Does anyone *pay* for natural colors?

Something has struck me as odd lately. Sony has frequently been criticized for its vivid colors. Teased even on some other forums. Neutral colors seem to be preferred by critics.

But you know what? I've never bought a print that had "natural" colors. In fact, I think what critics call natural colors aren't even natural sometimes, but desaturated rather. I mean, sometimes I really do see vivid colors.

I just purchased a book, NG On Assignment USA, a highly respected magazine, and I'm looking at vivid colors all over the place. I just don't see "natural" colors very often.

I see lots of monotones, b/w's, desats, sats, duotones, etc, etc, but not very many "natural" toned prints for sale. What gives?

So, I guess I don't know the point of this post, other than to express something I've thought for a while. Anyone else thought the same thing? Anyone think I'm off my rocker?

Interested in your thoughts....

Jim--Jim Fuglestad
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

You are exactly right, my opinion about this is;

I don't like those 'canon' flat-tire-looking-colors. Seeing the vivid Sony colors really make something out of a picture. Indeed, prints from Kodak or Fuij are FAR FROM natural. I really like the 'crispyness' in my pictures. When i browse trough my old camera gallery (Canon S10 Hehehe) all the pics look really flat

-- Visit my DSC-F707 forum/website at http://www.f707.net

Shutter said:

Something has struck me as odd lately. Sony has frequently been
criticized for its vivid colors. Teased even on some other forums.
Neutral colors seem to be preferred by critics.

But you know what? I've never bought a print that had "natural"
colors. In fact, I think what critics call natural colors aren't
even natural sometimes, but desaturated rather. I mean, sometimes
I really do see vivid colors.

I just purchased a book, NG On Assignment USA, a highly respected
magazine, and I'm looking at vivid colors all over the place. I
just don't see "natural" colors very often.

I see lots of monotones, b/w's, desats, sats, duotones, etc, etc,
but not very many "natural" toned prints for sale. What gives?

So, I guess I don't know the point of this post, other than to
express something I've thought for a while. Anyone else thought
the same thing? Anyone think I'm off my rocker?

Interested in your thoughts....

Click to expand...

I have a few shots that won't need the colors pushed. I will push them on most of them though, especially landscapes.

Really, it's hard to define "natural" when looking at a photo, unless you can compare with the actual thing. And then you would realise that it would never look that good on a photo unless you push the colors. Things just aren't that colorful.

When colors re pushed too much and overdone it can become ugly, but I prefer to see colorful pictures, whether it's on the web or in magazines, than flat ones.

David.--Canon D30 ~ 50mm 1.8My photo galleries: http://www.pbase.com/davidp

you're not off your rocker jim
that's what i love about national geographic photos.
they're all have such deep, vivid saturated colors.
alot of photos i see posted i wish the colors were more intense.

and i do think that most photos published in books and camera magazines and even general interest magazines tend to be of the somewhat saturated color variety.
of course i live in a comic book colored world so that's my preference.
on the other hand i also like b+w, sepia, monotones, washed out pastels etc,.
probably everything but 'natural colors'.

photos with so called natural colors remind me of pictures taken at high noon: flat, lifeless, no contrast, no drama, no depth, no interest.
well that's just my opinion anyways.
see ya.

p.s. jim, loved your 'snow bike' shot. great stuff.

Shutter said:

Something has struck me as odd lately. Sony has frequently been
criticized for its vivid colors. Teased even on some other forums.
Neutral colors seem to be preferred by critics.

But you know what? I've never bought a print that had "natural"
colors. In fact, I think what critics call natural colors aren't
even natural sometimes, but desaturated rather. I mean, sometimes
I really do see vivid colors.

I just purchased a book, NG On Assignment USA, a highly respected
magazine, and I'm looking at vivid colors all over the place. I
just don't see "natural" colors very often.

I see lots of monotones, b/w's, desats, sats, duotones, etc, etc,
but not very many "natural" toned prints for sale. What gives?

So, I guess I don't know the point of this post, other than to
express something I've thought for a while. Anyone else thought
the same thing? Anyone think I'm off my rocker?

Interested in your thoughts....

Jim
--
Jim Fuglestad
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Click to expand...

--cUrVe http://homepage.mac.com/curve

Job Genders said:

You are exactly right, my opinion about this is;

I don't like those 'canon' flat-tire-looking-colors. Seeing the
vivid Sony colors really make something out of a picture. Indeed,
prints from Kodak or Fuij are FAR FROM natural. I really like the
'crispyness' in my pictures. When i browse trough my old camera
gallery (Canon S10 Hehehe) all the pics look really flat

Click to expand...

Don't expect the camera to do everything for you, including the colors. In a film camera photographers would put some velvia film inside to create colorful landscapes, you have photoshop and the likes.

With the D30 I shoot RAW. Which means it's my job (with the help of some premade actions also) to get to the final look of the image. It can be flat or colorful. Just depends on what I like to do. The 707? I wasn't always satisfied witht the colors and usually had to do a lot of modifications, sometimes pushing the full range of colors after removing some red (and sometimes green). Anyway, getting to a good result always involved photoshop. Unfortunately this usually means having to deal with more noise also.

Would be more or less the same thing with my old Kodak DC240, although I would say that colors for me looked better than the sony out of the box.

but it really all depends on you and the goal you want to achieve. If I compared my more recent sony pictures with the older ones, there is a world of difference between them, whether it's color, contrast, sharpness etc...But the camera is the same. Me eye has changed, the vision has changed (the vision of the goal to achieve), and my skills with the tools (camera and software).

David.
--Canon D30 ~ 50mm 1.8My photo galleries: http://www.pbase.com/davidp

cUrVe said:

probably everything but 'natural colors'.
photos with so called natural colors remind me of pictures taken at
high noon: flat, lifeless, no contrast, no drama, no depth, no
interest.

Click to expand...

well, I use to shoot some landscapes then look at the photos and wonder why the heck I got such horrible results. The sky not blue enough, the grass flat etc...

Until I realised that it's just what the camera sees and how things really are (the sky really not that blue after all), aside from the differences between our eyes and the camera (contrast). And if it's not nice to look at on the photo, then it needs to be helped
--Canon D30 ~ 50mm 1.8My photo galleries: http://www.pbase.com/davidp

Shutter said:

Something has struck me as odd lately. Sony has frequently been
criticized for its vivid colors. Teased even on some other forums.
Neutral colors seem to be preferred by critics.

But you know what? I've never bought a print that had "natural"
colors. In fact, I think what critics call natural colors aren't
even natural sometimes, but desaturated rather. I mean, sometimes
I really do see vivid colors.

I just purchased a book, NG On Assignment USA, a highly respected
magazine, and I'm looking at vivid colors all over the place. I
just don't see "natural" colors very often.

I see lots of monotones, b/w's, desats, sats, duotones, etc, etc,
but not very many "natural" toned prints for sale. What gives?

So, I guess I don't know the point of this post, other than to
express something I've thought for a while. Anyone else thought
the same thing? Anyone think I'm off my rocker?

Interested in your thoughts....

Jim
--
Jim Fuglestad
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Click to expand...

It's difficult to answer. On one hand, my wife drives me crazy. I have to photograph a lot of her orchids. On that point, she wants exactly the colors of life. Some time she said, oh well, I would like to have this color on that Phaleanopsis but in fact, it is the wrong color. Than I have to put the flower besides my monitor and fight to get the real color in PS. In case of red, sometimes it is really hard to get.

On normal photos, I try to get natural colors in PS as I see it, that's it. I don't compare with the real life, I compose the colors as I see it.

So, I second you. If anybody would complain about, I would say, photography is art, any more questions? I like vivid colors, that's one reason I have no problems with that Sony.

D.Jenett

Shutter said:

Something has struck me as odd lately. Sony has frequently been
criticized for its vivid colors. Teased even on some other forums.
Neutral colors seem to be preferred by critics.

But you know what? I've never bought a print that had "natural"
colors. In fact, I think what critics call natural colors aren't
even natural sometimes, but desaturated rather. I mean, sometimes
I really do see vivid colors.

I just purchased a book, NG On Assignment USA, a highly respected
magazine, and I'm looking at vivid colors all over the place. I
just don't see "natural" colors very often.

I see lots of monotones, b/w's, desats, sats, duotones, etc, etc,
but not very many "natural" toned prints for sale. What gives?

So, I guess I don't know the point of this post, other than to
express something I've thought for a while. Anyone else thought
the same thing? Anyone think I'm off my rocker?

Interested in your thoughts....

Jim
--
Jim Fuglestad
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Click to expand...

One way or the other, I like the results (colors)I get from my 707. I'm a color freak. I like them sometimes oversaturated. If I feel different for a specific shot, I work it in PS 6.0 or PSE (Not as good as Shay though ;-) )

You are right to say that real color are rare in the photos we see

--Kafrifelle (Yves P.) Owner of DSC-F707,No BFS, No hassle but strong vignetting on leftVCL-MHG07A, HVL-F1000 and some close up lenses ... http://www.pbase.com/kafrifelle

Hey Job,

And how did the those pics look in real life? Probably not "flat", huh? I'm not against natural colors per se, only what is being defined as natural colors. Sometimes, colors are just vivid.

Jim

Job Genders said:

You are exactly right, my opinion about this is;

I don't like those 'canon' flat-tire-looking-colors. Seeing the
vivid Sony colors really make something out of a picture. Indeed,
prints from Kodak or Fuij are FAR FROM natural. I really like the
'crispyness' in my pictures. When i browse trough my old camera
gallery (Canon S10 Hehehe) all the pics look really flat

--

Visit my DSC-F707 forum/website at http://www.f707.net

Click to expand...

--Jim FuglestadWhy simply live and let live? Live and help live. http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

David Pichevin said:

but it really all depends on you and the goal you want to achieve.
If I compared my more recent sony pictures with the older ones,
there is a world of difference between them, whether it's color,
contrast, sharpness etc...But the camera is the same. Me eye has
changed, the vision has changed (the vision of the goal to
achieve), and my skills with the tools (camera and software).

Click to expand...

Aaah, very good points. And it does depend on what you're after. And we're talking about from this side of photography. Wo, what is it the "admirers" are looking for?

Jim--Jim FuglestadWhy simply live and let live? Live and help live. http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Shutter said:

Something has struck me as odd lately. Sony has frequently been
criticized for its vivid colors. Teased even on some other forums.
Neutral colors seem to be preferred by critics.

But you know what? I've never bought a print that had "natural"
colors. In fact, I think what critics call natural colors aren't
even natural sometimes, but desaturated rather. I mean, sometimes
I really do see vivid colors.

I just purchased a book, NG On Assignment USA, a highly respected
magazine, and I'm looking at vivid colors all over the place. I
just don't see "natural" colors very often.

I see lots of monotones, b/w's, desats, sats, duotones, etc, etc,
but not very many "natural" toned prints for sale. What gives?

So, I guess I don't know the point of this post, other than to
express something I've thought for a while. Anyone else thought
the same thing? Anyone think I'm off my rocker?

Interested in your thoughts....

Jim
--
Jim Fuglestad
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Click to expand...

--Faye

Hey cUrVe,

Well, you ARE off YOUR rocker, so this is no solace.... hehe

So then, why do you suppose that when NG has very saturated photos, as a leading photojournalism/photography magazine, has vivid and rich colors, but camera reviewers and buyers view them as negative?

I'm finding myself moving to your terrain. I like just about everything that isn't "natural" (umm, dull, flat.....) But I'm not talking about extremely vivid, but enough to catch attention.

Jim

cUrVe said:

p.s. jim, loved your 'snow bike' shot. great stuff.

Shutter said:

Something has struck me as odd lately. Sony has frequently been
criticized for its vivid colors. Teased even on some other forums.
Neutral colors seem to be preferred by critics.

But you know what? I've never bought a print that had "natural"
colors. In fact, I think what critics call natural colors aren't
even natural sometimes, but desaturated rather. I mean, sometimes
I really do see vivid colors.

I just purchased a book, NG On Assignment USA, a highly respected
magazine, and I'm looking at vivid colors all over the place. I
just don't see "natural" colors very often.

I see lots of monotones, b/w's, desats, sats, duotones, etc, etc,
but not very many "natural" toned prints for sale. What gives?

So, I guess I don't know the point of this post, other than to
express something I've thought for a while. Anyone else thought
the same thing? Anyone think I'm off my rocker?

Interested in your thoughts....

Jim
--
Jim Fuglestad
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Click to expand...

--
cUrVe
http://homepage.mac.com/curve

Click to expand...

--Jim FuglestadWhy simply live and let live? Live and help live. http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Hey D,

Do you ever think that your "vivid" colors really aren't vivid? But real life? For instance, I was walking the other day by the lake, and I saw a lady walking with a red coat on. It was perhaps the brightest red I've ever seen. In real life! It was so intense. I wondered how my DA would have produced it compared to another brand. Now, with my 707 it might look orangey ;-) but it would be intense. I think other brands would actually end up desaturating the red to make it look more natural. Duh.

Jim

D.Jenett said:

Shutter said:

Something has struck me as odd lately. Sony has frequently been
criticized for its vivid colors. Teased even on some other forums.
Neutral colors seem to be preferred by critics.

But you know what? I've never bought a print that had "natural"
colors. In fact, I think what critics call natural colors aren't
even natural sometimes, but desaturated rather. I mean, sometimes
I really do see vivid colors.

I just purchased a book, NG On Assignment USA, a highly respected
magazine, and I'm looking at vivid colors all over the place. I
just don't see "natural" colors very often.

I see lots of monotones, b/w's, desats, sats, duotones, etc, etc,
but not very many "natural" toned prints for sale. What gives?

So, I guess I don't know the point of this post, other than to
express something I've thought for a while. Anyone else thought
the same thing? Anyone think I'm off my rocker?

Interested in your thoughts....

Jim
--
Jim Fuglestad
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Click to expand...

It's difficult to answer. On one hand, my wife drives me crazy. I
have to photograph a lot of her orchids. On that point, she wants
exactly the colors of life. Some time she said, oh well, I would
like to have this color on that Phaleanopsis but in fact, it is the
wrong color. Than I have to put the flower besides my monitor and
fight to get the real color in PS. In case of red, sometimes it
is really hard to get.
On normal photos, I try to get natural colors in PS as I see it,
that's it. I don't compare with the real life, I compose the colors
as I see it.
So, I second you. If anybody would complain about, I would say,
photography is art, any more questions? I like vivid colors, that's
one reason I have no problems with that Sony.

D.Jenett

Click to expand...

--Jim FuglestadWhy simply live and let live? Live and help live. http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Amen, brother. But I suppose in this forum, I'm kind of preaching to the choir, huh? Maybe I should wander over to..... no, better not.

Later, bud,

Jim

Yves P. said:

Shutter said:

Something has struck me as odd lately. Sony has frequently been
criticized for its vivid colors. Teased even on some other forums.
Neutral colors seem to be preferred by critics.

But you know what? I've never bought a print that had "natural"
colors. In fact, I think what critics call natural colors aren't
even natural sometimes, but desaturated rather. I mean, sometimes
I really do see vivid colors.

I just purchased a book, NG On Assignment USA, a highly respected
magazine, and I'm looking at vivid colors all over the place. I
just don't see "natural" colors very often.

I see lots of monotones, b/w's, desats, sats, duotones, etc, etc,
but not very many "natural" toned prints for sale. What gives?

So, I guess I don't know the point of this post, other than to
express something I've thought for a while. Anyone else thought
the same thing? Anyone think I'm off my rocker?

Interested in your thoughts....

Jim
--
Jim Fuglestad
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Click to expand...

One way or the other, I like the results (colors)I get from my 707.
I'm a color freak. I like them sometimes oversaturated. If I feel
different for a specific shot, I work it in PS 6.0 or PSE (Not as
good as Shay though ;-) )

You are right to say that real color are rare in the photos we see

--
Kafrifelle (Yves P.) Owner of DSC-F707,
No BFS, No hassle but strong vignetting on left
VCL-MHG07A, HVL-F1000 and some close up lenses ...
http://www.pbase.com/kafrifelle

Click to expand...

--Jim FuglestadWhy simply live and let live? Live and help live. http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Faye said:

Shutter said:

Something has struck me as odd lately. Sony has frequently been
criticized for its vivid colors. Teased even on some other forums.
Neutral colors seem to be preferred by critics.

But you know what? I've never bought a print that had "natural"
colors. In fact, I think what critics call natural colors aren't
even natural sometimes, but desaturated rather. I mean, sometimes
I really do see vivid colors.

I just purchased a book, NG On Assignment USA, a highly respected
magazine, and I'm looking at vivid colors all over the place. I
just don't see "natural" colors very often.

I see lots of monotones, b/w's, desats, sats, duotones, etc, etc,
but not very many "natural" toned prints for sale. What gives?

So, I guess I don't know the point of this post, other than to
express something I've thought for a while. Anyone else thought
the same thing? Anyone think I'm off my rocker?

Interested in your thoughts....

Jim
--
Jim Fuglestad
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Click to expand...

--
Faye

Click to expand...

--Jim FuglestadWhy simply live and let live? Live and help live. http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Shutter said:

Faye said:

Shutter said:

Something has struck me as odd lately. Sony has frequently been
criticized for its vivid colors. Teased even on some other forums.
Neutral colors seem to be preferred by critics.

But you know what? I've never bought a print that had "natural"
colors. In fact, I think what critics call natural colors aren't
even natural sometimes, but desaturated rather. I mean, sometimes
I really do see vivid colors.

I just purchased a book, NG On Assignment USA, a highly respected
magazine, and I'm looking at vivid colors all over the place. I
just don't see "natural" colors very often.

I see lots of monotones, b/w's, desats, sats, duotones, etc, etc,
but not very many "natural" toned prints for sale. What gives?

So, I guess I don't know the point of this post, other than to
express something I've thought for a while. Anyone else thought
the same thing? Anyone think I'm off my rocker?

Interested in your thoughts....

Jim
--
Jim Fuglestad
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Click to expand...

--
Faye

Click to expand...

--
Jim Fuglestad
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Click to expand...

Do you see any irony here,

The girl who shows vivid colors is named Faye White ...

It is an easy one I admit,

I didn't want to mean any disrespect to your name by this Faye, I have always admire your work

--Kafrifelle (Yves P.) Owner of DSC-F707,No BFS, No hassle but strong vignetting on leftVCL-MHG07A, HVL-F1000 and some close up lenses ... http://www.pbase.com/kafrifelle

Thanks Yves and Jim - maybe I should change my name to Faye Fuschia? ;-)

Yves P. said:

Shutter said:

Faye said:

Shutter said:

Something has struck me as odd lately. Sony has frequently been
criticized for its vivid colors. Teased even on some other forums.
Neutral colors seem to be preferred by critics.

But you know what? I've never bought a print that had "natural"
colors. In fact, I think what critics call natural colors aren't
even natural sometimes, but desaturated rather. I mean, sometimes
I really do see vivid colors.

I just purchased a book, NG On Assignment USA, a highly respected
magazine, and I'm looking at vivid colors all over the place. I
just don't see "natural" colors very often.

I see lots of monotones, b/w's, desats, sats, duotones, etc, etc,
but not very many "natural" toned prints for sale. What gives?

So, I guess I don't know the point of this post, other than to
express something I've thought for a while. Anyone else thought
the same thing? Anyone think I'm off my rocker?

Interested in your thoughts....

Jim
--
Jim Fuglestad
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Click to expand...

--
Faye

Click to expand...

--
Jim Fuglestad
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Click to expand...

Do you see any irony here,

The girl who shows vivid colors is named Faye White ...

It is an easy one I admit,

I didn't want to mean any disrespect to your name by this Faye, I
have always admire your work

--
Kafrifelle (Yves P.) Owner of DSC-F707,
No BFS, No hassle but strong vignetting on left
VCL-MHG07A, HVL-F1000 and some close up lenses ...
http://www.pbase.com/kafrifelle

Click to expand...

--Faye

LOL! But Faye, I hardly think that Faye Fuschia is a photographer's stage name.....

Faye said:

Yves P. said:

Shutter said:

Faye said:

Shutter said:

Something has struck me as odd lately. Sony has frequently been
criticized for its vivid colors. Teased even on some other forums.
Neutral colors seem to be preferred by critics.

But you know what? I've never bought a print that had "natural"
colors. In fact, I think what critics call natural colors aren't
even natural sometimes, but desaturated rather. I mean, sometimes
I really do see vivid colors.

I just purchased a book, NG On Assignment USA, a highly respected
magazine, and I'm looking at vivid colors all over the place. I
just don't see "natural" colors very often.

I see lots of monotones, b/w's, desats, sats, duotones, etc, etc,
but not very many "natural" toned prints for sale. What gives?

So, I guess I don't know the point of this post, other than to
express something I've thought for a while. Anyone else thought
the same thing? Anyone think I'm off my rocker?

Interested in your thoughts....

Jim
--
Jim Fuglestad
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Click to expand...

--
Faye

Click to expand...

--
Jim Fuglestad
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Click to expand...

Do you see any irony here,

The girl who shows vivid colors is named Faye White ...

It is an easy one I admit,

I didn't want to mean any disrespect to your name by this Faye, I
have always admire your work

--
Kafrifelle (Yves P.) Owner of DSC-F707,
No BFS, No hassle but strong vignetting on left
VCL-MHG07A, HVL-F1000 and some close up lenses ...
http://www.pbase.com/kafrifelle

Click to expand...

--
Faye

Click to expand...

--Jim FuglestadWhy simply live and let live? Live and help live. http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

LOL - you're right, it sounds more like a stripper - and that's definitely not me!!

Shutter said:

Faye said:

Yves P. said:

Shutter said:

Faye said:

Shutter said:

Something has struck me as odd lately. Sony has frequently been
criticized for its vivid colors. Teased even on some other forums.
Neutral colors seem to be preferred by critics.

But you know what? I've never bought a print that had "natural"
colors. In fact, I think what critics call natural colors aren't
even natural sometimes, but desaturated rather. I mean, sometimes
I really do see vivid colors.

I just purchased a book, NG On Assignment USA, a highly respected
magazine, and I'm looking at vivid colors all over the place. I
just don't see "natural" colors very often.

I see lots of monotones, b/w's, desats, sats, duotones, etc, etc,
but not very many "natural" toned prints for sale. What gives?

So, I guess I don't know the point of this post, other than to
express something I've thought for a while. Anyone else thought
the same thing? Anyone think I'm off my rocker?

Interested in your thoughts....

Jim
--
Jim Fuglestad
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Click to expand...

--
Faye

Click to expand...

--
Jim Fuglestad
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Click to expand...

Do you see any irony here,

The girl who shows vivid colors is named Faye White ...

It is an easy one I admit,

I didn't want to mean any disrespect to your name by this Faye, I
have always admire your work

--
Kafrifelle (Yves P.) Owner of DSC-F707,
No BFS, No hassle but strong vignetting on left
VCL-MHG07A, HVL-F1000 and some close up lenses ...
http://www.pbase.com/kafrifelle

Click to expand...

--
Faye

Click to expand...

--
Jim Fuglestad
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Click to expand...

--Faye

I just love colors and when I am not painting a realistic watercolor painting, I go wild with my colors as you can see.

Lisa

Faye said:

Shutter said:

Something has struck me as odd lately. Sony has frequently been
criticized for its vivid colors. Teased even on some other forums.
Neutral colors seem to be preferred by critics.

But you know what? I've never bought a print that had "natural"
colors. In fact, I think what critics call natural colors aren't
even natural sometimes, but desaturated rather. I mean, sometimes
I really do see vivid colors.

I just purchased a book, NG On Assignment USA, a highly respected
magazine, and I'm looking at vivid colors all over the place. I
just don't see "natural" colors very often.

I see lots of monotones, b/w's, desats, sats, duotones, etc, etc,
but not very many "natural" toned prints for sale. What gives?

So, I guess I don't know the point of this post, other than to
express something I've thought for a while. Anyone else thought
the same thing? Anyone think I'm off my rocker?

Interested in your thoughts....

Jim
--
Jim Fuglestad
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Click to expand...

--
Faye

Click to expand...

--My gallery: http://silvercharm.digitalphotochat.com/gallery