I was at a couple of art shows during my vacation, and saw a lot of photography. A staple of photography are the shots of Italian allies and colorful sea villages. I have one on my wall that I shot myself, the classic view you have seen a million times of Vernazza, Italy. My wife observed that these photos at the shows looked different than mine (she said "better").
The reason was quickly apparent, and I am seeing this more and more in the Photoshop world -- all the artists have pumped the color saturation way up. I had to do this a bit, because the colors desaturate some when they get printed on canvas. But these canvases friggin glowed. I see the same thing in nature photography. Is this an improvement? I don't know, but I am a bit skeptical. It reminds me a lot of how TV's are sold. TV pictures tend to be skewed to over-bright and over-vivid colors because those look better under the fluorescent lights of the sales floor. TV's also tend to have their colors tuned to the very cool (blue) color temperatures for the same reason. None of this looks good in a darkened room watching a film-based movie. Fortunately, modern TV's have better electronics menus and it is easy to reverse these problems, and my guess is there is less of this anyway now that many TV's are sold online based on reviews rather than comparison shopping in a store.
I am left to wonder though how this new super-vivid, over saturated photography would look in a home, and how it wears with years of viewing. Am I being a dinosaur resisting a technological improvement or is there a real problem here?