Impressive Dynamic Colors (Superficial/Artificial) vs Washed Out Faded Colors (Originality/Natural)

Started Jan 23, 2013 | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
ryder78
Contributing MemberPosts: 545
Like?
Impressive Dynamic Colors (Superficial/Artificial) vs Washed Out Faded Colors (Originality/Natural)
Jan 23, 2013

This is something that crosses my mind of late. There are a lot of nice pictures on this forum that show incredible clarity, colors and detail. The colors are at times so rich, vivid and dynamic that one may hesitate to regard the images as the real thing, portraying the actual scene or subject to its truest form. Although an original or more natural image quality is possible with almost any cameras, there is a tendency to tweak or manipulate these images in areas of saturation, contrast or sharpness etc. to make the colors pop or appear richer and more vivid, either with digital (post-processing) photography tools such as Lightroom, or by adjusting the settings of the camera (pre-processing) before a snapshot is taken. Heavier post-processing may render an image to look much more impressive than one in its original true form in pale/faded/washed-out colors.

Pardon my ignorance as I am a greenhorn in this. Does superficial or artificial (impressive) quality have more significance than originality? Do people usually post-process or tweak their pictures to achieve a more satisfactory or impressive quality? In other words, superficial quality taking precedence over originality.

I would appreciate some thoughts on this matter and apologize beforehand if this has been discussed before extensively. Some short and concise replies would be useful.

Thanks.

ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow