Autumn colours

[just me]

Yesterday I went to Hahndorf, which is a little township up in the hills from Adelaide, and as now Autumn has arrived the tree's etc. were ablaze with colours........

I only had my little Leica D-Lux 6 with me, but have plans to drive up there again next week with another camera, and hopeful to take more photos.....








Griddi......

[Shadowman]

Nice captures.

[mugge]

Griddi, very colourful.
Cheers Ole

[TonyW]

It is a pretty looking place from these photographs. I remember going there for lunch some decades ago and liking it.

[carloshpvp]

Autumn colors are wonderful! Nice captures.

[NorthernFocus]

Lovely colors indeed. When you return with you DSLR, don't forget your polarizer which can make a huge difference on foliage.

[just me]

Thank you John........

[just me]

Griddi, very colourful.
Cheers Ole

Ole.....thank you....

Greetings,
Griddi.....

[just me]

It is a pretty looking place from these photographs. I remember going there for lunch some decades ago and liking it.

Hahndorf is very popular with tourist, also has now even more very nice restaurants......so when will you visit again ?

Griddi......

[just me]

Autumn colors are wonderful! Nice captures.

Thank you for looking and comment........

[just me]

Lovely colors indeed. When you return with you DSLR, don't forget your polarizer which can make a huge difference on foliage.

Dan.....thank you.....I truly must get an polarized filter .....next time I am in the city !!!!!!!

Griddi.......

[just me]

I found the colors a bit too colorful on my uncalibrated monitor, Dan.

The Exif reveals these in-camera settings which might explain that:

Exposure Mode = auto exposure (0)
White Balance = auto (0)
Contrast = hard (2)
Saturation = high (2)
Sharpness = hard (2)

Or maybe ArcSoft MediaImpression does something to get those pretty colors.

Or maybe my FireFox is not converting the embedded profile (Adobe sRGB 1996) properly.

On the other hand if Griddi's intent was to present a colorful postcard-style image, that most certainly succeeded

What say, Griddi?

Talking mostly about the first shot and no offense is intended . . .

Ted......I agree with you that perhaps the in camera settings I should tone down a bit ( will do )
I used Lightroom on these raw images, and also upped up a bit contrast etc.....For myself I like the colours, as the foliage is / was truly very colourful, even more as the sun was shining.......but of course somebody like you find the colours to strong......so absolute no offense taken.......

Here is the raw image, without any PP in Lightroom, Ted if you would have the time, please let me know what you think about this image, it will helpful for future camera settings, and PP etc......



Greetings,
Griddi.......

[xpatUSA]

Ted......I agree with you that perhaps the in camera settings I should tone down a bit ( will do )
I used Lightroom on these raw images, and also upped up a bit contrast etc.....For myself I like the colours, as the foliage is / was truly very colourful, even more as the sun was shining.......but of course somebody like you find the colours to strong......so absolute no offense taken.......

Here is the raw image, without any PP in Lightroom, Ted if you would have the time, please let me know what you think about this image, it will helpful for future camera settings, and PP etc......



Greetings,
Griddi.......

Thanks for posting that second shot, Griddi.

It enabled me to compare with your original which I still had on my desktop. Warning: my comparisons can get a bit technical. But first, your two shots as posted:



I can see why you felt the need to add a bit of pzazz to the un-processed version!

I have an app where you can show various "planes" of an image. It "decomposes" an image into it's brightness, saturation and color hue - three different layers, so to speak. GIMP can do the same thing. Here's the saturations compared:



From this we can see that, as far as color saturation is concerned, the one on the left is over and the one on the right is under, IMHO. In the past here, I have implied that there should be no over-saturation in flower images but lately I'm moving to think that a little is OK - kind of like blown specular highlights are OK.

So possibly if you backed off the saturation in the left image a bit, the image would still look colorful but not blatantly so.

I notice that you posted in Adobe RGB. Those of us with color-managed browsers and sRGB monitors will see some additional apparent over-saturation because the browser will map out-of-gamut colors to the edge of the sRGB color space (anything at the edge is 100% saturated). Here are the 2D Lab gamut diagrams of your images compared (versus an sRGB gamut):



We can see that the colorful image has colors outside of the sRGB gamut boundary. They would be changed by the browser (moved to the sRGB gamut boundary shown). We also see that the less-colorful image has some space within the sRGB gamut to increase the color saturation.

Hope this helps understand my POV . . .

[bnnrcn]

Lovely colors Griddi

[IzzieK]

I agree with Binnur -- the colours are lovely...I particularly like the last one too. One day I will shoot one like that...it is a good inspiration to remember when the situation calls for it.

[just me]

Thanks for posting that second shot, Griddi.

It enabled me to compare with your original which I still had on my desktop. Warning: my comparisons can get a bit technical. But first, your two shots as posted:



I can see why you felt the need to add a bit of pzazz to the un-processed version!

I have an app where you can show various "planes" of an image. It "decomposes" an image into it's brightness, saturation and color hue - three different layers, so to speak. GIMP can do the same thing. Here's the saturations compared:



From this we can see that, as far as color saturation is concerned, the one on the left is over and the one on the right is under, IMHO. In the past here, I have implied that there should be no over-saturation in flower images but lately I'm moving to think that a little is OK - kind of like blown specular highlights are OK.

So possibly if you backed off the saturation in the left image a bit, the image would still look colorful but not blatantly so.

I notice that you posted in Adobe RGB. Those of us with color-managed browsers and sRGB monitors will see some additional apparent over-saturation because the browser will map out-of-gamut colors to the edge of the sRGB color space (anything at the edge is 100% saturated). Here are the 2D Lab gamut diagrams of your images compared (versus an sRGB gamut):



We can see that the colorful image has colors outside of the sRGB gamut boundary. They would be changed by the browser (moved to the sRGB gamut boundary shown). We also see that the less-colorful image has some space within the sRGB gamut to increase the color saturation.

Hope this helps understand my POV . . .

Ted....thank you.... I think I understand it, and found it quite interesting, but I don't have these app .......

As I wrote I took these photos with my little Leica- D-Lux 6, and I don't know why, but when I am using for these RAW images Lightroom, the photos are : " Embedded " ....while when I am using RAW images in Lightroom, which I took with my Fuji XT1 camera, I can using several camera film stimulation ........

I toned down the sharpness / contrast and colour on the Leica D-Lux, and took just at home a photo, and I think, I will keep these toned down settings.....after all, I always can increase a bit when doing PP.........

Ted....thanks again, for taking out the time to explain........

Greetings,
Griddi.......

[just me]

Lovely colors Griddi

Binnur.......thank you ......

Greetings,
Griddi......

[just me]

I agree with Binnur -- the colours are lovely...I particularly like the last one too. One day I will shoot one like that...it is a good inspiration to remember when the situation calls for it.

Hi Izzie.....thank you, I am glad you liked the last image too....if you cannot find anything like this where you live ......on your next trip to Melbourne to see your lovely Granddaughter, just come to Hahndorf for a couple of days about this time of the year ......

Greetings,
Griddi......

[xpatUSA]

Ted....thank you.... I think I understand it, and found it quite interesting, but I don't have these app .......

A quick check can be done by looking at color channel histograms in ACR or LR. If you see any selected colored area with a high count at the 0 end whereas the other two channels are not "bottomed out" it is likely that there's too much saturation. For yellows, blues get bottomed. For reds, greens are likely. For greens, red or blue or both can get bottomed depending on the hue of the greens.

Example:



Or, run the HSB color-picker around in suspect areas and look for S = 100%.

As I wrote I took these photos with my little Leica- D-Lux 6, and I don't know why, but when I am using for these RAW images Lightroom, the photos are : " Embedded " ....while when I am using RAW images in Lightroom, which I took with my Fuji XT1 camera, I can using several camera film stimulation

I had that with ACR 5.4 a long time ago. For Sigma X3F images, it would only say "Embedded" under the Camera tab. For my Nikon D50, a drop-down list would appear, just like your Fuji. In the ACR folders which held camera profiles (type .dcp) there were none for Sigma. It got worse: I actually made some camera profiles for Sigma and put them into those folders. Frikkin' ACR refused to see them and still would only say "Embedded".

Thanks, Adobe

[Wavelength]

Very colorful.....beautiful......