Color fascinates me. It's as entrancing as music in the way that it can convey mood through an almost entirely subconscious mechanism. As a digital photographer I have enormous control over how much and in what proportion color will be applied to my images. As a rule, I prefer to adjust the color to how my eye sees it.

This means that I avoid the bold, bright hues that are found commonly among popular photographs – and tells us something too. I think we respond positively to an excess of color (as long as it is not too excessive). It implies brightness, vibrancy, energy – all the things that appeal to us. That such colors may not represent what we actually see is less important. A photograph is a work of art, that may or may not approximate the source material that inspired.

Clearly, my personal aesthetic is more that of a photo-journalist; I want to capture what I actually saw. But that does not mean that I do not appreciate or respond to other types of photography. So, as I was tinkering with a very image that I captured yesterday at Ruth Park in University City, I decided to put up three images. One largely desaturated, one natural (as captured by the camera on neutral settings), and one over-saturated and hue-adjusted towards green. (Reminding me of the ubiquitous Windows XP default desktop background.)

The image below is smaller as it is drawn from my 365 days photo album.

It's interesting to observe these images in a set, because they appeal to differing elements. The washed-out colors in the top image imply a sad, nostalgic atmosphere; the vivid color in the bottom projects the opposite.

But the central image, which most accurately represents what I actually saw is my favorite. In this case, I wanted the photograph to show what will become a pleasant memory of the sun on my face and the shadows stretching out. Such moments become emotional touchstones in my life.