- Oct 14, 2010
- Real Name
Thank you. Maybe I'll tone the vibrancy down a bit in the future... We'll see.Great photos man!
I don't want to sound like a jerk either, but I'd like your photos to have less vibrancy/saturation. This is of course a personal preference and the viewing screen & its calibration is an important factor. Although my guess is that we have both calibrated screens.
The neon-blue and the greens are a bit distacting to me too. It makes me wonder which of these critters have the blue naturally like that and what don't/if they don't.
On Dxo Photolab I usually use at least 10 of ClearView and this makes the photo more saturated, so I have to compensate on the saturation adjustment. Personally I like natural colours, but it's a fine balancing act, because as you say saturation & vibrancy makes macro photos look better.
Personally I might need to test vibrancy more as I haven't used it much.
Congrats especially on that red mite photo. I have couple of photos of the same critter and it's one of the hardest one's to capture. They move so fast and almost never pause, while you want to get as close as possible, because they are so small.
Yep, I use a self-calibrated BenQ monitor for editing and check (some of) the results on a "non-professional" monitor, Dell XPS13 and a smart phone (Samsung S9). I just went through all the photos on my XPS and a couple of photos had one of two blueish spots that the colors could be better but in overall I'd say "it's fine". Maybe I'll just lower the saturation on the blue channels and call it a day.
I'd like to think that LR isn't inventing colors so if there is anything blue in there, the cranking up the vibrancy just makes is visible. So the shade of colors aren't coming up from thin air. I could be wrong too but that would really make LR kind of poor at its job.It makes me wonder which of these critters have the blue naturally like that and what don't/if they don't.