Let's Talk Saturation!

IT IS that time of year. Fall. Bright, multi-colored leaves. Dramatic landscape. Crisp, cool air. It is my personal favorite time of the year, and I believe I am not alone in that feeling!

. . . way too many of these photos are just "unreal"

LEAF PEEPERS and photographers get out in large numbers during the foliage season which usually starts some time in September and goes on into early November, depending on which part of the country (world?) you are in. Most of my own time has been spent in Northern Michigan, West Virginia, and the Northeast (New England), where the colors seem to most often be the most brilliant.

IS WHAT you see, what you get? Usually some time in September we start seeing pictures of these wonderful fall locations. Some are advertisements. Others (perhaps the majority) are just photos published by people online (places like Facebook and Instagram in particular). And way too many of these photos are just "unreal" (not in the positive sense). As I see these often grossly oversaturated images posted, I am convinced that most people don't understand color and how it is presented on a digital image meant for the screen.

The culprit is . . . "Saturation"

COLOR IS either there in an image, or it is not. There is no "magic slider" that will create color where it didn't exist. Yet I think many people believe that the saturation adjustment is that magic slider. At first blush, an oversatured photo might seem spectacular. I so often see the "just beautiful," or "breathtaking" commentsa on some of these photos. Often, the viewer doesn't have any realistic standard to compare the image they see to. If they did, they might see that in reality, there are no purple-colored tree trunks (at least not in North America). Nor is asphalt blue. There are relatively few neon-green vegetation examples in North America either. But that is what we all too often see on-line!

IN THE the 3 photos above, the first is uploaded from raw with Adobe's "Neutral" profile Adobe Neutral). In the second example, I purposely grossly oversaturated it, using just the saturation slider. In the final a version, I adjusted the contrast and brightness. I then "tweaked" the saturation to compensate for the flatness the software rendered in this case. But we are talking somewhere between 0 and about 8% on the slider. I can agree that the original image looks a little flat, and that a touch of saturation may be warranted. I think maybe represents what I saw with my natural eyes that afternoon. But look at the middle copy. Note the neon look of the greens. Note the funky color of the gravel road. Even the tree trunks look unnatural. When a scene is less bright, the greys and shadow often turn purple when saturation is applied. And, when compared to the other two versions, look how "fake" the color of the weathered barn is (even considering the strong lighting on the front of the barn. As noted above, the primary culprit for these unreal and often garish colors is a digital adjustment available in most software for saturation. Saturation is not the same as color! Once color in an image is identified and sometimes separated from other colors, saturation just changes the intensity (how much of a color is present) of the color. It doesn't make reds more red. The saturation adjustment was never intended as a fix-all for colors you don't think are colorful enough on their own. It, like all other adjustments available in photo-processing software, was meant to be applied very, very judiciously (if at all), and often targeted to only one color, or one part of a photo. The "saturation" slider that you seen in software is a "global" adjustment. That is, it changes the saturation in every color and tone in the image. Which creates those purple barked trees and blue roads and sometimes garish magenta tinted reds.

The photo on the left is a disappointing photo result. There was color, but not bright or vivid. On the left, I applied only the saturation slider to the image, and it is way overdone. Note how the reds are purple, the tree trunk is magenta and the lighter greens and yellows are neon. This doesn't depict any reality that I know.

The disappointing image on the left above can be salvaged, though. This is my processed version. I didn't even look at the saturation adjustments. The color you see was there. I used the contrast and exposure adjustments to decrease brightness a bit and to "separate" the colors. Contrast works on the pixels that board the changing shapes and colors in the image. Those "red" leaves in the far background don't "pop" like they do in the image on the left above. But they are real. No neon and no purple that wouldn't likely occur in nature. 

THERE ARE those who purposely push the saturation envelope, and may or may not understand what they are doing. But I am again convinced that most posters don't even realize they are doing it. One of the phrases that makes me chuckle when I see a photo is "posted from my (i-Phone, smart phone, camera) . . . no filters added."  Well. They really aren't "filters." Back in the film days, we somtimes used colored or tinted filters on the front of our lens to create different tones and colors. Today, what we refer to as "filters," is really processing adjustments. And for those who didn't already know this, the jpeg image that comes "straight out of" your iPhone has been processed. "Enhanced." Even if you (think you) have it on "no adjustments." Every digital photo file as recorded is flat looking. Some kind of software has to take that flat digital file and convert it into something that looks good and can be seen on most devices (generally, jpg). In your smart phone, that software is built in - with all the "biases" the manufacturer builds into what "looks good." Many phones have choices (like "vivid"), that can be user-selected, and is often selected by default without the user even realizing it.

Is "what you see what you get?

THERE REALLY isn't any such thing as a "no filters or adjustments" image posted on the internet. It is more of a matter of what and how much adjustments are being made. And if you have the opportunity and inclination to make your own adjustments, I think it will often result in a better and more realistic final product. Since we said saturation doesn't put colors that weren't there in, there is probably a better adjustment you can make to "enhance" the colors that do exist (and perhaps make the image look on your screen more like it did when you were standing there. I generally find the two best (and most realistic) adjustments to color is "contrast" and "brightness." I am often amazed at how just those two adjustments will make the colors (especially in foliage) "pop." I have even found some images that benefit from a saturation reduction after processing.

In your smart phone, that software is built in - with all the "biases" the manufacturer builds into what "looks good."

OH AND those of us who are shooting with our sophisticated DSLR and Mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras? Many of us, too, are guilty of not really understanding the color process as we move our images from our memory cards to our computer. First, I will assume that we are all recording our images in the camera's native "raw" format. If you are not, I think you should be, especially in the case of landscape (and particularly foliage) photography. So those colors - when transferred onto our computers - should be totally realistic. Just like Mother Nature made them, right? Well. No. Not necessarily. I was reminded of this this morning, as I processed my Vermont 2025 images. In every raw converter, there are some things that happen. One is that when the processor brings the image in, it assigns it a color profile! I use Adobe's ACR (Adobe Camera Raw). Lightroom - probably the most popular image editing software - uses the exact same raw conversion engine as ACR. Both of them assign a profile - if you haven't changed it, one of the default Adobe profiles (neutral, standard, vivid, etc.).

Color Profile Ilustration - Profiles from left to right clockwise: Adobe Neutral; Adobe Standard; Adobe Color and Adobe Vivid - There are others, including camera specific and even flat profiles that you can download. When you open the image, it is important to be cognizant of just which profile your editor is applying.

IF YOU haven't, you really need to check what your software is doing in that context. It is affecting color. So even when we say "straight out of the camera," "no filters applied," "no saturation applied," that is very likely not exactly true. 😓 There are completely flat profiles (designed for your particular camera's sensor) that can be downloaded. For a while I tried that. At first blush they look really ugly. The require some color and contrast adjustment. The purveyor of those profiles suggests first clicking on Adobe's "automatic" profile assignment. I eventually decided I couldn't see enough difference to warrant this longer process and went back to Adobe standard. But make no mistake. It is applying adjustments. Including saturation and contrast.

So even when we say "straight out of the camera," "no filters applied," "no saturation applied," that is very likely not exactly true

THINK ABOUT the above as you process and post your images of your fall foliage trip this year! In my view the best thing you can do is turn off all built-in enhancements on your phone and try to get the most "natural" look you can. If you are shooting with a camera (or phone) that is capable, record your images in raw format (there should be a setting for that). Then, if the image doesn't quite get you to what you "saw" at the time, make some judicious adjustments (just because it goes all the way to 100, doesn't mean it is a good idea to push it that far). Don't push things too far. Natural looks better!