Selective colour- who likes em- who hates em?

ASheffield · 03-25-2013, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by River Rat

All of my selective color has been done in camera either natural or with the use of cameras custom settings. Your eye tends to be drawn directly to the subject but the camera custom settings pick up background colors that is somewhat distracting. As for liking or not, it's not that much different than using color filters, cross processing, light painting or any other effect to change or manipulate the final results. Sometimes I like, sometimes not so much.

All of mine has been done in camera too. Sometimes background colours will ruin it though. I'm sorry, but the boat picture looks kind of weird since the colours blended.

SingingSabre · 03-30-2013, 04:14 PM

I saw one single image in this thread where I think selective color may have helped: the train image.

I really, really, really dislike SC. If I think something needs a pop, I'll take down the saturation of the image and just mask over the area to be emphasized, bringing it to the original saturation. Technically that's selective coloring, but just from a different approach.

calculator01 · 03-31-2013, 12:56 PM

I'm generally not a fan because I find it is most often not done correctly. But when done correctly, in moderation, it can really add to a photo.

TaoMaas · 03-31-2013, 04:53 PM

Eh...it's like HDR...slow shutter...or shallow depth of field. It's a technique. When used properly, it can be effective. When used wrong...it can be a crutch.

brofkand · 04-01-2013, 08:46 AM

I think selective color is a dangerous tool. It's very easy to take a photo that is worthy of immediate deletion and make it a horribly overdone cliche. It's like heavy vignettes, crushed blacks, etc.

If a photo of an American Flag is otherwise not a good photo, it won't be any better when you make everything B&W except for the stars and bars. That's my point.

I like Adam's early example of the flowers on the grave. It's a very spiritual image, I think. Rebirth shown by coloring the fresh flowers, with the world being B&W.

MRRiley · 04-02-2013, 05:44 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by brofkand

I think selective color is a dangerous tool. It's very easy to take a photo that is worthy of immediate deletion and make it a horribly overdone cliche. It's like heavy vignettes, crushed blacks, etc.

If a photo of an American Flag is otherwise not a good photo, it won't be any better when you make everything B&W except for the stars and bars. That's my point.

I like Adam's early example of the flowers on the grave. It's a very spiritual image, I think. Rebirth shown by coloring the fresh flowers, with the world being B&W.

And I am sure other viewers can find equal validity in other selectively desaturated images. Your interpretation of Adam's image and your dismissal of others is a personal choice.

Classifying Selective Color as a "dangerous tool" is a bit of a stretch though. SC is no more a dangerous tool than any other technique in an artist/photographer's bag of tricks. If the artist chooses to use it, it is up to them. And as a viewer, it is up to you to like or not like that use as your tastes and whims dictate. However, it is important to realize that just because you don't like it, that does not make it invalid or a cliche. Perhaps the artist wasn't up to the task of communicating his message. Just as likely though it jmay mean that you just cant see the point the artist was trying to make. In the end, what does it really matter?

Personally, I think Andy Warhol was a hack that couldn't paint anything original so he copied pop icons. However, the art world glitterati would disagree because they interpret his work as social commentary. Both viewpoints have a certain degree of validity.

Mike

Sandy Hancock · 04-02-2013, 06:16 AM

I rarely do it, but here is one instance where I think it lifted one of my images:

Ball. Play?

Here's the original: pretty close to B&W (except the ball) anyway.

K52S2421

brofkand · 04-03-2013, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by MRRiley

And I am sure other viewers can find equal validity in other selectively desaturated images. Your interpretation of Adam's image and your dismissal of others is a personal choice.

Classifying Selective Color as a "dangerous tool" is a bit of a stretch though. SC is no more a dangerous tool than any other technique in an artist/photographer's bag of tricks. If the artist chooses to use it, it is up to them. And as a viewer, it is up to you to like or not like that use as your tastes and whims dictate. However, it is important to realize that just because you don't like it, that does not make it invalid or a cliche. Perhaps the artist wasn't up to the task of communicating his message. Just as likely though it jmay mean that you just cant see the point the artist was trying to make. In the end, what does it really matter?

Personally, I think Andy Warhol was a hack that couldn't paint anything original so he copied pop icons. However, the art world glitterati would disagree because they interpret his work as social commentary. Both viewpoints have a certain degree of validity.

Mike

Absolutely. I am not the end-all, be-all of the photographic art community. It's my opinion only. I am not in a position where my opinion matters. Maybe when I own an art gallery or something, then it will carry some weight. As it stands now, I'm an anonymous voice on a photography enthusiast forum. Don't let my opinion stop you or anyone else from using the tools you feel work well in your photos.

I characterize selective color as a dangerous tool because in my experience it promotes laziness more often than it adds to an image. It's a way of adding a gimmick onto a photo that otherwise wouldn't earn a second glance.

Allison · 04-07-2013, 01:11 PM

When it was a fad 10 years ago, there were a few times where it looked neat, but most of the time I didn't like it. Now, I hate it. And it seems like each year I have one bride who loves it and wants 20 pictures edited this way and included in her album. Now, the customer is always right and all, but I seriously question their taste when they ask for this.

I think my hatred comes from the over use of it. I am starting to feel the same about the instagram look, too. Once I get break, I will go back to respecting the occasional use. Too much of anything is bad.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New guy who really likes his K-5	20thcenturyhoff	Welcomes and Introductions	4	01-14-2013 11:36 AM
Food Smoke 'em if ya got 'em	gifthorse	Post Your Photos!	2	09-02-2012 10:35 AM
Who likes fishing?	graphicgr8s	General Talk	40	03-17-2010 08:34 PM
Pentax Weddings - who's doin'em?	ksignorini	Photographic Technique	108	09-03-2008 08:21 AM
Who likes Salty Popcorn?	spyglass	Post Your Photos!	7	02-17-2008 06:57 PM

03-25-2013, 11:09 PM	#61
ASheffield Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Raleigh, North Carolina, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 329	Originally posted by River Rat All of my selective color has been done in camera either natural or with the use of cameras custom settings. Your eye tends to be drawn directly to the subject but the camera custom settings pick up background colors that is somewhat distracting. As for liking or not, it's not that much different than using color filters, cross processing, light painting or any other effect to change or manipulate the final results. Sometimes I like, sometimes not so much. All of mine has been done in camera too. Sometimes background colours will ruin it though. I'm sorry, but the boat picture looks kind of weird since the colours blended.

03-30-2013, 04:14 PM	#62
SingingSabre Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 53	I saw one single image in this thread where I think selective color may have helped: the train image. I really, really, really dislike SC. If I think something needs a pop, I'll take down the saturation of the image and just mask over the area to be emphasized, bringing it to the original saturation. Technically that's selective coloring, but just from a different approach.

03-31-2013, 12:56 PM	#63
calculator01 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Edmonton, Alberta Photos: Albums Posts: 817	I'm generally not a fan because I find it is most often not done correctly. But when done correctly, in moderation, it can really add to a photo.

03-31-2013, 04:53 PM	#64
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Eh...it's like HDR...slow shutter...or shallow depth of field. It's a technique. When used properly, it can be effective. When used wrong...it can be a crutch.

04-01-2013, 08:46 AM	#65
brofkand Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: North Carolina Posts: 836	I think selective color is a dangerous tool. It's very easy to take a photo that is worthy of immediate deletion and make it a horribly overdone cliche. It's like heavy vignettes, crushed blacks, etc. If a photo of an American Flag is otherwise not a good photo, it won't be any better when you make everything B&W except for the stars and bars. That's my point. I like Adam's early example of the flowers on the grave. It's a very spiritual image, I think. Rebirth shown by coloring the fresh flowers, with the world being B&W.

04-02-2013, 05:44 AM - 1 Like	#66
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Originally posted by brofkand I think selective color is a dangerous tool. It's very easy to take a photo that is worthy of immediate deletion and make it a horribly overdone cliche. It's like heavy vignettes, crushed blacks, etc. If a photo of an American Flag is otherwise not a good photo, it won't be any better when you make everything B&W except for the stars and bars. That's my point. I like Adam's early example of the flowers on the grave. It's a very spiritual image, I think. Rebirth shown by coloring the fresh flowers, with the world being B&W. And I am sure other viewers can find equal validity in other selectively desaturated images. Your interpretation of Adam's image and your dismissal of others is a personal choice. Classifying Selective Color as a "dangerous tool" is a bit of a stretch though. SC is no more a dangerous tool than any other technique in an artist/photographer's bag of tricks. If the artist chooses to use it, it is up to them. And as a viewer, it is up to you to like or not like that use as your tastes and whims dictate. However, it is important to realize that just because you don't like it, that does not make it invalid or a cliche. Perhaps the artist wasn't up to the task of communicating his message. Just as likely though it jmay mean that you just cant see the point the artist was trying to make. In the end, what does it really matter? Personally, I think Andy Warhol was a hack that couldn't paint anything original so he copied pop icons. However, the art world glitterati would disagree because they interpret his work as social commentary. Both viewpoints have a certain degree of validity. Mike

04-02-2013, 06:16 AM	#67
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,275	I rarely do it, but here is one instance where I think it lifted one of my images: Ball. Play? Here's the original: pretty close to B&W (except the ball) anyway. K52S2421

04-03-2013, 08:41 AM	#68
brofkand Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: North Carolina Posts: 836	Originally posted by MRRiley And I am sure other viewers can find equal validity in other selectively desaturated images. Your interpretation of Adam's image and your dismissal of others is a personal choice. Classifying Selective Color as a "dangerous tool" is a bit of a stretch though. SC is no more a dangerous tool than any other technique in an artist/photographer's bag of tricks. If the artist chooses to use it, it is up to them. And as a viewer, it is up to you to like or not like that use as your tastes and whims dictate. However, it is important to realize that just because you don't like it, that does not make it invalid or a cliche. Perhaps the artist wasn't up to the task of communicating his message. Just as likely though it jmay mean that you just cant see the point the artist was trying to make. In the end, what does it really matter? Personally, I think Andy Warhol was a hack that couldn't paint anything original so he copied pop icons. However, the art world glitterati would disagree because they interpret his work as social commentary. Both viewpoints have a certain degree of validity. Mike Absolutely. I am not the end-all, be-all of the photographic art community. It's my opinion only. I am not in a position where my opinion matters. Maybe when I own an art gallery or something, then it will carry some weight. As it stands now, I'm an anonymous voice on a photography enthusiast forum. Don't let my opinion stop you or anyone else from using the tools you feel work well in your photos. I characterize selective color as a dangerous tool because in my experience it promotes laziness more often than it adds to an image. It's a way of adding a gimmick onto a photo that otherwise wouldn't earn a second glance.

04-07-2013, 01:11 PM	#69
Allison Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 667	When it was a fad 10 years ago, there were a few times where it looked neat, but most of the time I didn't like it. Now, I hate it. And it seems like each year I have one bride who loves it and wants 20 pictures edited this way and included in her album. Now, the customer is always right and all, but I seriously question their taste when they ask for this. I think my hatred comes from the over use of it. I am starting to feel the same about the instagram look, too. Once I get break, I will go back to respecting the occasional use. Too much of anything is bad.