The Relationship to Color

[johnmsanderson]

As as I write this I'm working on printing 5 color images shot with 4x5 on color negative film. It will be the first time they are hanging in an "real" gallery.

I find myself being more critical of my choices in printing these as it relates to color. I've also been looking at books and work online to better understand how different people approach the subject. The interpretation of color ranges from extremely saturated and punchy (Pete Turner, perhaps) with little subtle passages of color tone that may be labled "unrealistic". At the other end of the spectrum would be someone like Burtynsky whose work tends towards a less saturated color pallet with more gradual transitions. It seems to me that the formal, very structured images of Burtynsky benefit from the reduced saturation since they detract less from that very structure. His color choices do seem to fall in line with the whole New Topographic School including Stephen Shore, Joel Sternfeld, etc.

Is this choice due to subject matter? The somewhat banal should be represented in the print with a dull color spectrum, as to better communicate the mood of the scene photographed?

So I'm curious how others approach the subject. What do you feel is your duty towards representing color in print? Should color be represented as close to the actual scene as the process allows, or is there some creative leeway in adjusting the color balance of the image? Do overall color "filters" as in adding a slight warm or cool tone to a color print add or detract from the image?

Just looking to understand more.

Johnny

[ic-racer]

I use film to and allow the characteristics of the film show in the final image. Avoiding the situation of computer graphics where you can make any object what ever color you wish.

[Bruce Watson]

What do you feel is your duty towards representing color in print?

My duty is to my vision of what I want from the final print.

Most often that has me trying to recapture the feeling I had when I made the photograph. Sometimes that means replicating the scene as closely as I can. Sometimes that means altering a particular color (e.g. pushing a cyan-ish sky more toward blue) to make it work better with other colors in the scene (because that's how I "saw" it at capture time). Sometimes that means more saturation, sometimes less. Sometimes more midrange contrast, sometimes less. Etc.

Creative decisions all, and all in service of my vision.

[Jim Michael]

If it's the natural world then I prefer colors realistic to unsaturated/subtle. Abstract compositions can run the gamut, no pun intended.

[Brian Ellis]

I've always liked a semi-saturated, sort of light pastel, look for many landscapes. However, most people seem to prefer the Velvia over-saturated look, the more over-saturated the better. I was in a photographer's gallery in Moab recently. I don't remember the photographer's name but he made some excellent photographs, then ruined them (IMHO) by cranking up the saturation so it looked like Velvia or worse (if that's possible). I assume he did that because he's found that over-saturated sells.

[Renato Tonelli]

I am not a fan of over saturation either - when I see prints or reproductions with colors that scream at me I wince. I like colors that re as close to nature as possible but I try to keep in mind that here is a lot of room for interpreting them.

As an example for transparencies, I prefer Fuji Astia instead of Velvia, but I 'grew up' on Kodachrome.

[Mark Barendt]

What do you feel is your duty towards representing color in print?

No duty whatsoever, unless I have made an agreement to stick to a specific standard.

I.E. If I sold a gallery on hanging my work based a portfolio that had a certain style I'd feel obliged to stick to that style.

[Erik Larsen]

I've always liked a semi-saturated, sort of light pastel, look for many landscapes. However, most people seem to prefer the Velvia over-saturated look, the more over-saturated the better. I was in a photographer's gallery in Moab recently. I don't remember the photographer's name but he made some excellent photographs, then ruined them (IMHO) by cranking up the saturation so it looked like Velvia or worse (if that's possible). I assume he did that because he's found that over-saturated sells.

I know what you mean Brian... That sounds like the Tom Till Gallery in Moab. His photographs used to be beautiful imo and were mostly cibachromes. In the last couple years he has discovered the saturation slider in photoshop and ruined many of his beautiful prints. The way he prints now makes cibachromes look muted Did he still have the neon blue "metal emulsion" print of the Goosenecks of the San Juans showing? I was so disappointed the last time of was in the gallery because i felt the quality of his prints was going downhill. I'm sure he did it for a reason but I'm not a fan of his current look.

regards
Erik

[David_Senesac]

That and similar issues have been hotly discussed for years on the web. Of course much depends on where one's work falls in the broad spectrum of what is photography. If one is focusing on nature and landscapes per a major segment of image takers, then the dominant attitude today is to in post processing, increase color saturation and contrast significantly above what was in natural scenes. The wiser photographers with that attitude are careful to limit saturation to believable levels while large numbers of less outdoor experienced photographers often grossly oversaturate without being aware of how unnatural their images appear to experienced eyes. That is in part because on ever popular web forums, many who do likewise tend to stroke those who do, so there is a bar set that is near the edge of believability. And of course saturation tends to give images more impact that for pros may mean more sales. Ever since Velvia replaced Kodachrome, magazines and other commercial pursuits of pros have preferred impact whether such is realistic or not.

The other related issue with that style is image processors usually will not in any way relate what they have manipulated including color to their public audience, both on the web say in forums or during public print exhibiting. My own advice has been that anything a nature photographer wishes to do with images from heavy manipulation to building arty images Frankenstein style, to producing natural appearing images is all quite acceptable as long as they are honest about what they are doing at least in some small way with their public audience. And of course that is where those that manipulate most are least likely to be honest. The status quo concerning image manipulations even with pros has from the time just a decade ago when most of us were still using film gradually gone from only minor adjustments to today with the evolution of digital cameras, to manipulations of color hues, graphic elements like modifying and or adding clouds into skies, and removing elements that reduce aesthetics like a tree branch that isn't perfect. A decade ago the usual style echoed Rowell's "in my mind's eye" during capture but the truth is in post processing most photographers just start adjusting and modifying raw images until they look good. In other words there is little vision up front beyond being able to see something they can work with.

Personally I greatly value our wonderful natural world on planet Earth and am content to capture it just as it is without resorting to over emphasis. I've discussed these issues for years at length on web forums since the old Compuserve days. See:


http://www.davidsenesac.com/david_philosophy1.html

[Brian Ellis]

I know what you mean Brian... That sounds like the Tom Till Gallery in Moab. His photographs used to be beautiful imo and were mostly cibachromes. In the last couple years he has discovered the saturation slider in photoshop and ruined many of his beautiful prints. The way he prints now makes cibachromes look muted Did he still have the neon blue "metal emulsion" print of the Goosenecks of the San Juans showing? I was so disappointed the last time of was in the gallery because i felt the quality of his prints was going downhill. I'm sure he did it for a reason but I'm not a fan of his current look.

regards
Erik

I think that was his name but I'm not sure. I don't remember the specific photograph you mention, in truth after I saw what he was doing I didn't spend a whole lot of time there.

It's kind of ironic what Photoshop's saturation slider has done to our view of what's fake and what's real. A couple evenings ago I was photographing a field of trees and flowers near sunset but with a heavy cloud cover that resulted in overcast, flat light. For just a minute or less the sun broke partially through the clouds and created a really incredible deep orange/yellow color. I made a couple photographs and then the light was gone. I thought I'd have something really special but when I looked at the photographs on my screen they were so yellow/orange and so saturated that they looked fake even though they were a pretty accurate representation of how the field looked in that amazing light.

Not too many years ago someone seeing the photographs would probably have said "wow! what incredible light." Which it was. But today I figured that if I left the photographs as they were anyone seeing them would think I had just cranked up the saturation in Photoshop. So I ended up reducing the saturation to make the photographs look more "natural." : - )