Too much?

[David Eckels]

I have been looking at some sites around the web that seem successful and as a result I have been experimenting with high saturation and clarity. I shouldn't tell you that, but rather should ask for a reaction without that contaminating information I show the before and after and ask is it too much? Please put aside any biases about "how far to push the sliders" and let me know your reaction. I realize there's artistic license in this, but curious as to reactions and rationales. "Zeroed" is the dng raw file according to LR.

[amolitor]

These things are very much a matter of taste. The younger generation seems to be leaning increasingly toward more saturation, more sharpness, more contrast, more of everything. This is not a case of us old guys liking realistic rendering and these darn kids liking fake looking crap. Neither is realistic, it's just differing tastes, in effect we're differently trained to see one thing or the other as more correct, more realistic or prettier or more artistic.

All that said, to me the first is unappealingly flat and the second is too popped!

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I tend to prefer landscapes to look what I feel is "realistic" rather than punched up for impact.
That said, I always find my raws to look kind of flat, and I almost always increase contrast and clarity some, but seldom touch saturation.

So from my point of view, your raw image needs some clarity /contrast boost, but probably not as much as you have done in your processed shot. And to me the processed shot looks as if saturation has been boosted a bit past the point of plausibility, so I would want to pull it back some. Perhaps some saturation boost would help but not as much as you've done, IMHO.

Key points to keep in mind, however:
   1.   Oversaturated landscapes seem to be popular on the web, and
   2.   My own color vision is defective, so what do I know?

[David Eckels]

All that said, to me the first is unappealingly flat and the second is too popped!

Yeah, I love your quote. Eric's point is a good one too: the oversaturated landscapes sell. Good comments very much in line with my own thinking.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

No, not too much. The only reason people would say it is, is because they are able to see the reference point (the original RAW, i.e., default rendering of it). Without it, most people (well, non-photographers at least) would find your rendering pleasing. I would even dare to suggest you can go even further, perhaps not in saturation, but in contrast/clarity, especially in the right side, which seems to suffer from flare and appears somewhat washed out.

I do have one suggestion, though (you knew it would be coming, right? ) It appears that the distant hills have gained a slight cyan cast in the process. It might be my own preference for cleaner blues (as in the original), so if you like your blues more cyan, disregard my comment then.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

To not become a victim of the zero-comparison effect I opened the saturated version first and looked long at it.
For me on my wide gamut calibrated monitor it is a tad too much - not very, but clearly over the line.
I think somewhere in between would be just right .
A bit less color and a bit more blacks I think.

[David Eckels]

(you knew it would be coming, right? )

+1 Yup, I knew I was working on that in fact.
I am considering this (seriously) as an aesthetic survey and it's interesting to see where style and taste intersect.

[bdosserman]

I have been looking at some sites around the web that seem successful and as a result I have been experimenting with high saturation and clarity. I shouldn't tell you that, but rather should ask for a reaction without that contaminating information I show the before and after and ask is it too much? Please put aside any biases about "how far to push the sliders" and let me know your reaction. I realize there's artistic license in this, but curious as to reactions and rationales. "Zeroed" is the dng raw file according to LR.

Not having been there it's hard for me to say, but my quick reaction is that the brightness/contrast-related aspects are quite pleasing, but the saturation is a bit much. Of course, my screen isn't calibrated.

Brian

[RSL]

As several people have pointed out, David, "too much" is a purely subjective judgment. For me it's too much, but as Slobodan has explained, it's not too much for him. I suspect Slobodan is part of that "younger set" that prefers stuff "punched up" and Oz-like.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... suspect Slobodan is part of that "younger set"...

Finally someone to see me for who I really am!

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Finally someone to see me for who I really am!

Yes, us ancients, like me and Russ and Rob C, have to learn to be tolerant of you young upstarts in the hope that you'll eventually grow up and realize that the only aesthetic worth a hill of beans is whatever the heck I like!   

[cjogo]

Almost looks like a spot called DOME , France ??


I am so "old school" ......that ........in the early days you actually < selected the film>  to create the saturation --the contrast--etc.  So much so -- that if the image didn't have what you wanted visually -- you had to wait for the light to create the actual feel.
 Each film had a characteristic  -  & -  you carried several in your bag.  

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Back in those days I always carried several films, but they were all black and white. I didn't take color seriously, but i carried a second Pentax around with Kodachrome in it. (original, then 25, then 64). I never liked Ektachrome or Velvia, both of which seemed too gaudy and oversaturated to me.

Processing B&W film gave you much more control over contrast than you could get with any color film.

Ah, the Good Old Days! I think I'll go down to the darkroom and sniff some fixer, just to reminisce.

[Riaan van Wyk]

Hi David. For me it is overdone, but tastes differ as has been noted.

[cjogo]

Back in those days I always carried several films, but they were all black and white. I didn't take color seriously, but i carried a second Pentax around with Kodachrome in it. (original, then 25, then 64). I never liked Ektachrome or Velvia, both of which seemed too gaudy and oversaturated to me.

Processing B&W film gave you much more control over contrast than you could get with any color film.

Ah, the Good Old Days! I think I'll go down to the darkroom and sniff some fixer, just to reminisce.

I will load some color once in awhile here--,,, I too rarely shot more that B&W,,,