[Bui]

I'm still an amateur that have been trying to learn using post-processing with Lightroom. Mostly my processing involves:

- Adjust highlight, shadow, and overall image brightness
- Crop if needed
- Sharpen if needed
- Adjust contrast
- Adjust WB if needed
- Apply lens correction
(of if applicable, start with a preset to save time, and try to adjust the above)
- Color: now comes the question, I like vivid color, so I tend to push saturation a bit. The images look better at first, most of the time, but sometimes I'm wondering whether I should do that or stay with true to life color that my lenses captured. Do you usually edit color when you do processing?

And, for example, I really like this kind of color look in this photographer's page The Best Paris Photography Locations - Full Paris Photo Guide + Map, aside from composition and lighting, can I do something with post processing to achieve a similar one?

[pschlute]

- Color: now comes the question, I like vivid color, so I tend to push saturation a bit. The images look better at first, most of the time, but sometimes I'm wondering whether I should do that or stay with true to life color that my lenses captured

First, your lenses and the jpeg that the camera produced does not represent "true to life". There is no such thing. The "natural" setting may be the closest to what you recall as true to life, but no camera; lens; icc colour profile; monitor ; monitor calibration combination is going to give you "true to life"

I always tend to boost my colours a bit to give the image more punch either as a general saturation boost or for individual colours. Nothing wrong ith that as long as you don't overdo it.

If you are doing extensive adjustments I suggest you consider at some point learning about RAW workflow. You will have more options than working on a JPEG

[aaacb]

What I've learned from others and my own experience is that to get a certain look (in your case, I think you're looking for vivid without over-saturating), it's best to do local edits that lead the viewer through the image, because we perceive relatively. If everything's super saturated and contrasty, our perception adjusts to compensate. I do local edits primarily for luminosity (dodge/burn), sharpening, and sometimes for color/contrast as needed.

That said, I don't see anything wrong with increasing the overall saturation or anything else if it looks good If it's an image that really doesn't need it, or I don't have a clear idea of what I want to get, I keep my editing straightforward without masking.

[stevebrot]

This comment relates to RAW (DNG/PEF) processing only. Adjustments to rendered image files are a different story.

Lightroom's default rendering of converted RAW is, by design, a little flat in terms of contrast and color saturation. There is no shame in tweaking either property. I generally apply +15 vibrance to give colors a boost, but very seldom touch the saturation slider. If I do any color adjustments to saturation or brightness, it is in the HSL panel where I have greater control. Likewise, I generally dial in +15 clarity or adjust the curve directly as opposed to using the contrast slider. FWIW, both vibrance and clarity are sort of "mystery" sliders in that it is not obvious just what either does except that the results are somewhat more moderate than what might be accomplished with saturation and contrast controls.

In addition, I almost always...

• Adjust exposure
• Adjust highlights/shadows/blacks
• Apply regional edits/gradients
• If editing to print, softproof and edit to the appropriate color profile are part of my flow as is creation of a virtual copy for that purpose

...Frequently...

• Create several virtual copies for printing or export
• Create a virtual copy for monochrome treatment
• Softproof prior to export, with rendering intent specified

...Sometimes...

• Adjust global contrast
• Add mild vignette (positive or negative
• Give sharpness bump (very judicious)

...very rarely...

• Noise reduction

Steve

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 07-23-2019 at 05:35 AM.

[selfnoise]

I use Darktable rather than Lightroom, but... I generally push the white balance a teensy bit to the warm side because I find Pentax colors on the natural setting a bit cool. Then I use the color zones module to specifically boost the saturation of whatever colors I want to emphasize.

Whatever you do, somebody won't like it, so adjust the pictures until YOU like them. 😁

[microlight]

My process is similar to Steve's (except direct in ACR rather than in Lr, which I don't use). I have a preset that adds clarity and vibrance (and now ... texture!) and use the HSL panel, but rarely increase the saturation slider. I also tend to bump the white balance towards the warm side just a tad. One additional step is to sharpen and noise-reduce together - sometimes noise reduction isn't necessary which then gives more flexibility for sharpening without creating artefacts or haloes.

[jack002]

I have heard of a thing called a calibrated monitor. I don't have one, but I know the laptop monitor is quite dull compared to others, so I'd try to use a monitor you trust before making any changes.

[Apet-Sure]

Whatever you do, somebody won't like it, so adjust the pictures until YOU like them.

Some artists paint with muted colors and some with garish colors. Which one is 'right'? It's your personal preference. In the June challenge for macro flower images, someone posted an image that to me looked like a watercolor painting. The colors and contrast were muted. It wasn't something that I would normally think of doing, but the end result was quite pleasing.

I don't usually put copyright watermarks on my images, but sometimes I do. I use the tag line 'The Way I See It'. There is some very useful advice above, but in the end your work should reflect you. As Ricky Nelson said in the song 'Garden Party', "You can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself".

I have heard of a thing called a calibrated monitor. I don't have one, but I know the laptop monitor is quite dull compared to others, so I'd try to use a monitor you trust before making any changes.

There are three basic types of monitor technology: TN, IPS, and VA. TN is the least expensive and has the poorest image quality. It's fine for word processing and spreadsheets, but not for graphic arts. I recently bought an IPS monitor for home (had already used one at work) and it makes a HUGE difference in image quality of photos. Mine came with a certificate of calibration. I absolutely love it; my best shots really 'pop' on it. Monitor technology is a deep rabbit hole you can go down, but just imagine a K-1 camera with a $15 lens on it. A cheap monitor will never do your images justice no matter what your PP technique is.

[rangercarp]

I generally apply +15 vibrance to give colors a boost, but very seldom touch the saturation slider.

I second Steve's point. My default is +10 on vibrance, and I just about never touch the saturation slider. "Mystery" is a good way to describe it. I tell my students that vibrance is like smart saturation slider.

[pschlute]

I have heard of a thing called a calibrated monitor

Two distinct things. Calibration refers to setting up the monitor to accurately display colours. This is done with software and hardware ( a measuring device that you place on your screen).

A calibrated monitor is just one step in having a colour-managed workflow.

[Rondec]

I do bump vibrance a little bit, but not a bunch. The goal is to have colors that pop, but don't look garish or otherworldly.

[savoche]

It's all a matter of taste. Sometimes I bump vibrance a bit, but mostly not. My basic editing consists of:
- adjust white balance
- pull down the highlights
- pull up the shadows
- pull in the white and black points to increase contrast

That last step tends to increase perceived saturation, sometimes to the degree that I even have to reduce saturation a bit.

[clackers]

If you're going for an editorial look, it's high contrast and saturation, if you want a grungy look it's desaturated with clarity cranked up. I'm sure we've all postprocessed one way for one shot, and another for the next.

You have to develop your style as a photographer, Bui, and that means decisions about subject and treatment. In this forum you can see the regular challenges that happen where an image gets put up and everyone's invited to do their version of it.

[lukulele]

Excellent points by Steve and all. I’m still on LR 4.4 and try to check carefully for the aberrations tha old eyes miss on screen which tend to show up on larger prints. As a second option, I like to view the composition as a B/W to see which strengths and weaknesses become apparent in both.

[Zooland]

First I set the profile. Then WB, then rest ....