pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How much saturation?  (Read 6055 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 29, 2007, 14:54 »
0
My better selling images seem to be the most colorful and saturated ones. So I tried an experiment and took an image to what I think is the extreme, going past what I would normally do. A link to the photo is pasted below and is getting a pretty good amount of downloads.

Do you think this is oversatured or should I be doing this with more of my photos?

Note: I say Saturation but do not actually use the PS Saturation tool.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-2934008-a-blue-peacock-with-colorful-open-feathers-filling-the-entire-frame.html





« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2007, 15:33 »
0
are you fideling with the colors in LAB?

I think it looks almost fine :)  almost because it almost seems as though the blue is overdone - loosing the details.  It is pretty hard to tell with the thumbnail though.  if there is still good detail in the blue on the bird then lots of people would probably like images like that.

« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2007, 15:41 »
0
Yes, good guess/observation. This was mostly from playing with curves in the A and B channels of LAB and then a touch of Paint With Light technique. I masked the blue during some of the changes b/c I was losing detail like you said.

Thanks for your comments!!!

« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2007, 16:32 »
0
I know a guy who sells many oversaturated images.  Personally I like saturation - I've been shooting with Velvia for years! - but not excessive saturation that looks too unnatural.  However it seems popular.

Regards,
Adelaide

Greg Boiarsky

« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2007, 17:03 »
0
My guess is that saturated images sell better because they look better on the reduced-size preview.  It's too bad that our customers want such saturation--it's easy to saturate an image once you've purchased it.  But, if the image delivered to the customer is oversaturated, they cannot reverse the damage and regain image detail.

« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2007, 17:17 »
0
I think I'll continue saturating more than I have been but make sure to also keep a "normal" version in case I want it for other purposes.

The reason I tried this is because I am trying to increase my revenue per image. I seem to be quite low in revenue per image per month. I usually earn around .75 per image per month combining sales from all sites I submit to. I hear of others earning $1 or more per image on single sites only.

« Reply #6 on: March 30, 2007, 01:17 »
0
Yikes! That's almost painful to the eyes   :)  ... of a photographer, anyway.

But I agree with Professorgb.

The fact is, when you're trying to sell an image it's up against thousands of other photographs. And all that the buyer sees is the tiny thumbnail. The ones that jump out at her/him tend to be the ones that get bought.

And (I don't want to sound snooty about this) I think that a whole load of buyers aren't terribly 'visually literate'.

« Last Edit: March 30, 2007, 01:20 by Bateleur »

digiology

« Reply #7 on: March 30, 2007, 11:54 »
0
On my "calibrated" CRT monitor at work (prepress) it was horribly oversaturated with no detail in the blue whatsoever as well as colours looking completely out of gamut.

On my LCD laptop monitor it looks quite nice! Saturated yet the detail was still visable in the blue.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2007, 20:26 by digiology »

« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2007, 14:09 »
0
I have a Sony Vaio at home. I guess it has a wider dynamic range than my CRT monitor at work. The sony can retain much more detail in highly saturated images (and not look over saturated), but when I view them at work they look like someone colored the images with makeup.

Take one of those highly saturated images and print it out. See what it looks like. :) Paper has much less dynamic range than monitors.

« Reply #9 on: March 30, 2007, 19:15 »
0
This is not to print. It was an experiment for stock only. I have a "normal" version for other purposes.

This still continues to be downloaded several times every day.

By the way, the monitor I work on is also a Sony. It looks oversaturated to me also but that was on purpose.

« Reply #10 on: March 31, 2007, 02:01 »
0
"...but when I view them at work they look like someone colored the images with makeup."
"By the way, the monitor I work on is also a Sony. It looks over saturated to me also but that was on purpose."

1. Monitor calibration
2. Embedded color profiles
3. ICC profiles

Without getting into a lengthy discussion, how come I see no mention
of the above in this thread? You can not achieve the "What you see is what you print"
without any regard to discussing the three above. Miss just one, and you are DEAD OFF
on your printing, and/or the way the image may look on another monitor.

It appears the two statements I quoted from the gentlemen above are moot, unless we first
establish these three required steps at the begining. We all need to be on the first page as it were.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2007, 09:06 by rjmiz »

« Reply #11 on: April 01, 2007, 13:54 »
0
Everyone is getting off topic.  The question is do highly saturated sell better.  I think yes as long as it isn't overdone.

I always try to oversaturate my sky as I think it sells better.

[note: It looks oversaturated on my dell laptop]

« Reply #12 on: April 01, 2007, 15:40 »
0
Yes, my intent with the original post was simply whether or not highly saturated photos sell better. It seems to me that the answer is yes. I plan on saturating my stock photos more than I have been doing in the past but maybe not quite as much as with this peacock.

« Reply #13 on: April 01, 2007, 17:10 »
0
Well, then I guess this thread comes to an end then. I mean, ok your gonna saturate your images from now on.

« Reply #14 on: April 01, 2007, 18:17 »
0
On the color management topic, I use ICC profiles for printing. I do not use a calibration device on my monitor. I almost bought one even though my prints acceptably match what I see on my monitor, but reading the latest edition of Professional Photoshop talked me out of it. Dan Margulis has a few chapters devoted to color management and is really against using electronic devices for callibrating monitors. He sure got me to buy in to his arguments.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2007, 18:19 by sbonk »

« Reply #15 on: April 02, 2007, 05:16 »
0
On the color management topic, I use ICC profiles for printing. I do not use a calibration device on my monitor. I almost bought one even though my prints acceptably match what I see on my monitor, but reading the latest edition of Professional Photoshop talked me out of it. Dan Margulis has a few chapters devoted to color management and is really against using electronic devices for callibrating monitors. He sure got me to buy in to his arguments.
so what is Dan's reason for not using electronic devices to calibrate monitors?

« Reply #16 on: April 02, 2007, 05:47 »
0
Without going back to the book, the main points I remember are listed below. These are in my own words, not directly quoted from the book.

1) Humans perceive color in different ways depending upon the surrounding colors and the background. A machine will always perceive the same colors as the same no matter what color the background is.

2) The most "Important viewers" are clients if you are selling your work. The only judgement on color that really matters is that of the client.

3) Most people viewing your prints did not see the image online. What matters is how this print looks, not how it looks relative to what you saw on the monitor. Therefore, a pretty close match is good enough.

The bottom line was that your eyes can do a better job than a machine. This is in large part to #1 above.


« Reply #17 on: April 02, 2007, 05:55 »
0
Hi all, As Thumnails sell your images-saturate as much as you can get away with- a designer can't be bothered enhancing your images,if yours doesn't attract his eye, he will search for one that does,regards, Grizzlybear

« Reply #18 on: April 02, 2007, 09:08 »
0
Gee, I have a "Red/Green" color deficiency.  I doubt very seriously if MY EYES can calibrate a monitor
better than an electronic device. I know I relay on my speedometer to tell me how fast I'm going.
Every time I rely on my eyes, I wind up with a speeding ticket. Same goes for measuring distances,
for some reason I have trouble measuring how far 25 feet is. I always have to rely on a measuring tape.

I wish my eyes were as good as this guy's ....Dan is his name?

« Reply #19 on: April 02, 2007, 14:34 »
0
I guess the argument is that if the monitor looks the same as it being printed, and you like that look that is all that matters.  If someone else sees colours differently, having them calibrated isn't going to matter as your view and their view will differ.

I guess there are a few counters to this.  First, it is probably easier to use a calibrating device to make sure the monitor and the print look the same (i dont how to do it though I dont have a print so that might explain it.  Secondly, it gives consistancy between different devices (ie. the buyer and sellers monitor).


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
2501 Views
Last post June 26, 2007, 06:10
by rjmiz
7 Replies
3760 Views
Last post August 31, 2007, 02:09
by sharpshot
1 Replies
2536 Views
Last post April 12, 2014, 06:08
by Beppe Grillo
0 Replies
2169 Views
Last post January 02, 2018, 12:47
by Brightontl
0 Replies
2104 Views
Last post January 26, 2018, 16:15
by Brightontl

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors