p.1 #1 · How much vibrance (Lightroom 4) is too much?
I've read Scott Kelby's LR4 book again and there doesn't seem to be any sort of general guideline when it comes to the vibrance slider. Do you guys have a minimum that you use in your photos?
p.1 #2 · How much vibrance (Lightroom 4) is too much?
How much sugar do you have in your coffee?
Do you have days when sometimes you need more sugar, sometimes less?
what if your making coffee for someone else and you know they don't like too much sugar.
etc....
Try using instead of saturation. Try dropping the saturation and increasing the vibrance. Try other way round too.
p.1 #4 · How much vibrance (Lightroom 4) is too much?
Same as it is with sharpening, exposure, contrast ect. when you think its to much it is. You make the decisions as to whats right. If you post your images and get feed back that you've gone to far then you have to decide are they right or is it your style, if you like it and feel its right the screw them you have a style go with it. Its your work and only you can decide it it is to much.
p.1 #6 · How much vibrance (Lightroom 4) is too much?
Joking aside, really it is a matter of your or your buyer's taste. Remember with LR you can also apply saturation adjustments locally or only one particular color. I usually apply a small amount of vibrancy to most photos. It depends on your light, subject, lens, etc.
Perhaps my best advice to a difficult "one size fits all" question would be this. I do find if I work with a photograph too long, my color judgement disappears and the results I wind up with are not always the best upon later review. If I am doing a lot of adjusting to one photo, I will get up, take a break, and come back later for a fresh assessment of my image. I find that works well for a pleasing final result.
p.1 #7 · How much vibrance (Lightroom 4) is too much?
Highly subjective of course ... but recognizing that all the pieces of the puzzle work in conjunction with each other, it is going to depend on how much contrast, saturation & sharpening you've got dialed in as well.
I typically "think" ... more vibrancy = less saturation, more saturation = less vibrancy. Meaning that I've got to be careful to not amplify, amplification. This of course isn't always the case ... but it is something that I try to be "on guard" to. If my image starts out with low contrast lighting, it may be able to handle a boost in both. If my lighting was high contrast to begin with ... not so much.
From that alone ... there is no "correct" amount, other than what you feel is necessary to bring the image to where you want it to be for your client ... whether the client is yourself, or someone else.
For my eye ... I often times overcook it at first, then later find I need to "pull it back". This is likely because I spend a bit more time looking at the image and my eye/brain accommodates to it. Something to consider if you find that you've been getting feedback of it being overdone.
Toss some pics up on the Photo Critique forum and you can get some other eyes and processing examples for comparison to help you get a feel for what you are aspiring to achieve ... whatever your style may be.
p.1 #8 · How much vibrance (Lightroom 4) is too much?
A few years back I would have had a definitive answer. Now, I realize it is subjective. What do you like? Hot, cold, saturated, flat? To directly answer your question; I seldom reduce vibrance in LR4, but adjust in CS5 as desired. The maximum vibrance I ad is +25 (in LR4) and this is mostly accompanied by a saturation adjustment to the minus side. Sorry, I was unable to supply more, but as previously stated, explore. Jim
p.1 #9 · How much vibrance (Lightroom 4) is too much?
If LR is all you have, then working with its Saturation and Vibrance controls are OK and the advice given here is good.
However, while LR (and ACR) is superior at many things, saturation and vibrance are not its strong points. Here is a video demo I made a while back to show the differences between various saturation techniques in Photoshop and ACR.
p.1 #10 · How much vibrance (Lightroom 4) is too much?
For a well exposed file, decent camera, and snapshot, light room's vibrance and saturation are okay. You probably do not want to hear this, but photoshop is demonstrably better and faster. I corrected over a hundred scanned slides LR. I was lazy. On pass two, I got serious and started working on the 700 others slides. I had the LR correction and the PS correction. PS was always superior and quicker. The original images had a large problem with shadow and highlights. Photoshop shadow highlight are much better than the shadow highlight slides of LR. For color correction and boost, I used Curvemeister, a PC only plugin.
BTW, you do know that LR was designed to be used top to bottom. It is a fine program, I use it weekly.
p.1 #11 · How much vibrance (Lightroom 4) is too much?
Your recipe values, however restricted in terms of suitability across the board for all images, will be greatly affected by the profile that you use. e.g. Adobe Standard needs much less (if any) additional vibrance or saturation than say Camera Neutral because to some extent it is already built into the profile. I think most of the profiles are over the top (as in unrealistic according to my perception of the scene that was photographed) but each to his or her own.
In general I find that white balance correction is far more important for realistic or at least plausible output than vibrance or saturation.
Also, if you take the view that people love saturated colours then you might reasonably assume that they have adjusted their monitors accordingly. In that case, do you really need to add even more ? And when it comes to prints you would at least have to understand what the viewing environment will be.
Mind you, it seems that realistic or even plausible will representation of colours and saturation will never win a photo award, so maybe you should ignore me as some kind of a crank
p.1 #12 · How much vibrance (Lightroom 4) is too much?
sjordan93436 wrote:
For a well exposed file, decent camera, and snapshot, light room's vibrance and saturation are okay. You probably do not want to hear this, but photoshop is demonstrably better and faster. I corrected over a hundred scanned slides LR. I was lazy. On pass two, I got serious and started working on the 700 others slides. I had the LR correction and the PS correction. PS was always superior and quicker. The original images had a large problem with shadow and highlights. Photoshop shadow highlight are much better than the shadow highlight slides of LR.
Presumably that applies only when working with non-raw image files. Otherwise they're meant to have the same processing engine, aren't they (ACR and Lr) ?
p.1 #13 · How much vibrance (Lightroom 4) is too much?
Alan321 wrote:
In general I find that white balance correction is far more important for realistic or at least plausible output than vibrance or saturation.
+1
Especially if you have a preference for stronger vibrance / saturation. Imo, they boost more "cleanly" when you've got good WB correction before boosting.
