Welcome to the poll for our October "Colorful" photo contest! Select the photo you think is the best from among our finalists below:

#1.


#2.


#3.


#4.


#5.


#6.


#7.


#8.


#9.


#10.


#11.


#12.


#13.


#14.


#15.

[NancyK]

#1, Nice, sharp, colorful photo that was NOT so easy to capture.

[CesarPaulo]

I vote for # 11.

[Frangipani]

I vote for # 3, this picture has really stil!

[mcfaber]

voto per #3#

[Mark H.]

I have no "dog in this fight" but it saddens me to see how many people are drawn to Number 5 which is very clearly an excellent example of a "dialed to 11" overbaked "HDR" image. HDR can be a great technique , but people who overdo it have given it a bad name and they are rewarded by people (like many in this thread) who seem to not be able to discern an overbaked image.

This would have been an exceptional image WITHOUT the over-processing. It is colorful and exotic and has a lot of interest going on. It didn't NEED the needles pushed into the Red Zone of post-processing.

I'm sure I should put my flame-retardant suit on for the fury that will come upon me for saying so, but this image is clearly across the photo-realistic line and should be recognized as such my most with a critical eye here. It is unfortunate that for many "color" is defined by pushing the saturation slider to ridiculous levels or resorting to extreme HDR.

CheekyGeek,

I truly value your periodic comments on this topic but wish you wouldn't direct them towards someone's best effort at providing a prize-worthy shot.

I don't own or use Photoshop, so I'm admittedly quite ignorant compared to most of you, but remember that there are online photography teachers like Ken Rockwell (kenrockwell.com) who recommend setting your digital camera to maximum saturation and medium jpeg for best results in prints up to 20 x 30 inches!! With that sort of online advice accepted by many, is there any wonder that people like bright, eye-popping color and detail? Remember Kodachrome?

I've been actively involved in photography since getting my first used Konica 35mm in 1965 and my first Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar in 1969, and I had to go back and study Photo #5 carefully for a long time before I could see what you're seeing. For the first five minutes, I was ready to refute your observations, but then slowly, starting with what seems like exaggerated magentas, I began to perceive other details that supported your point of view. That said, how many of us spend ten minutes looking at one online photograph (other than our own, of course)? So I hardly blame the photographer or other forum members for liking the results.

Please do keep commenting, but consider being a little more forgiving and gentle with monthly contest entrants so as not to discourage participation. You can help us all become better photographers without resorting to critical hyperbole.

With kind regards,

Mark H.

[photoramone]

Amen..... And I'm "areligious" Amen!!

[dragunr1]

I vote for nr 8

[jackypentax]

I vote for # 7

[photoramone]

I actually voted for best color photo (& I mistakenly voted fo # 5) What a drag! That was a photo of over colored, over HDRd Bazaar in a middle eastern country. It actuially was a real GAWDY pic. The pic I meant to vote for was the photo of a number of fishing luers, that was a terriffic work of photographic "ART". I'm just saying, I made a big mistake... RJM cheekyGeek was quite accurate, actually, though a bit HARSH>

[nucleon]

#5 is my choice for the most colorful and at the same time most interesting photo.
Leo

[HanSolo]

No. 3!

[azerilla]

my vote #12

[Bacolod]

Wow! Makes you feel you are in the picture!!! EXCELLENT CAPTURE!

[jackinkc]

#3 gets my vote!

[RogerW14]

CheekyGeek,

I truly value your periodic comments on this topic but wish you wouldn't direct them towards someone's best effort at providing a prize-worthy shot.

I don't own or use Photoshop, so I'm admittedly quite ignorant compared to most of you, but remember that there are online photography teachers like Ken Rockwell (kenrockwell.com) who recommend setting your digital camera to maximum saturation and medium jpeg for best results in prints up to 20 x 30 inches!! With that sort of online advice accepted by many, is there any wonder that people like bright, eye-popping color and detail? Remember Kodachrome?

I've been actively involved in photography since getting my first used Konica 35mm in 1965 and my first Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar in 1969, and I had to go back and study Photo #5 carefully for a long time before I could see what you're seeing. For the first five minutes, I was ready to refute your observations, but then slowly, starting with what seems like exaggerated magentas, I began to perceive other details that supported your point of view. That said, how many of us spend ten minutes looking at one online photograph (other than our own, of course)? So I hardly blame the photographer or other forum members for liking the results.

Please do keep commenting, but consider being a little more forgiving and gentle with monthly contest entrants so as not to discourage participation. You can help us all become better photographers without resorting to critical hyperbole.

With kind regards,

Mark H.

I agree with Cheeky Geek that Number 5 would be a very good interesting photograph before whatever enhancements were performed. Like Mark H., I do not own Photo Shop and do remember Kodachrome. Good natural color and sharpness have always been priorities for me. My personal motivation is to use the camera, lens, light, and Mother Nature to make pleasing photographs and increase my knowledge and skill of how to control these variables.