Professional Web Applications Themes

Saturation - Photography

If I want saturated slides, I underexpose a little bit (1/3 stop). In negative, I can overexpose quite a bit (1 .. 1.5 stops). Is there such a technique in digital? I'd assume underexposure as digital does behave in some respects like E-6. (If correct, then as a consequence RAW would be the best way to save the image, of course.) Comments? Cheers, Alan -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch....

  1. #1

    Default Saturation


    If I want saturated slides, I underexpose a little bit (1/3 stop).
    In negative, I can overexpose quite a bit (1 .. 1.5 stops).

    Is there such a technique in digital? I'd assume underexposure as digital does
    behave in some respects like E-6.

    (If correct, then as a consequence RAW would be the best way to save the image,
    of course.)

    Comments?

    Cheers,
    Alan
    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Saturation

    Alan Browne <ca> wrote:
     

    Not as such, no.

    You can boost saturation in Photoshop, but it's not quite as simple as
    simply cranking up a lever, because then you end up clipping; after all,
    saturation really is just higher levels of one color compared to the
    others, so if you increase too much, your highlights end up n.

    You *could* underexpose and then just compensate the exposure later in
    Photoshop, but although that will get you some saturation, it will be
    at the expense of quality.

    What you want to do is learn some techniques in Photoshop to make the
    colors look the way you want; it's rather like choosing certain kinds
    of film to get the look you want, or processing film in a particular
    way. There are a number of different ways in Photoshop to increase
    color saturation, and the "saturation" control is not always the best
    way (and just using that on its own with no attempt to control the
    already-saturated areas is probably never a good idea).
     

    Always.

    --
    Jeremy | com
    Jeremy Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Saturation

    On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:09:57 -0500, Alan Browne
    <ca> wrote:
     

    Hmm, it could be that underexposed images are higher in saturation,
    but as soon as you correct the exposure in PS, the image de-saturates
    again. (That's the way it seems to me anyway..)

    So, instead of mucking around with exposure at photo-time, I use the
    saturation slider in Photoshop's RAW importer. The risk here is
    ing the highlights of one of the color channels. So, I keep an eye
    on the tri-colored histogram when I do it, and if I want to see
    *where* on the image any clipping is occurring, I hit the ALT-key
    together with a nudge on the exposure slider, and it shows me any
    color-coded hot spots/clipping instead of the image preview. You can
    do the same trick for the shadows slider too.

    (The alt-key thing is a TOP SECRET function of the RAW importer BTW).

    :-)

    Because it treats each channel independently, the RAW importer's
    histogram is far better than the one inside Photoshop.
     

    RAW rules, bigtime.

    --
    Owamanga!
    Owamanga Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Saturation

    You can set adjustments for jpeg to increase saturation on the photos on the
    Canon DSLR. What type of camera are you using??

    "Alan Browne" <ca> wrote in message
    news:cu8atm$sqg$gazeta.pl... 
    does 
    image, 


    YoYo Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Saturation

    Jeremy Nixon wrote:
     
    >
    >
    > Not as such, no.
    >
    > You can boost saturation in Photoshop, but it's not quite as simple as
    > simply cranking up a lever, because then you end up clipping; after all,
    > saturation really is just higher levels of one color compared to the
    > others, so if you increase too much, your highlights end up n.
    >
    > You *could* underexpose and then just compensate the exposure later in
    > Photoshop, but although that will get you some saturation, it will be
    > at the expense of quality.
    >
    > What you want to do is learn some techniques in Photoshop to make the
    > colors look the way you want; it's rather like choosing certain kinds[/ref]

    I know those techniques, but I'd like to have saturated images from the getgo in
    order to not lose other qualities while in PS. Your points above are just right
    however, in essence, once a color channel in R,G,B is at 255 on 255, then that's
    it, there is no more.

    Cheers,
    Alan

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Saturation

    Alan Browne <ca> wrote:
     

    Boosting saturation with in-camera processing won't be any different in
    that regard. You'll just have less control over it.
     

    You can increase saturation by decreasing the levels of the other color
    channels.

    --
    Jeremy | com
    Jeremy Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Saturation



    Alan Browne wrote: 

    This is almost like two questions. There are the things you can do in
    camera, and the things you can do post capture. As you may remember,
    I'm a big fan of big saturation, and my digital images show it.

    In camera, it's still photography, and the same things that boost
    saturation for film (polarizer, lighting) will boost saturation in
    digital. Digital exposes much like slide film, so for maximum
    saturation you want to ensure there is no overexposure.

    In the computer of course there are a number of options available. I
    dislike extensive manipulations though, so I don't like to use tools
    like the saturation slider. I find that "proper" manipulations of the
    levels control not only corrects brightness and contrast, but gives me
    the level of saturation I'm looking for.

    Lisa
    Lisa Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Saturation

    Alan Browne <ca> wrote in
    news:cu8atm$sqg$gazeta.pl:
     

    Nope.

    The reason that you get more saturated results for film
    when exposing for a darker slide or negative is that film
    is non linear.

    What you shall do is expose for a noise free picture and
    then increase the saturation in your photo editor.

    And yes - RAW is the correct format if you want to be able
    to increase the saturation.


    /Roland
    Roland Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Saturation

    On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:09:57 -0500, Alan Browne
    <ca> wrote:
     

    If you consider that adding white to a photo reduces its color saturation, then
    leaving the photo darker would make it look more saturated...
     

    There is a saturation control in digital editing, I think it's best to start
    with a properly exposed image. BUT you could expose it a bit darker if you are
    worried about over exposing parts of it when you apply the tool. Remember you
    can make darker image become lighter, but over high light is data that is gone
    for good, and you can't go dark again.

    It's best to experiment!

    I've tried using the saturation control on underexposed images, and also the
    historygram repair tool... and I found that I could use both! The saturation
    control seems to be the best way however. The underexposed image seemed to lack
    any ZIP, unlike film, that reacts a bit differently.
     

    The RAW has a wider data range, so you can extract more from the shadows...
     

    Try the cameras custom settings for more saturation... ( hell I'm one to talk, I
    only tried that once!)
     

    PS how do you like this +8 weather we're getting for a change!

    Bob Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Saturation

    Bob <Amps> wrote:
     
    >
    > The RAW has a wider data range, so you can extract more from the shadows...[/ref]

    Since the sensor is linear, RAW has a wider data range for bright, and
    narrower in the shadows. At least according to this guy:
    <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml>

    I haven't experimented with this, but there it is.
    Paul Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Saturation

    As others have said it is a lot easier to adjust the saturation using
    the raw importer then trying to do it on the image once it is in RGB
    mode. Having said this it is not all that hard to adjust after the
    fact. As has been pointed out the danger is ing out highlights for
    some of the colors, to avoid this before increasing the saturation use
    levels to limit the highest pixel level to something under 255, say 240
    or so, this will give you some room at the top when increasing that
    saturation. You can always lighten the photo afterwards if you
    darkened it too much in the first step.

    Scott

    Scott Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Saturation

    YoYo wrote:
     

    Tsk Tsk. RAW man RAW!
    Tsk Tsk. I haven't bought my camera yet. Likely a Max 7D.
    Tsk Tsk. Please don't top post.


    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Saturation

    Jeremy Nixon wrote:

     

    That just decreases the levels of the other channels. It may make the
    'stronger' channel look more saturated in comparison but it is no more saturated
    as a result.



    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Saturation

    Lisa Horton wrote:
     

    Thanks Lisa. The polarizer and lighting are very good points (and show you as a
    photographer v. all these... others). 95% of the time the only adjustments I
    need with a slide scan are levels and bright/contrast.

    Cheers,
    Alan

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Saturation

    Paul Mitchum wrote:
     
    >>
    >>The RAW has a wider data range, so you can extract more from the shadows...[/ref]
    >
    >
    > Since the sensor is linear, RAW has a wider data range for bright, and
    > narrower in the shadows. At least according to this guy:
    > <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml>
    >
    > I haven't experimented with this, but there it is.[/ref]

    Regardless of the quality of the info, it is 'there' in the RAW and usually
    absent in a JPG, so saving the RAW gives you something to work with.

    What he means above is that low light levels in the scene are encoded in fewer
    and fewer bits in each pixel.


    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Saturation

    On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:39:40 -0500, Alan Browne
    <ca> wrote:
     

    Alan, thinking along these lines, both Lisa 'the photographer' and you
    missed another important factor - the subject. May I suggest you limit
    your photography to pictures of Micky Mouse at Disney World. He's
    quite saturated, as are his friends.

    <g>
     

    The amount of saturation boost needed with digital seems to vary from
    camera to camera. I feel the D70 nearly always needs a boost of around
    5-8%. I get the impression that the Canon DLSRs don't need as much.
    At the loss of 1 stop, I refuse to continuously wear a polarizer.

    --
    Owamanga!
    Owamanga Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Saturation

    Alan Browne <ca> wrote: 
    >
    > That just decreases the levels of the other channels. It may make the
    > 'stronger' channel look more saturated in comparison but it is no more
    > saturated as a result.[/ref]

    While the channel isn't any more saturated in the technical sense, the
    color is more saturated in the *visual* sense, and that's what matters.

    --
    Jeremy | com
    Jeremy Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Saturation

    Alan Browne <ca> wrote:
     

    With a slide scan you've already made the "adjustment" of choosing your
    film and exposing it appropriately, so the comparison is not really
    valid.

    --
    Jeremy | com
    Jeremy Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Saturation



    Owamanga wrote: 
    >
    > Alan, thinking along these lines, both Lisa 'the photographer' and you
    > missed another important factor - the subject. May I suggest you limit
    > your photography to pictures of Micky Mouse at Disney World. He's
    > quite saturated, as are his friends.
    >
    > <g>

    >
    > The amount of saturation boost needed with digital seems to vary from
    > camera to camera. I feel the D70 nearly always needs a boost of around
    > 5-8%. I get the impression that the Canon DLSRs don't need as much.
    > At the loss of 1 stop, I refuse to continuously wear a polarizer.
    >[/ref]

    I missed nothing :) And yet you are correct that the subject plays an
    important role. It is true that if one wishes to produce highly
    saturated photos, highly saturated subjects will help.

    OTOH, I figure we're talking about generally increasing saturation,
    regardless of the saturation level of the subject, and this is a valid
    desire if one desires highly saturated photos.

    If you don't care for the highly saturated style of color photography,
    more power to you, but why mock those who do like that style?

    Lisa
    Lisa Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Saturation

    Owamanga wrote:
     
    >
    >
    > Alan, thinking along these lines, both Lisa 'the photographer' and you
    > missed another important factor - the subject. May I suggest you limit
    > your photography to pictures of Micky Mouse at Disney World. He's
    > quite saturated, as are his friends.[/ref]

    Tsk-tsk. Very bad dig. We've all seen washed out roses from overexposure (on
    slide film). Usual culprit is relying on in camera metering. Dark rose leaves
    drive the camera meter do overexposure ruining the photo.
     
    >
    >
    > The amount of saturation boost needed with digital seems to vary from
    > camera to camera. I feel the D70 nearly always needs a boost of around
    > 5-8%. I get the impression that the Canon DLSRs don't need as much.
    > At the loss of 1 stop, I refuse to continuously wear a polarizer.[/ref]

    So, use a tripod. IAC a polarizer must be used with the light coming from the
    right direction, so using it when the light and subect are not appropriate, it
    just becomes a variable ND (of difficult to determine density). But you know that.


    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Over saturation when printing
    By B._McLaughlin@adobeforums.com in forum Adobe Acrobat Macintosh
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: June 2nd, 05:21 PM
  2. hue saturation option
    By exingo@adobeforums.com in forum Adobe Photoshop Mac CS, CS2 & CS3
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: February 24th, 02:40 AM
  3. animating saturation
    By spdorsey in forum Macromedia Flash Actionscript
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: February 16th, 01:28 PM
  4. Images/Hue & Saturation
    By Devon Johnston in forum Adobe Photoshop 7, CS, CS2 & CS3
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 7th, 06:09 PM
  5. Colorize Saturation Slider
    By George Austin in forum Adobe Photoshop 7, CS, CS2 & CS3
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: July 16th, 01:03 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139