I really enjoy playing with color but is it typically less desirable in nature photography to do this? I know over editing is not the best but what are your opinions on color that is less realistic in this genre?
I really enjoy playing with color but is it typically less desirable in nature photography to do this? I know over editing is not the best but what are your opinions on color that is less realistic in this genre?
I don't have a problem with it, they're your photos so you can do whatever you want to them. I don't have any issues with the examples you provided in terms of color.
I'm with Adrian on this, the subject is nature - the treatment post shoot is your call. Develop as you see fit, people will only opine when asked (generally) and for the most part with suggestions from their perspective. It's your work at the end of it.
And you can't go wrong with a fern, they are great subjects from unfurling to Autumn browns :o)
Even mother nature can use some help.
I love the drama of the ferns on black. I suppose if someone showed me a pink grizzly bear and claimed it came straight out of the camera... I'd shake my head and move on quietly.
If the pastel bear is presented as an artistic interpretation... cool. Let's talk art inspirations.
(Full disclosure... not a fan of pink.)
Pink's just trying to make a living like everyone else... ohh.. the color.. :P
It might be something to do with my mother's insistence that liquid Pepto Bismol was a cure-all. That particular smell still makes me gag 50 yrs later.
Wait... der... the singer! LOLOL
I understand why you would ask this question, as heavy-handed editing has caused some controversy, and even scandal, in the wildlife photography community.
Whether experimental color is appropriate or not really depends on the context around which you are sharing your images.
I find that when people are offended by such editing, it is often because the photographer has not made it clear that the image was heavily manipulated. It can come across as though the photographer is trying to get people to think that that is the way the scene "really was" in real life. Most of us are offended when we think someone is trying to deceive us, or misrepresent reality.
If you come out straightway with a comment or a caption that declares that the image was heavily manipulated on the computer, then people don't get offended, because they know that you are being forthcoming and honest. This allows them to enjoy and appreciate the image for what it is and they willingly suspend any disbelief they have about it being "real".
I often see landscapes that look surreal - too good to be true - posted here on FStoppers, and often the photographers do not say that the image is an HDR, or a merge of two scenes, or that they applied various effects in Photoshop or Lightroom or whatever. I feel like they are trying to deceive the viewership and get us to think that they are such a good photographer that they can get a camera to produce such a fantastic scene, when in fact they really use computer software to create the scene. Why can't they just be forthcoming and say right up front, "this is computer-generated photo art, not pure photography"?
By the way, I would like to applaud you for that last image you posted here - the one of the Whitetail Deer. The leaping buck is spectacular! I love the leg position as he is near the apex of his leap - great timing!