Color saturation is a two-edged sword. It adds a needed boost to some photos that seem faded, and can often make an image more "fun" to look at it (but not necessarily more interesting). On the other hand, too much saturation makes a picture look unnatural -- even phony. And it also can obscure the finer details of a photo, which are often the ones that make an image particularly appealing.

As i mentioned in conversations with Pierre & Greg – I believe that saturation alts - or any alts for that matter – have to be applied in two distinct manners.

You can choose to ‘over process’ and image to a point beyond its natural appearance for creative reasons or to draw emphasis to a particular subject or area.

Alternately, you can attempt to overcome some of the shortcomings of digital captures by processing it to try and best replicate the scene as you recalled it.

In either event – the changes should be sympathetic to the subject matter both in style and severity. The best manipulations or enhancements to a picture are the ones that the viewer is unaware have even been done in the first place. Finding the right balance is the trick – an undercooked image is just as unattractive as one that has been nuked. Using applications that can alter the image in its RAW state are always preferable as any postwork you do to an image after processing will be inherently destructive to the image data and result in a loss of clarity.

Phil hits the nail on the head: "Finding the right balance is the trick." As true in photography as it is in so many other aspects of our lives! And we probably never get it precisely right. But we keep trying.

As there are many over saturated photos on the web, we need to keep in mind that these photos are meant to enrich the viewer perspective by our creations. Most of us are not world travelers and admire Caedes photos for both originality and composition. Over saturated photos remove the "reality" of great photos. As few of us make our photos in studios, a boost in color is generally helpful. So as Greg and Phil have stated, balance is very important to maintain a sense of being there or wishing we were.

This is somewhat off-topic, but it's apparent that Caedes has been evolving over time, and I'm wondering if perhaps the time has come to (somehow) bifurcate the website into (at least) two sub-sites -- traditional wallpaper that is sized and themed accordingly, and an "artistic" site where the more avant-garde submissions can be presented.

I rather think that oversaturation can be as effective as natural saturation (an attempt to replicate what you see with the naked eye). It all depends on the creator's purpose. It's like trying to compare a Van Gogh, with its wild colors and broad strokes, to a Vermeer. I tend to agree that oversaturation often leads to loss of texture and clarity, which is often not a good thing -- especially with flower and other nature images. As for the image which started this discussion, I thought Pierre's choice of saturation was excellent. It didn't bother me that the geraniums were a bit undersaturated because the other colors seemed perfect for the shot.

I personally prefer photos that are B&W, over-saturated, or under-saturated with cool shadows/yellow highlights (the last link compares the before and after)...

...and yes, this is an advertisement. Everyone has their personal preference.

While my leanings are towards digital art, I do have appreciation for photography and a little background in the field. I used to color correct an retouch shots for catalogs… I always leant towards making the image look as close to a real representation of the product with a few detail improvements and maybe a slight color boost. For some silly reason I thought the photo should be representative of reality - my clients disagreed. I'm sure all of you are shocked by that.

To me photography is usually about celebrating what is real and finding a way to represent that to another viewer. Often it should be able to tell a story and evoke a feeling in someway or another. This involves the entire color palette, not just the colors that are bright and sharp and clear. A shot that shows off a muted naturally appearing palette, but still has plenty of variation can be just as attractive if not more than one that shows bright sharp colors that may have too much contrast. One may choose to post process to oversaturate and bring "pop" to colors for various reasons, but as Phil said, that's a different choice and not always the right choice/balance for each photo. The balance comes in finding a shot that doesn't need bright colors to tell it's story - and I think oversaturating Pierre's image here would have done it a disservice for the story it's telling.

I woke up 20 min ago and i'm still blurry - if any of that didn't make sense, lemme know and I'll fix it later.

I concur with Donna on the Van Goghs and the Ver Meers, though I prefer Ver Meer for his skill with lighting. What would the world be like without both the Van Goghs AND the Ver Meers?
I think subject matter often times has much to do with what color saturation works best or if no saturation is needed. I think in time, with experience, a person can become skilled in choosing just the right 'balance' as was previously mentioned.
As for Pierre's photograph, I think more saturation would give it a 'garish' appearance, not at all appealing. The geraniums are only incidental to the composition and don't carry much weight as far as the over all beauty of the entire story told by this one wonderful human image. And also what might greater saturation have done to the young boy's skin tone?

I must consider Donna's comparison between Van Gogh and Vermeer.
Mmmh... I like the two painters!
But if you have a camera taking in raw format, please try this: Shot some popies in a green field in 'jpg' and then in 'raw' format. Then take a look at the two images. The 'jpg' file will be more saturated, especially in the red, just because manufacturers consider it is more appreciated by the common user.
Thanks guys for your participation :-)

Pierre makes a good point: that an image is already processed -- and thus, altered to some extent -- when it comes out of the camera, unless you're shooting in RAW format. As an amateur who uses a point-and-shoot camera -- one of those "common users" (no offense taken, Pierre) -- I just assume that every image coming out of my camera is going to need at least a little work.

I almost always increase the color saturation in my photos, because I am creating them for visual appeal rather than as a historical record. In the case of flowers, one could say that flowers were "designed" to appeal to insects and birds, not humans, and and they tend to see much bolder, brighter colors in flowers than we do. After all they often have to spot them from a great distance... so maybe when the colours are exaggerated we are seeing tham as they are "supposed" to be.

Well, that's what I'm going to keep telling myself...

well, since sam brought it up, here's what a bee 'actually' sees. Fairly interesting.

To add to Sam's comments, the purpose of a photo is, after all, to be seen by human eyes. It is the beholder's eye (rather than histograms and Exif data) that is the ultimate arbiter.

Why did God make the flowers one color for the animals and another color for us? How does anyone know exactly what an insect can or cannot see? Can anyone explain that for me? I really would like to know. Are you saying that God saturates the flowers for the insects and we see the histograms?

Cindy, I'm not sure how insects made it into this conversation, as I believe the membership of Caedes is entirely Homo sapiens! When Phil and I had exchanged PMs, there was some technical talk about histograms and the like. That's why I mentioned it. And, arguably, the flowers have no color at all -- color is in the brains of the beholder.

So, Greg, if everyone died, the world would be colorless? I wasn't giving the insects voice. As a homo sapiens, I was curious about the article presented by noahnott and wondered if anyone with scientific leanings could explain WHY the other animals of the kingdom see colors that we don't. Photography is about color and light. If no one knows the answer, they don't have to respond to my query.

Well, I'm not sure if you're asking "why" from a biophysical standpoint or from a philosophical standpoint. As to the former, the eye is not unlike the sensor of a camera -- it has receptors that, for a particular species, are constructed in a unique way. Those receptors are responsive to a particular range of light frequencies, and they process the incoming photons in a particular fashion. Hence the brain of a particular organism receives a "package" of data that is different from that received by the brains of other species. (In any case, I think we are beginning to stray from the topic.)

I thought we were talking about color saturation and is there really a great distinction between 'biophysical' and 'philosophical' or maybe even 'metaphysical' with regard to great art? I think the saturation idea fits in with the whole scheme. You were the one that pointed out that color only exists in the 'brain' of the beholder. (Not that I agree with that.) If you want to redirect to basic photoshop jargon and technique then we don't have a discussion of what really 'works' in the image with regard to saturation. But that's okay with me because I am pleased with Pierre's image as it is and I defer to your request and will leave the discussion.

Yes, indeed -- we were talking about photography. So when God and insects got involved, I think we began to go astray.

I deferred. See above. As to the part about why God made the colors different to different species was rhetorical anyway.

Cindy, when did I "request" that you leave? And what right would I have to do that?

Not a direct request, but an indirect one to redirect. I choose to leave the discussion, that's all. I mean no offense. I have to go and find out why our eyes see things differently now.

I don't wish to be argumentative, Cindy, but you asked TWICE for someone to explain the "different colors" question, so it hardly seemed rhetorical.

You do wish to be argumentative it appears. You should have let me just leave. The part about why insects see in different colors was NOT rhetorical. The posed question about why God made the colors look different WAS rhetorical. The statement I made about God making the colors saturated for insects and histograms for us was supposed to provide a chuckle. I guess it failed in that regard. Sorry.

I think someone should ask Pierre if they can rework his image with more saturated colors. The comparison would be interesting in the development of this thread. Please Pierre;-)

Darryl, I disagree. Then we'd have a brand-new debate about whether the reworked image was "done" correctly -- perhaps it needs a little less (or a little more) saturation to be a proper comparison; perhaps some parts of it should be more (or less) saturated; and so on. It might never end!

Here is the conclusion I've come to -- for myself, anyway.

The old adage that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is true, but what's left unsaid in the adage is that the beholder's eyes can be "educated" over time, so that their perceptions become more finely tuned and more capable of discerning and appreciating an image’s details and subtleties. (I know that I "see" more, and different, things in a picture now than I did a year or two ago.)

So . . . I defer to Pierre's expertise and to the decisions he made with regard to his photo. I might simply look at it and move on. I might download it and return to it later for further study. Or, I might put it on my desktop, but feel compelled to alter it slightly so that it will hold the attention of my less well-trained eyes. And then, a year from now, I might go back to Caedes and seek out his original again, when I’m ready to “see” it.

I'll post soon more images about monks, taken with different lightings during a special religious day. Maybe it will be the occasion for new arguments. Thanks guys :-)

My opinion on the image...

I thought pierre's image was under saturated for a color image. Though I preferred it in B&W (mostly green channel so the robes are dark) with a sepia tone on just the skin.