Saturation and Vibrant... How far is to far?

The reds don't look blown out, nor does the blue on the pants, and the eyes show through. I'd say it's pretty good.
I never touch my saturation unless I use one of the LR3 presets or making it B&W. I always use vibrant instead. This looks good from here. Not too much.
The area next to the star on the left on her shirt seems to have some detail loss, other than that it's not too overdone.
Detail loss is caused by exposure though... not vibrant or saturation.
As long as your saturating isn't clipping/blowing any colors or causing a loss of detail it's fine. =) Really just a matter of taste within those parameters.
Detail loss is caused by exposure though... not vibrant or saturation.

If you up saturation you can easily blow out colors. Isn't that causing detail loss?

Last time I checked.

But that can also possibly be attributed to the tiny viewing resolution of the photo, which could crunch some of the blacks from the shadows of the fibers out.
I think the colors look fine on the clothing and in the background but on my uncalibrated monitor the girls skin looks a little purple/blue.
I think maybe a bit extra. looks like some detail loss under the star.
but i dont think its very noticeable.
good shot.
I don't think you went too far... and yes if I touch saturation, it's only a very minor adjustment. Vibrant adjustments are much more workable in my opinion.
Here is a 100% of the star.

Last edited:
Personally Jason, that appears to over saturated just in that area, as you can see where the reds just kind of flow together. However on the star you can see much more detail.
Ya... I see it... I'll bump the saturation down and see if that helps. I'm betting, in print, this would be magnified.
Awwww, what a cute pose and cute kid! She's very "modelly" it seems. Yeah, the reds are a bit over saturated. The reds might plug up when printed, more so than they do on-screen.

Most reactions