An iris, a rainstorm, and saturation.

There is something very pleasant about a warm spring day's rain.  The freshness of the air afterward and the enhanced beauty that comes with nature shaking off accumulated dust are compelling.  In the lull that occurred between passing storms, I found myself racing about with my macro gear taking advantage of those elements.

I find irises remarkably beautiful but hard to photograph.  Their complex blooms are both large and deep with the pedals both enhancing the beauty and blocking it from the smitten photographer.  They also boast a colourful assortment of pastels and lend themselves to the question that many of us many desk-jockeys pose when post-processing: How much do I increase saturation?

Most pixel-editing applications possess a variety of tools that allow the user to alter an image's form and appeal.  I shoot RAW files and convert them later into JPEGs and TIFFs for storage or later manipulation.  I typically pick a select number of shots and put them through the workflow needed to obtain the desired end results.  Saturation and vibrance are part of that regime.  

Altering saturation affects the intensity of colours across the spectrum while vibrance enhances only softer values without changing values that are already highly saturated.  The image on the left was the end result of my normal post-processing manipulations.  The colours are natural and reflect the shades and hues found in the flower as seen by the naked eye, albeit with a few colour boosts here and there.

The image on the right was taken from the left image and then treated with vibrance and saturation filters, both being enhanced by a factor of 100%.  The increase in saturation increased the density of colours across the board while the increase in vibrance deepened those shades that were still somewhat muted.  The result was to produce a brilliantly colourful but somewhat unrealistic portrait of an iris.  

I find that most images benefit from an increase in saturation and/or vibrance; the alterations bring out skin tones and generally improve the appeal of existing colours.  As with anything, though, a good thing can be overdone.  I think that you would agree that the overly enhanced image (right) is unrealistic.  On the other hand, the subdued colours of the original (left) would benefit from some extra attention.  Where is the balance?  I suppose it is up to the individual, but my overall goal is to produce images that express the beauty of the natural world.

Which do you prefer?

Thanks for reading.   www.ericspix.com