Urgh…the internet is not working in my room…so no pictures today…sorry
the discussion we are having is fabu!
So I am picking up an answer I wrote in the comments to IvoryHut…keep the discussion going…I think we are onto some real discoveries here…and all because of you KD!
I think the term “realistic” is where we might all struggle. Color for the most part is a consistent experience for person to person…however…the way we internalize it is very different.
Take 2a…to some the blue in the sky is too blue…to me it looks real…however the yellow in the water and of the wood railing closest to the viewer seems over saturated…is my opinion based on the fact that I gravitate towards blues? It is biased because I think of wood turning silver with exposure to salt air (which may not be true for this variety of wood).
The one thing I will say is…If you had not shown the SOOC shots…would anyone have questioned the color at all?
Additionally, in 1a…I believe and I could be wrong here…you may have taken dramatic liberties with the image for impact…however that could have been the way the light and sky was. I know for my plane shot above…the sky was not THAT dark, but the window (as cleva MM spied) has a coating on it that made the clouds look all icky yellow…so black and white it was and I punched up the contrast to convy a feeling I was having when I took the shot. (Yes, there was doom and gloom because once again I am seeing the United Flight Crew more than my Beau.)
So the question becomes in my mind…is it okay to push a communication objective (emotion, color impact etc) into the processing of a photo or must you come as close to WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get)?