captures the spirit of the original, of which it will always be a weak approximate, no matter hw much you process it.

+1. I agree completely.