Color in landscape has different "rules" than other types of nature photography, I guess. Is that correct? I guess I've seen this question of color in landscapes brought up more (in my relatively short time here) with regard to skies than with regard to greens, but it seems to me that many of the landscape photos that people call beautiful, amazing, magical have greens that are much greener than anything I've ever seen in real life. Is making the greens extra green something good landscape photographers do? Thanks.
Keep in mind, when it comes to evaluating colors in small JPEGs that have, in most cases, been converted from a native working color space, it's highly likely that we're not all looking at the same thing. We'd all need to be looking at the same image, using the same software on the same monitor...any differences then would be due to innate, personal differences in color perception. But most of the time when I see something posted on this site where the color appears "off" I simply chalk it up to some kind of technical inconsistency between my equipment and that of the presenter.
With that caveat out of the way, I'm not aware of any landscape photographer who intentionally and specifically boosts greens. Of course, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen; it just means I'm not aware of it if it does. I don't impose any specific green saturation boost with my images; an "electric green," in my estimation, is a real eye-catcher, but not in a good way.
Is there a "different set of rules" for color in landscape photographs? Again, I'm not at all aware of any set of guidelines or conventions that specifically addresses this matter. Perhaps there's a bit more wiggle room taken by some folks who photograph landscapes in terms of a "what I saw in my mind's eye" view of a scene. But generally speaking, it's my perception that most photographers try to keep color saturation in images at least relatively close to what they remember seeing themselves. I know, I know...there are some liberties taken from time to time, particularly (it seems to me) in terms of sunrise/sunset presentation, where real life events can vary dramatically. But when it comes to something as comparatively limited in range as natural greens, I think it's pretty hard to push the envelope very far without a final, objective presentation being way off the beam for most viewers.
Kerry, what you say makes sense, but it's not what I see. It seems to me also that if greens looked different on my monitor in Landscape they'd also look different in Flora, for example.
Barbara, There are no "rules". It's up to each of us to saturate or not to the extent we feel either represents what was THERE, or what we WISHED was there. I agree that there are plenty of examples of, imo, over-saturation. I see several posts in the recent past in Landscape that to me seem very over-saturated in the green channel, and fairly unbelievable. Not quite to the extent of the "electric green" that is totally fake, but pretty close.
You're right that this happens mostly in Landscape;
I can't think of and don't see any examples in the Flora gallery that is also full of green hues.
Sandy
The human eye is most sensitive to greens (that is why typical RGB Bayer patterns have 2 green pixels for every red and blue pair). So, if you apply equal saturation to the entire image, the greens will appear oversaturated long before reds and blues. Also, greens are most susceptible to shifts in color due to color space conversions and monitor calibrations. Lastly, some places like the columbia river gorge and olympic rainforests truly do have greener greens than most other places I've seen.
The human eye is most sensitive to greens (that is why typical RGB Bayer patterns have 2 green pixels for every red and blue pair). So, if you apply equal saturation to the entire image, the greens will appear oversaturated long before reds and blues.
Its true that the sensor has twice as many green photosites as red or blue, but that does not translate to twice as many green pixels in the files we work with in Photoshop. The algorithm in the camera translates this into RGB vales for pixels, not into RGGB values after all. Are you claiming that the camera software makes green "greener" than it really is?
Can you cite a technical reference supporting the statement that equal saturation causes the greens to oversaturate before red and blue?
Also, greens are most susceptible to shifts in color due to color space conversions and monitor calibrations.
Again, I'd be interested in a technical reference for this statement.
Richard - since oversaturation is an objective term, I don't know of any technical sources I can cite for you. My point was that since the human eye is more sensitive to green, we notice that the greens are "off" from natural more easily than with reds and blues. Having more green pixels in the Bayer sensor helps record sublties better. For a second opinion and examples see Mark Metternich's posts from 1-2 weeks ago complaining about the greens.
For color space conversion changes, you can look at the gamut maps and see that the the biggest differences are usually in the yellow-greens. I can't look up a map right now, but it shouldn't be hard to find. Note that this is probably in part a result of the CMYK printing process (eg. No green ink). Printers usually have a much more limited gamut in the greens (again I refer you to gamut maps), which is why epson for example added a yellow-green ink to their 900 series printers now.
Lots depends on how the image is to be used and who is looking at it.
Photos for wall art are considered "washed out" by most art directors and ad agencies. IF they give them a second look in submissions, it's usually with one hand on the saturation slider. Check out the greens in advertising, whether print or web sites for outdoor adventure. You might not want them on your wall, but you may need to get acquainted with "over-saturation" if you want sales beyond wall art.
Posted by Rodney Ninow on July 29, 2011 at 1:38 PM
Color in landscape has different "rules" than other types of nature photography, I guess. Is that correct? I guess I've seen this question of color in landscapes brought up more (in my relatively short time here) with regard to skies than with regard to greens, but it seems to me that many of the landscape photos that people call beautiful, amazing, magical have greens that are much greener than anything I've ever seen in real life. Is making the greens extra green something good landscape photographers do? Thanks.
When I shot film, I chose Velvia, which boosted colors and had enhanced saturation and was amazing for landscape and nature work, but not a good choice for portraits. For studio work, such as product photography, you would use a neutral film, usually from Kodak. If you shot the same outdoor scene, with both films, you would get very different results.
Were the colors that Velvia gave me wrong? Some people said yes, but most viewers loved the enhanced saturation and colors. For landscape photography, I set my Nikon D300 to Vivid, not neutral or standard. I want those colors in my digital work that I got with Velvia.
As far as landscapes having different rules that other nature photos, not exactly sure what you mean. I use the same settings for my landscape work as I do all my nature work. Take a look at my gallery or portfolio, do you see colors that look unnatural?
You are not hallucinating. Some of the better known landscape photographers take huge liberties with color. The color is sometimes managed skillfully but other folks I know personally are using softwares in rather heavy-handed ways. Motivations vary, but at least some are trying to emulate natural conditions. Stop worrying about this. It will drive you crazy. Dedicated photographers do tend to seek out rare lighting conditions. What happens when your digital camera encounters odd light? It tries to correct your white balance, and you have to try to fix it manually. Good luck.
Stop worrying about this. It will drive you crazy.
Oh, I have stopped worrying about it. I've also started increasing the saturation in my images a bit.
Posted by Jim Bullard on August 8, 2011 at 3:40 PM
With the introduction of Velvia film many landscape photographers began a love affair with highly saturated images. When digital came along with a saturation slider in the editing software these same photographers and their admirers tended to push the envelop on saturation, not just with greens but also autumn hues. It sold (and continues to sell) a lot of photos particularly to calendar publishers. If you look at some old calendars from the 50s and 60s the photos look quite dull compared to the glossy brilliant calendar photos popular to day. IMO a lot of them are over the top. When I look at an image my first thought should be waterfall/trees/mountain/whatever. It shouldn't be "Wow, that's GREEN". It is a matter of taste however and up to the individual photographer. If I shoot a red tree on an overcast day and the image looks dull I do not hesitate to push the saturation and/or warm the image to more nearly resemble what was in my mind when I shot the photo. One thing you might want to look at is the histogram for the green channel. If it is off the end on the right, you've probably gone too far.
Here is a real surprise to me. I was looking through old images, a set that had been digitized, and I saw this one. I took this with some kind of point-and-shoot 21 years ago in London, it's completely unprocessed, and look at the sky. To me the sky doesn't look real. So do you think it really looked like that, or was it something about the film? I know it was just regular Kodak film. I didn't know anything at all about photography or film.
The sky looks fine to me. There is a small amount of magenta in the clouds and a touch of cyan near the horizon on IE9 and FireFox using a calibrated wide-gamut monitor. It does not look over-saturated.
I know it was just regular Kodak film. I didn't know anything at all about photography or film.
'Regular Kodak film' covers a large variety of films that were available at the time. The older Ektachrome accentuated blue and Kodachrome slide films accentuated reds and yellows. The color negative films (Kodacolor and Vericolor) tended to be more neutral, with a greater dynamic range than the slide films.
Was this image a scan from a slide, or a color neg? Armed with that info, the film shooters here can give a more definitive response.
Preston, the image was from a color print. I sent hundreds of color prints to a company to scan in. So originally color negative film, not slide film.
Posted by Steve Sieren on September 6, 2011 at 6:55 PM
It's a new color created in photoshop, it's not more then 10 years old. Oh it's called "Fantasy Green"
It's probably not used in Fauna because they want people still look at the animals rather then the neon landscape behind the animal.
Posted by Joseph Campisi on September 9, 2011 at 12:02 PM
The greens in the forests of the Pacific Northwest have to be seen to be believed! I used to think it was really green in MA in late spring until I moved here!
Posted by Paul DeCesare on September 21, 2011 at 6:23 PM
Wow, y'all are discussing the science of color way beyond my abilities. Barbara, I just know this: boosting saturation of yellows makes greens look super great, almost magical. Ansel Adams said you make a photograph, not take a photograph. We add spices to food, audio engineers add reverb and compression to vocal tracks, for a reason... I'm fine with boosted color, I enjoy the way it looks. Maybe that's evil/horrible/hypocritical, but it's the dramatic colorful scenes (of the beauty we see) that people post on this site that got me passionate about nature photography
Discussion
18 repliesWith that caveat out of the way, I'm not aware of any landscape photographer who intentionally and specifically boosts greens. Of course, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen; it just means I'm not aware of it if it does. I don't impose any specific green saturation boost with my images; an "electric green," in my estimation, is a real eye-catcher, but not in a good way.
Is there a "different set of rules" for color in landscape photographs? Again, I'm not at all aware of any set of guidelines or conventions that specifically addresses this matter. Perhaps there's a bit more wiggle room taken by some folks who photograph landscapes in terms of a "what I saw in my mind's eye" view of a scene. But generally speaking, it's my perception that most photographers try to keep color saturation in images at least relatively close to what they remember seeing themselves. I know, I know...there are some liberties taken from time to time, particularly (it seems to me) in terms of sunrise/sunset presentation, where real life events can vary dramatically. But when it comes to something as comparatively limited in range as natural greens, I think it's pretty hard to push the envelope very far without a final, objective presentation being way off the beam for most viewers.
You're right that this happens mostly in Landscape;
I can't think of and don't see any examples in the Flora gallery that is also full of green hues.
Sandy
Sandy .
Its true that the sensor has twice as many green photosites as red or blue, but that does not translate to twice as many green pixels in the files we work with in Photoshop. The algorithm in the camera translates this into RGB vales for pixels, not into RGGB values after all. Are you claiming that the camera software makes green "greener" than it really is?
Can you cite a technical reference supporting the statement that equal saturation causes the greens to oversaturate before red and blue?
Again, I'd be interested in a technical reference for this statement.
For color space conversion changes, you can look at the gamut maps and see that the the biggest differences are usually in the yellow-greens. I can't look up a map right now, but it shouldn't be hard to find. Note that this is probably in part a result of the CMYK printing process (eg. No green ink). Printers usually have a much more limited gamut in the greens (again I refer you to gamut maps), which is why epson for example added a yellow-green ink to their 900 series printers now.
Photos for wall art are considered "washed out" by most art directors and ad agencies. IF they give them a second look in submissions, it's usually with one hand on the saturation slider. Check out the greens in advertising, whether print or web sites for outdoor adventure. You might not want them on your wall, but you may need to get acquainted with "over-saturation" if you want sales beyond wall art.
Were the colors that Velvia gave me wrong? Some people said yes, but most viewers loved the enhanced saturation and colors. For landscape photography, I set my Nikon D300 to Vivid, not neutral or standard. I want those colors in my digital work that I got with Velvia.
As far as landscapes having different rules that other nature photos, not exactly sure what you mean. I use the same settings for my landscape work as I do all my nature work. Take a look at my gallery or portfolio, do you see colors that look unnatural?
Oh, I have stopped worrying about it. I've also started increasing the saturation in my images a bit.
The sky looks fine to me. There is a small amount of magenta in the clouds and a touch of cyan near the horizon on IE9 and FireFox using a calibrated wide-gamut monitor. It does not look over-saturated.
'Regular Kodak film' covers a large variety of films that were available at the time. The older Ektachrome accentuated blue and Kodachrome slide films accentuated reds and yellows. The color negative films (Kodacolor and Vericolor) tended to be more neutral, with a greater dynamic range than the slide films.
Was this image a scan from a slide, or a color neg? Armed with that info, the film shooters here can give a more definitive response.
--P
It's probably not used in Fauna because they want people still look at the animals rather then the neon landscape behind the animal.