I know a lot of you love to criticize, and usually not constructively, most peoples photo graphs. But like with music, drawing, writing, etc. photography is a form of art. There are rules and techniques as with all other arts, but it is just that. Art. It is not science, and therefore the rules and techniques do not always have to be %100 spot on, for the fact that it is art makes it completely subjective to both the artist and audience. But obviously there are some things that should be done correctly for it to be "good" art. In photography some of those things include contrast, exposure, framing, choosing a good aperture, subject, etc. However all of this things are still somewhat subjective as this is still art. So my question to you is, I see a lot of images with high or higher than life saturation. And it seems that to the general public, higher than true to life saturation tends to look "better". For you personally, at what point is an image "over saturated"? As long as the saturation doesn't take away from detail, I like both true to life colors as I can see the beauty of this world exactly the same as if I were there, but also more than true to life saturation as it can give a surreal, otherworldy effect which I also find comforting.
Pic related. Author of an article says this picture is over saturated, but I actually like it.
>>2873954
Most of HDRs look oversaturated to me
It's down to personal choice, whether you want to capture and show the beauty of real life things or create that beauty by manipulating an image as a means to an end.
The different outlooks on saturation come from the fact that it's easier by degrees to do the latter and authors of the prior feel the great lenghts and efforts they have to go to to produce adequately stunning images are made utterly redundant, meaningless, by a faggot with a torrented copy of photoshop, a five minute google crash course and a half-assed snapshit of their backyard. It boils down to the creative process versus the result. Oversaturated images go well with the general public and buy into that mentality of fixing the photographer's shortcomings with a slider. I leave it to you to guess which camp I subscribe to.
>>2873954
I just think the HDR here makes the picture look flat.
>>2873954
Also, I saw a video once that had a "rule of thumb" for saturation:
>When it looks too saturated, go back to 1/3rd of the way
So if it looks too saturated at +30, move the slider to +10. Can't really say much about it since I don't tend to use a lot of saturation in my edits.
>>2873954
That pic is ugly af pham. Like a clown hungover off absinthe had a Technicolor spew.
>>2873987
I must be a raging gaylord, most of my pics I use max +5 sat.
That photo is very hard to look at. It physically hurts.
Sure, you can modulate saturation for effect, but when you destroy the detail, create wild unnatural contrast and have halos everywhere... you usually have trouble on your hands
>>2873954
I don't like a lot of saturation, reminds me of dreams or this movie. I bet a small amount of persons doing the editing have slight color blindness and maybe they just colorize it more and to them it looks "normal"
