too saturated?

[dishingthedivine]

I thought this pic was lovely. My father tells me it's oversaturated. Given that he's red/green colorblind, I take his comments on color with a grain of salt. But given that i work on a laptop and he has a 22" computer monitor, I also realize that maybe he's seeing something different than I am.



Canon 450D
f 5.6
1/20 sec
iso 200
flash fired
photoshop updates: can't remember? I think I increased the vibrance, if anything...

Thanks!

[Doctor Atomo]

Over saturated is not what jumps to mind when viewing the pic. It's possible he is technically correct, but I don't think "synthetic" or "over processed" when I see the shot. Post processing is the dark room of digital photography. This is art, and the emotion of the shot is the important thing.
The shot is excellent in subject, composition, and color. DOF is fine.
In any pic like that of small flowers you are going to get some cut off flowers, but you did an excellent job making the distraction minimal.

Where was the photo taken and what type of flower is that?

[dishingthedivine]

Originally Posted by Doctor Atomo

Over saturated is not what jumps to mind when viewing the pic. It's possible he is technically correct, but I don't think "synthetic" or "over processed" when I see the shot. Post processing is the dark room of digital photography. This is art, and the emotion of the shot is the important thing.
The shot is excellent in subject, composition, and color. DOF is fine.
In any pic like that of small flowers you are going to get some cut off flowers, but you did an excellent job making the distraction minimal.

Where was the photo taken and what type of flower is that?

I'm pretty sure there was very minimal post processing done on this picture. My theory on photography is "take a good pic to start with and you won't need a ton of processing." I'll see if I can find the original (there are about 10 pics that look the same, so teasing out this specific original will be challenging!).

Thanks for the compliments on the shot! I definitely tried to capture it's beauty and reduce distractions as much as possible. The plant is a Marguerite Daisy. I live in CA where the weather is very temperate, so these are in bloom right now.

[dishingthedivine]

okay, here's the original, cropped to be as close to an exact match as I can get. I think now that I look at it that I like the original better... I think the slight change in vibrance is what gave the above pic the look that it has. Other than that, it seems no changes were made.

[Doctor Atomo]

I like the changes you made to the first one. I try to capture the image AND feeling of a place. Sometimes a perfectly "accurate" recording of the place looks a little flat. Adding some color, etc to make it like I saw it without making it synthetic looking is my goal.

[qunox]

Originally Posted by dishingthedivine

I'm pretty sure there was very minimal post processing done on this picture. My theory on photography is "take a good pic to start with and you won't need a ton of processing." I'll see if I can find the original (there are about 10 pics that look the same, so teasing out this specific original will be challenging!).

Thanks for the compliments on the shot! I definitely tried to capture it's beauty and reduce distractions as much as possible. The plant is a Marguerite Daisy. I live in CA where the weather is very temperate, so these are in bloom right now.

Totally agree, for me the best shoot is a shoot where you can't do anything any post production more to improve it.

Personally for me the photo will look better if it is framed for the single flower. Crop out all the foreground