On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 12:34 PM, bill_iverson_washington wrote:
It's obviously a matter of taste how much to exaggerate colors (most of us tend to remember landscapes as having more intense colors than they actually did) and how much to separate colors to add drama. I'm less certain about changing colors as a matter of taste or convenience.Agreed! I decided that for my entry I would allow some exaggeration of the color - I have shot a fair bit around southern Utah, and am used to seeing things in early morning or late afternoon light, so I rendered the color more like what I remember. Yes this was shot probably mid-day, sun high overhead - color should be much more "brownish" & contrast much flatter - but what's the fun in that? ;-) I assume you are correct about the rabbitbrush plants as well, but I found that a bit of hue change made the reddish-browns appear even more vivid - maybe I took too much license there?
Looking through the group there are a lot of successful entries, with color ranging from probably faithful to fairly extreme like mine. A couple things I don't understand though - seems like many of these have skies that seem way too cyan-blue, lots of negative a* values even in areas that should be neutral-to-pinkish (slightly). It does make the brown of the dirt seem warmer, but doesn't look believable to me. And #830, mentioned above has a huge edge-darkening effect on the butte, which to my eye looks wildly unreal. A few others seem to have rendered the foreground lighter than the butte itself, which, again might be sort of realistic (from the high angle of the sun), but seems like a strange way to present a photo of the butte.
I think I prefer the original par image (no surprise there!) over the the "conservative" par one. Oh yeah, my entry is #821.