The Question of Color(cast)

Shane McDermott made an excellent comment on my latest ESS post, along the lines of what is the best way to process a shot so that the colors are appealing and believable. This particular shot was taken in exceptional lighting that accompanied a surprise sunset at Grand Teton National Park, some wild pink light that only lasted a few minutes right before sunset. Since the critique gallery isnt the best place to fully discuss the issue of optimal color processing of RAW, im moving it here in hopes that we can have an open discussion of how to approach this process--since its a passion for most of us and even a livelihood for a few, i think it's an important topic. So, to get the ball rolling, here's a set of jpegs directly converted from the CPW files in LR 2, with the default settings in LR (linear contrast, no adjustments to sat etc). See next post

1) Here's the unworked shot, with the Custom WB that I used on site. As i mentioned to Shane in ESS, this is pretty much how it looked to me looking at my LCD at the scene, and by comparing it directly to what i was seeing at the time, i thought it was a pretty close representation of the basic color (although obviously not as exciting!)

2) Here's the same shot using an AWB setting. The colorcast looked too blue/magenta and not enough red/pink to me.

3) Here's the shot again, using the snow as a neutral target to completely neutralize the cast. This may be along the lines of what Shane was mentioning about how our brain corrects the casts, although the color here is obviously (to me at least) wrong--there's too much cyan, and if i compensated for that by moving towards magenta, Id basically end up with something that looks a lot like #1 here.

4) Heres the final version. At one time not so long ago, it was politically correct to say that i spent 5 minutes doing this in PS--but in reality, i probably spent closer to an hour. As you can see, I cropped the bottom (I originally included it in hopes i might catch a break with the wind), and made signifianct adjustments to the curve, along with a good boost in vibrance.
I also used a shorter exposure for the sky (the RAWs above were longer for the fg)--i didnt need too, just worked better for me in this case, and the shorter exposure looks the same colorwise so no point in posting that too. Was the extra sat too much?? What do you think of the WB decision (obviously i know you can't say if it looks accurate since you werent there--but how does it look to you based on your experience??) Let's hear your thoughts!

Interesting how you 'goosed' a colorful sunrise that wasn't quite there. And I'm not a PS Luddite by any means. There's a line that each of us has to define between reality and 'photo art', as tens of thousands of online debates have shown. As Shane McD. noted, it's an artistic decision. I do respect your disclosure here, though.

Anyway, I definitely think that it's oversaturated.
The snow is surely reflecting the warm glow as evidenced in #1. You can even see it ever so slightly in the others, as well. I think that a targeted saturation bump (a bit less in the skies and much less in the foreground) would have looked a whole lot better.

Lol, well i asked for it, so thanks for the comment, John! You can see from the post on RMNP there was some intense light through a break in the horizon that was creating the color in this sunset (not sunrise--big difference in the Tetons!). I dont think i was imagining the colors--i even talked to people later in Jackson who were all 'wowing' about what a colorful sunset it was. Im pretty sure that you would agree that a flat default RAW file doesnt capture the true intensity of colors. I have to check, but i think i raised vibrance/saturation in LR from 0 to +35, +7(or +10?). I also had to make minor adjustments using TKs masks. This isnt too much more than i would on any other landscape photo, sunset or broad daylight. But maybe youre right--it could be oversaturated, and if i get some time today ill work up a new version and see what response that gets.
As a slight aside, this really gives me an incentive to carry a film camera with me next time i expect this kind of display--cause it would be extremely interesting to see what film would give me in terms of the color representation.

Stan - I'm on the same page as John. I much prefer the colors in the first shot.

Stan,

I like #4. For me, and with the purpose of creating a fine art image, the color balance is a matter of personal taste. It is an artistic decision, not a technical decision. In making this decision my goal is to express what I feel and not show how the scene was in reality. My main concern is that the image is believable.

There's nothing wrong with changing the way nature is, or the color of the light in this particular instance. My work (and yours if you follow the same approach) is not aimed at creating forensic evidence. I am not trying to be a "transparent" recorder (meaning one who does not influence the recording of the subject). Quite the opposite. I make all claims that I am emotionally bias towards my personal representation of the scene, and aware that another observer may remember something quite different.

Stan, # 4 does appear over-saturated to my eye, but I wouldn't go as far as John to say that you goosed a sunset that wasn't there. Looking at the original, I can tell it was an intensely colorful sunset. I think the fact that so much of this image is white snow, which is reflecting the pink cast, makes it more difficult to pull this off as believable. If this was a typical landscape with varying features, and it was only the sky that appeared so intensely pink, I doubt the saturation would be as much an issue.

I think your final WB looks about right, my own preference would be for slightly less saturation, though. As you know there are a lot of different ways to accomplish this (now I'm using TK's techniques), but if we're talking a basic PS adjustment to global saturation, my experience has been that anything more than +8 in an intensely-colored image like this can start to appear "unrealistic". No problem with that, if that's your intent.

Stan,
Nice topic and nice presentation.
I would interject here there may be another factor---that being the individual's eye.
One of the first things I hear people say after cataract surgery is the intensity of the colors.
This tells me that, at least for some of the older photographers who work up a photo, they may be seeing something different which looks good to them but perhaps not-so-good to someone who does not have cataracts.
Just a thought.
Moral: If you are really a photographer you don't want cataracts and if you do have them, get'um fixed pronto.
the fisch

Thanks very much for taking the time to start this thread, Stan. Definitely thought-provoking.

I luv what you did with the sky in 4.

Perhaps a little less vibrance added to the fg, as John mentioned.

Stan,

#4 looks oversatured and when I view it I automatically think "that's not what it really looked like". The question to you is, does that matter? As a photographer I know what real light is and what photoshop "adjusted" light is, but to the layman they may not know, or more importantly, may not care.

When looking at all of the sunset/sunrise images in ESS, I find it amazing that all of these photographers happen to catch the most incredible sunset/sunrise everytime they go out. I know there is a lot of thought and planning put into the process, so I'm not trying to say that ESS photographers don't do their homework and don't reap the benefits of their research. But, I think we all know that photoshop goes a long way when taking a unique or interesting sunrise/sunset and turning it into a spectacular one.

You said it yourself, the first photo demonstrates most closely to what you saw in the field. If that's what you want to represent to your viewers, keep it. If you want to be an artist, and have creative license (which we all should have and use) then #4 works (though I agree with others the snow is carrying too much color).

- Luke

Stan/all,

Thanks for opening up this topic. It's something I think about a lot; not only when processing an image, but equally as much when I'm in the field. We interpret or process color in our minds. It's not what the camera/film sees or doesn't see. It's not what PS does or doesn't do, but what we think and see about color in our minds that is the controlling factor.

I would love to do this experiment one day. Get some number of photogs and/or non-photogs, say 20 or 50. Everyone together in one location, no cameras. The experiment: At some point in time, instruct everyone to look at the blue sky, backs to the sun and looking up at a 45deg angle to insure everyone is looking at the same place. Then have all these folks go back to their computers a day later, create a blank 720px image and tell them to paint/fill the canvas with the color blue that you saw in the sky the day before. I'm willing to bet you will get 20 or 50 different images.

Second exercise would be to have the same scenario only have one person capture a RAW image. Send that ONE RAW image to everyone who viewed the scene together. Instruct them to process the image as they remembered it. Same result, you will get 20 or 50 different images.

So relative to your post/questions here Stan, at least to me, it's almost pointless to try and determine what the correct colors or saturation are for the simple reason that everyone has different interpretations of colors and there is no way that we could all agree if a presented image is "correct" or too saturated.

And for those who often say things like "this is what the camera recorded" or "this matches the slide exactly," is again a matter of interpretation. Who says a digital sensor or a piece of film records colors accurately? They don't.

And when someone comments that "this is how I recall the scene," I don't have any issue with that and I think that's a fair statement. We all see and experience things differently. We all don't see a blue sky as the same shade or hue of blue when we have to re-create it from our minds. We can all come pretty close and we can all come to a consensus that "this looks" natural, but we all still see and interpret color differently.

Clear as mud?

Lon

Hmmm, as always, a fascinating topic. I read every word and you guys covered all the angles. In the end it is, as Lon says, a matter of personal interpretation, though I’d have to say that PS has expanded the range of possible interpretations.

I’m particularly interested in Luke’s comment that some of our members “happen to catch the most incredible sunset/sunrise every time they go out”. How true that is! I admire much of the work I see on NPN but occasionally I’m struck with the thought, how come I never see colour like that? (It could be that the nearest snow is 1000 kilometres away but that’s another story).

I think reputations and peer respect play a part here. Photographers with big reputations get away with more. One, whose work I admire I must say, has a great eye but mesmerises me with colour combinations that just don’t exist. He can get away with it, but if I did the same thing I’d be accused of goosing reality.

There’s certainly an ‘NPN style’ too, which although short-lived most of the time runs like a current through ES&S images. Suddenly everyone’s shooting star fields, or sunsets/sunrises with impossibly perfect sunbursts.

The real skill in this business is coming up with something not only interesting but original, and PS can’t do that for you.

"The real skill in this business is coming up with something not only interesting but original, and PS can’t do that for you"

This says it all, in my opinion.

--P

Hi Stan,
I prefer version 4. I would also add that I have seen light similar to that in the natural world on a few different occasions.

On another note, I must admit that I love highly saturated, very colorful, warm images. I like to push the envelope to be on the edge of believable. I don't want to go so far that the viewer thinks that it is unrealistic. Rather, I want the viewer to be fascinated and hopefully moved by the image. I fequently use a warming filter and will heat up the white balance, because I love warm saturated images. This can sometimes lead to a very warm image that looks too saturated. When processing an image, I often remind myself that less is more. Sometimes, I even desaturate the image to make it more "believable".

On a side note, I recently went to a workshop of a well known photographer. He purposely shoots cool images just to break away from the stereotypical mold of warm images. He does this to stand out from his competitors. He certainly stands out, but it goes against prevailing psychology that humans tend to gravitate towards warm, fuzzy (not necessarily unsharp) images.

Thanks for starting this topic Stan. I too have spent a lot of time thinking about this and agree that it is a subjective decision. Galen Rowell answered his critics by saying that he produced images that were in his mind's eye. I would hope that is what we as artists are trying to do, whether we are shooting images as we see them or are interpreting them to meet what our imaginations may lend to the scene at hand.

Great topic!

Great topic Stan. I'd have to say #4 looks a little over-saturated to me. This is mostly because there is some detail loss in the clouds, mostly on the right side as compared to #1. I have an image I took at Dead Horse Point a few years ago during a stunning sunrise and went through the same process as you are now. For years I had a very saturated version, that was very popular and I sold to a few people, but in the last few months in preparing images for my website I revisited the image and reduced the saturation so that all the detail in the clouds were restored and I think it is a much stronger image, and perhaps looks more "real" as the clouds aren't blown out, similar to those in #4. I think your original image is quite nice and maybe a slight boost in saturation from that would look best.

Thanks for all the terrific responses, folks!
Since i'm the first person to mention in my NPN critiques if i think an image looks 'unrealistic' or overprocessed, the last thing I want is to be known as a hypocrit. It's something I take very seriously, because like a lot of you I'm trying to perfect my craft. I understand what Lon, Alain etc are saying, but I almost wish at times there was a more objective way to establish the accuracy of a scene--at least with film there was no easy way to move your mouse a couple millimeters and instantly alter the whole character of your image. I definitely want to instill some of the emotion and personal interpretation into my photos, but I also want to keep them grounded in reality.
Anyhow, maybe im overthinking things--wouldnt be the first time
I went back and without referenceing #4, completely reworked the shot from scratch with the critiques above in mind. There are relatively minor adjustments in this version, and personally, it looks too neutral/undersaturated to me, but it did make the warm colors easier to control (I had to significantly move the tint towards cyan and away from magenta--perhaps the real issue here is why the Mkii's auto white balance sucked so badly here) and maybe this is closer to 'reality.' Would be interested in your reaction--keep the responses coming!

Stan, first, I really like the version you just posted, and I'd also like a version halfway between #4 above and the version you just posted. Having said that, I agree with much of what Alain, Lon, Barry and Greg said. I also think there is a difference in what we actually see, without regard to cameras. Until recently we had a car that I think was dark blue and my husband insisted was green. Neither of us has a vision problem. It was just something we really saw differently.

Hi Stan,

A fascinating discussion you've got going here, just the sort of thing that makes NPN such a valuable resource for all of us. But to the point at hand I'll start off with quoting myself from another comment:
"If perfect fidelity to nature were the highest goal of photography virtually everyone's work could taken to task and found wanting." Yet we all know as Lon succinctly pointed out that "reality" is in the eye of the beholder and any attempt to present your reality as The reality is hopelessly myopic. Nevertheless the physical experience we have when capturing images in the field is obviously quite real and it is that experience that inspires us to record the moment and ultimately share it with others. Where the conundrum rears its head is in our personal interpretation of that moment which is always going to be subjective. That being the case all that we can ever do is produce work that appeals to our own artistic sensibilities and hope that it may offer something to others. But regardless of whether it does or not you've got to go with what you believe in or else find something more useful to do with yourself than taking pictures.
So anyway as to this particular image of yours in question I preferred and still prefer version 4. I suppose by the standards of "reality" it may be a little oversaturated but I have seen this sort of luminous light in other places myself and to me it has an almost iridescent quality to it that is apparent to the eye but very elusive to represent in an image. I think you were right to go back and rework the image into something ostensibly more true-to-life but I think the artistic life of this shot is for me at least as you originally developed and posted it.

What Lon said; pretty much word for word.

I understand that question(s) you're asking, Stan (at least I think I do ), but my answer would essentially be nothing more than my personal opinion (i.e. image X is too saturated, or just right, or not saturated enough, etc.) and I'm not sure that would help you much, if at all. In fact, it seems to me it could do more harm than good. If I'm wrong about that, let me know and I'll weigh in more directly.

I'll cut through all of the previous equivocation and just say that I like your revised image very much. Certainly much more than #4! More grounded in reality and something I can relate to better (esp. in the clouds). Perhaps it was more of a magenta overload rather than oversaturation (?).
You mention the 5DII's 'sucky AWB', yet you state earlier that you created a custom WB for this scene.
Regardless, I think you nailed it here, and the honest feedback that was provided here helps reinforce the impression of just how lucky we are to have this site.

Stan, great topic, and really close to home for all of us, because I think we all struggle with these decisions. If your desire is to show a scene as realistic and believable then it has to be only you (who witnessed the scene) who can make the judgement. I know exactly what you are asking yourself-Did I go to far with the saturation? How can any one else know? Only you were there, only you can say. I see what your saying about shooting the scene with velvia and then using that as a standard for "acceptability". I think we all know that velvia wasn't neccessarily accurate, but it was somewhat believable.
I like version 4, but I would like it a whole lot more if you stated that this is pretty close to the way I remember it.

I think it was Ansel Adams who said that the negative is the score, and the print is the performance. Stan's various 'performances' of his original capture have proceeded through several stages of 'work prints' to achieve the single performance that resonates with the widest possible audience. And, as we have discovered through this discussion; it ain't easy. I applaud Stan's efforts, and appreciate the thoughtful comments by all of you.

Stan's last-posted performance works the best for me because the balance of tone and color suit the majesty of the setting.

Personally, I find it a challenge to write about color and contrast when I comment on images posted on the web. The reason for this is I likely see these attributes differently than others, and my monitor, although calibrated, will not render an image the same as on another screen. Therefore, I do not want my comments to (for lack of a better word) color those of others. I believe this is something we need to take into account when we write comments about posted images. That said, I will make a comment about color/hue-sat/contrast if these attributes are clearly incorrect.

When I look at a photograph (including my own) I ask myself three questions: Does this piece stand on it's merits without further explanation or justification. Does this piece of work tell me something about the artist; who they are, what they feel? Does the work transport me to the time and place?

Of all the iterations of Stan's fine shot, his last version answers "yes" to all three questions.

This is an excellent discussion. My thanks to Stan for bringing this topic to the fore.

--P

Now this is what I believe we need more of on this site. To me at least this is a place of learning and sharing with other photographers with more advanced experience in this area. I'm all for sharing amazing and unique photographs, but a straight forward honest discussion into how an image was processed makes all the sense in the world. No offense to anyone here, but I did not join this site to buy other photographers works, so I don't see much of a reason in hiding how much effort went into processing an image.

I applaud you for sharing the original files Stan. And I do think your 4th effort is the best. However, I think this image can be improved upon, from an artistic standpoint of course. This is advice coming from a photoshopper's POV so take it at that. One would be to reduce the orange cast a bit. Then reduce the overall pinks and purples just a small amount. Double process the image. Make a copy of the file, up the exposure a stop or two for the mountains and trees. Blend the darker portions of the mountains and trees with the lighter version. Work on the left corner sky a bit as well. Actually I'd almost be tempted to take the blue from that neutral image and pop that blue into portions of the sky where it would look good. Crap, I could make pointers for hours, but it's not my image and like Lon said, we all see the same scenes differently.

Again, I think this is a great idea, and I hope more photogs share the 'canvas' upon which they painted their final images. Always fun to see.

Stan,

I just wanted to say that your final rework of the image is the one that resonates the strongest with me. I struggle with color, probably like most of us, quite a bit. Even from a film image that has been scanned it is difficult at times to get color "right".

As Lon said, color is very subjective to each person and we all perceive color differently, which is why scientifically color is referenced by a wavelength rather than by a name. That being said, it is my experience that the green/magenta channel used in digital color is the most sensitive, overpowering and the most difficult to get correct. This is probably due to the fact that it is both the most populated pixel in the Bayer Matrix of digital sensors and also due to the fact that our eyes are most sensitive to the color green, which happens to be the color that sits in the middle of the visible color spectrum.

Great topic. Processing is surely a matter of personal interpretation, as already noted, but we are all guilty of "overdoing" it. Specially when I see some of the top names post in the forum and the photos look like have spent a whole lifetime in the photoshop before coming out and all of us doing "uh-ahh" - that kind of credentialize the over-use of tools that technology has given us. As Luke said, all of us seem to catch the ultimate sunrise/sunsets - I think that we are like kids in a toystore, excited with all these new toys to play with. What I really think, over time, we will all get bored and our viewers'/market's taste will also change and we will all focus on creating art, not over-processed images. Just my take

Fascinating topic, and one that I've been spending a decent amount of time considering. I think most at NPN consider themselves Fine Art Photographers, vs photojournalists. That being the case, I always read critiques of work being oversaturated with a "compared to what?" thought. Reality? Ok, well I follow that with the question: "so what?"

If the artist chose to present it that way, shouldn't the oversaturated critique include "for my liking", or "to my eye?". Highly saturated is an artistic style for sure, but as long as the photographer doesn't present their work as photorealistic, I don't see why each artist can't make the choice for how colorful they want an image to be.

I happen to like high saturation and vibrant color, so Stan I really like the reworked version the best.

Lastly, I felt I needed to comment on the observation that all the ESS sunsets are colorful, as if every sunset that certain photographers see are brilliant. Well, I can only speak for myself, but just because the only sunsets I tend to share in my images tend to be colorful, that doesn't mean that they are faked or that I always see them. Despite my obsessive weather watching, I find that I'm getting colorful skies 1 out of every 10-20 times I go shooting. Just because I don't share my blasé evenings doesn't mean I'm not tortured by them with obnoxious frequency!

Im actually out taking photos right now--ao ill add more later--just want to pop in and say thanks for all the great input.
Miles--ill second your last paragraph. And incidentally, i target my trips by the weather; as a forecaster, i know what weather conditions are more likely to give me dramatic skies, and if i have 3 days off work--ill pick the day and place that's more likely to give me pretty results. So, its not quite random (i think i get maybe 1 out of 3 )

I like #4, it is a great image. Is it colorful? Yep. Is that a good thing? Yes. I also like the reworked one posted later, but still like the #4 better.

BTW-I think Luke is onto something about how we think about/post images here on NPN. If you had posted image #3, no one would have probably even looked at it. It seems if an image is not turned all the way up to 11 it is usually ignored. We seem to expect every posted image to be perfect with amazing light.

Thanks for posting this and keep on sharing your vision with us!

Stan - Great topic and thread. I didn't have time to read through every response, so forgive if I'm restating anything. Lots of good content in the responses I did read, however.

Much of my own ideas on this topic have already been covered so I'll just add a couple of points to ponder.

1. While I'm never sure what something actually looked like since I recall it with an imperfect memory and mixed up with my emotions and input from the other senses, I do know that RAW files are inherently low in contrast, saturation and sharpness. They never even come close to matching my experience. Processing is the emotional and creative expression of a characterless and flat RAW capture. Striving to stay true to a RAW image is just cutting yourself short in my opinion.

2. We should all keep in mind how subjective sharing images on the web is. Every web browser displays different colors and contrast so unless we all agree to use only Explorer or FireFox we can't assume we are all seeing the same thing. On top of that, even with color calibrated monitors, differences in monitor brightness as well as the color/brightness of room lighting affects what we see.

That said, I think your most recent iteration of the image looks dang nice on my screen.

Stan, I like your revised image much more than the others! The clouds look much better and I think the colors are quite nice. Very nice work.

Hi. My first post on this site , and I was thinking about this topic when I registered.

Stan, I like the latest image overall, but would be interested to see a more contrasty sky, lighter/whiter foreground, and perhaps a slightly more bluish shaded look to the mountains (but just a little bit). The mountains devide the image in two and I think a whiter foreground would balance well with a stronger sky. You could keep some bold colours afterall while adding overall impact. Well, thats the plan.

As someone who still shoots a lot of slide film (Velvia and E100VS), I find the fourth version quite believable. It has the contrast and saturation I expect from a film like Velvia. I like that look. That's why I still shoot Velvia. The fifth version is very nice too.

Mark is also on to something about Velvia. I use Velvia for the same reasons.

Choice of film, use of grad filters, using a polarizer all impacted the image. In B+W darkroom, the use of masks and burning and dodging could modify or optimize if you will.

Digital and PS are not all that different. Sometimes the effect goes too far, but I do not think this is the case.

I think reputations and peer respect play a part here. Photographers with big reputations get away with more. One, whose work I admire I must say, has a great eye but mesmerises me with colour combinations that just don’t exist. He can get away with it, but if I did the same thing I’d be accused of goosing reality.

I think this is a great point and goes to the heart of what Stan is asking.

...what is the best way to process a shot so that the colors are appealing and believable.

I also think Sean Bagshaw made some excellent points too. There are so many factors and variables that go into processing decisions. For instance: what is your final output is going to be? What medium is it going to be? What is the size? What are the lighting conditions for viewing? Who is my audience? What kind of mood am I in? These are a few of the factors that go into my decisions...

As far as Stan's image goes....I am not sure why people are comparing a finished product - like image #4 to basically a RAW image like #1? That doesn't make sense to me. Also, Stan did you use any filters during capture?

My personal opinion of the image is this - the reflected colorcast in number 4 is too strong for my tastes. The problem I have with the image is that I feel the shadows have been pulled out excessively in some places resulting in what looks like HDR, at least to me. This is most noticeable in the clouds and the mountains in the background. That being said, it might look better that way for print. Shadows tend to print more blocked up than what they appear on my monitor, so I don't know what I am looking at as compared to what Stan might see on his computer. Hopefully this helps a bit. Thanks for the discussion.

Michael

I find the original post to be too saturated but I really like the latest version. Based on my limited involvement at NPN, I think if you post an image and get a lot of comments stating that it's over-saturated, then it's probably over-saturated. If that's the way you intended the image to be, then great. But if you don't care to hear what others have to say (which is obviously not the case here, or this thread never would have been stated), then what's the point of posting an image in a critique gallery?

As others have stated, a jpeg of an unprocessed RAW file is not a good way to tell what the scene should look like. To me, part of the fun of shooting RAW is watching the photo come to life during post processing. As a comparison shot, I think you'd be better off shooting a jpeg and letting the camera do the rest. Relative to removing the color cast, then I might as well sleep in all morning and eat dinner with everyone else.

I've seen a lot of great photos here and I have a hard time thinking that these were simply created in Photoshop. I've witnessed a lot of beautiful sunrises/sunsets, some from the backcountry with my camera, most from my front yard. This to me is more about being in the right place at the right time, and the more you’re in the right place at the right time, then the more likely you are of coming back with something special. Pushing up saturation and contrast is one thing, but creating something that wasn't there in the first place is hard to pull off, at least for me.

Thanks, folks!

Michael--that is exactly what is at the heart of my inquiry. My processing decisions are influenced by what I see and observe from others images--and from the tens of thousands of shots ive seen here and elsewhere--pushing color to the limits seems the be the popular way of getting attention--for better or worse. Like you, i was a bit dumbfounded why people were even mentioning the WB variations i posted--when i said that "#1 was close to what i saw" I was referring to the hue, NOT the sharpness, saturation, contrast, dynamic range etc etc! There's a good reason why the ESS photographers absolutely dread posting a 'RAW' file in that gallery--its partly because they dread that very thing, being accused of 'goosing up' a scene that really didnt look that way (the RAW) in the first place!

Which begs the question--what is a good representation of the original scene, but before any 'personal input' goes into the development? A jpeg shot concurrently? film? Or, as many have hinted at here--simply that there is no objective image. What I am taking away from this discussion is that it must be a personal decision, which can certainly be influenced by outside advice, but in the end it is subjective--and you will sink or swim based on your decision, and no one elses.

WIth that in mind, heres my latest iteration, roughly 1/4 #4 and 3/4 last post. Is it perfect? no, but im satisfied its getting closer to where i want.

Stan, that is beautiful. But the fact that it's getting closer to where YOU want is what counts. People even tell me that, and if it applies to me it applies to you 1000 times more.

The final version reminds me of an "Outdoor Photographer" magazine style of color cast. Maybe that is your objective.

Stan and all contributors we are all the final arbitrators of our work, I have found in the field way more misses than hits with sunrises and sunsets. Now matter what I do to a sunrise that did amount to much or a Sunset that fizzled out I can never pull of out elements a WOW image. There is a limit of course to enhancement, but I do shoot my Olympus allot at ISO 100 and would go lower say ISO 64 if I could just to get good color saturation in the original. Many (actual) films under certain conditions take on casts and suffer from reciprocity failure, which can now be remedied in the digital darkroom. I guess Stan what you have done with the forum is looked to the opinions of your peers and I think that in of itself sets a standard for a natural look and I would go with a consensus. There will always be the few "rogues" who will state everything is over done in processing and not what we "saw", but even in BW it's not just about what we saw but also what we felt. You've made quite a few amazing images which you have posted and I'm not in a camp that feels Stan overdoes his images. In fact the posts and critiques on this site make me think at every point whether or not I'm crossing the "line". If this site has not made me a better photographer it's definitely made me a much better processor.

Paul

Addressing the original purpose of the forum, the RAW file looks like a good starting point but does not have the impact of the last post ( which is the best IMHO ) 2 and 3 are just mundane snd 3 has no hint of the color that was obviously there and #4 is a little over the top for me, but that's personal and actually an observation that may have been different before I joined NPN.

Fascinating topic Stan with some very polarized opinions on this.
Im with Alain on this the decision is the Artists to make. For my part I generally set the WB to daylight and leave it there. With film we made our choice about the colours and saturation and the WB through our choice of emulsion and no one got their drawers in a knot about that so why are we now so worried about it? Good taste dictates that we go easy on the saturation and vibrance sliders
Personally I like the colours in #4 but the saturation for my taste is a little too much.
One of the things that amuse me is the ooh its too magenta type comment the answer is were you there with a colorimeter and can you prove otherwise?

Late arrival, but I'll throwm my 2 cents in. Of course it's personal taste and I think we all want to be artistic to some degree, otherwise we would be on a site for photojournalism or whatever.
I prefer #4. I don't think it's unrealistic at all. During my commute this morning I witnessed incredibly brilliant color rising over the Cascade Range east of Enumclaw, WA. I almost pulled over twice to grab a shot but hey, duty called. Colors like this are not rare but instances of being there ready to get the shot are, for me at least. I reade an article recently in OP written by George Lepp I believe. He was talking about an Ansel Adams photo "Moon Over Hernandez" where the original print was not spectacular at all in fact probably wouldn't get many second looks. However, 10 years later the final rework became one of his most famous images. Not sure why It looks pretty terrible to me and how much different is it than the original I don't know but hey, that's his interpretation. Like others I'm not into documenting exactly what I've seen as much as I'm trying to express the mood the scene impressed on me at the time. I say go for it.

My first visit to this area; very interesting discussion. I recall doing some thinking on this subject way back when I was a graduate student...anyway, it reminded me of a small book titled "Color Perception In Art" that was full of thought provoking insights. It was published in 1976 by Faber Birren, and in a chapter titled The Mysteries of Perception, with a subtitle of "How the brain is put to creative effort." This is the lead paragraph:

"A good way to enter the domain of visual perception is to begin with a discussion of what the psychologist calls modes of appearance for color. The science of physics becomes largely irrelevant here; color becomes a personal study, and the research laboratory is a person's own consciousness. The reader must turn away from the outer world of academic references to color, to the world within (perception)."

Part of my point in sharing this is that the topic of color/vision/perception as it relates to art or photography or the world we live in has been provoking thought/discussion/opinions for a long time and will continue to do so. Birren published a book in 1928 called "Color In Vision."

The tools we have to create in this digital age are awesome and liberating...so much to do, so little time...enjoy and push the boundaries.

Thanks for the comment, Ron. Its been a good discussion (now can someone please hide my RAW files....)

My 2 cents:

Well it depends on what it looked like or how you want it to look.

For what it is worth, I do this as a profession (I am developing a variety of clients landscape work from raw file or scanned film to fine art gallery prints) I also teach PS and Adobe Camera Raw.

For whoever might benefit, the general way I approach a raw file is get the WB and colors (in the HSL panel) to look as close to accurate as humanly possible there. Then in PS CS5 a person can use Color Balance to carefully go through the mid tone, shadow and highlight yellow to blue axis, magenta to green axis, and then the cyan to red axis. This can be done even more carefully and precisely in curves as well. I believe for top quality results, every photo on the planet needs this work for fine tuning and the raw converter is just NOT capable of doing it (maybe once they put independent channel curves in ACR we might be able to).

A side not is this: for the best results I don't work on contrast and color at the same time. They both effect each other unless you know how to separate them). I deal with each very individually. So if you are dealing with contrast, do it in the Layer Blending Luminosity mode or the L.A.B. L (Luminance) channel. Then once you want to fine tune the color to your "perfection" do it in the Layer Blending "Color" Mode.

This approach can take the image to "perfection" with the exception of localized color casts/ localized imperfections. In that case just mask and do fine tuning localized work...


As far as what is "cooked" above... IMO we are all really guessing and were not there. Maybe we are taking some educated guesses, but guesses nonetheless. IMO photography is always inherently inaccurate in its representation of reality so interpretation is just a given and built into the process. Photography is art even if trying to accomplish something "pure."

Thanks for bringing this topic to our attention Stan! Colour is indeed one of the most important and difficult topics in photography. Fantastic discussion you've got going here!

I was lucky enough to start photographing with film before Photoshop so I dabbled with both a colormeter and lightmeter in the field before making an exposure (writing it all down in a notebook of course). That way I had a pretty good idea if my final developed image had a natural or unnatural color cast.

Even back then (10-12 years ago) oversaturated images were the most cherished by editorial and print buyers. Cheating was as common then as it is now. Warming filters and polarizers in combination with saturated and slightly underexposed slide film created unnaturally strong colours.

I still struggle with how to approach the subject in my own photography. It is always tempting to move the sliders a bit to the right to get the attention of the audience, but at the same time I walk away feeling like a cheater. Then there are the moments when all the planets align and you are in front of a spectacular scene with spectacular light. It is almost to good to be true. And indeed, few will believe that your image is a decent representation of the truth because they cheat themselves and have gotten used to the fact that everybody else does it too.

In the end it all boils down to your personal vision and preference. Alain Briot said it very well. You have to decide if you want to document or create an artistic rendition of the scene in front of you. Each method has it's own challenges and limitations.

Personally all I've ever wanted to do is make straight documentary photographs. That is, create images that looks as close to the real thing as possible. But any photographic technology is imperfect and can only record and represent degrees of the real thing truthfully. So the next level is to create something that is photographically true, but even that is impossible to define these days when every camera has it's own "photoshop" software built into them. It was slightly easier with film and standard chemical processing. So what one is left with is to create something that rings true to one self. Total anarchy in all it's glory and horror. Like life itself, there is no black and white, just shades of grey between the moments of birth and death.