# Selective Coloring: Am I on the Right Track?



## RichieTang (Feb 5, 2015)

Hi. I posted a few photos before about selective coloring, so I understand that people are not a fan of this post processing. However, This is something I found I enjoy, so I want to get better at it. Any constructive feedback would be appreciated.

Note: I did these rather quickly hoping to know if I am isolating the right subject, so usually the post processing are more polished. Two of these were taken in the Philippines and the chicken photo was taken in Malaysia.

Thanks for your feedback!


----------



## Braineack (Feb 5, 2015)

it serves no purpose on any of these


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 5, 2015)

I kinda get the young boy on the barricade, but don't understand why the gutter is part of the message.

Same with the Toyota sign/Ford building.  Why is the small building, yellow/black warnings, and the people next to the taxi (as well as the sign on the taxi) included? What do they add to the message you're trying to convey?

I'm not a SC fan, but I'd have chosen a different chicken in that shot.


----------



## Designer (Feb 5, 2015)

No, you're not on the right track.  I've seen better.


----------



## RichieTang (Feb 5, 2015)

Braineack said:


> it serves no purpose on any of these





Designer said:


> No, you're not on the right track.  I've seen better.



Any chance you two could elaborate into the reasons as to *why*? Otherwise I'm to assume I was criticized by 8 year olds and disregard it. (although it is partly my fault for asking just "anyone" to provide feedback. I will change that.)



480sparky said:


> I kinda get the young boy on the barricade, but don't understand why the gutter is part of the message.
> 
> Same with the Toyota sign/Ford building.  Why is the small building, yellow/black warnings, and the people next to the taxi (as well as the sign on the taxi) included? What do they add to the message you're trying to convey?
> 
> I'm not a SC fan, but I'd have chosen a different chicken in that shot.



In my train of thought, the gutter represents the environment that further explains why the shoeles
boy is playing on the street, as well as him being so close to such filth.

The yellow/black warnings and people next to the taxi were not part of the message. Just a 30 second cleanup that was not very thorough. Woops I'll replace it

Which chicken would you have chosen? Perhaps the other chicken with it's head raised? Thanks for taking your time to write constructive feedback.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 5, 2015)

RichieTang said:


> In my train of thought, the gutter represents the environment that further explains why the shoeles
> boy is playing on the street, as well as him being so close to such filth........



Then you've got far too much extraneous stuff in the image.  All the other people, the power lines, the scaffolding and the buildings don't add anything.  Yet they take up a large part of the image.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 5, 2015)

IMO, there is no 'right track' for selective colouring.  Selective colouring is really an advertising method of directing potential buyers to the product.  If, for instance, I'm selling beer, I might show a scene in monochrome, with the product in colour to direct the viwer's eye right to that.  When it is used photographically, careful thought needs to be given to what you are colouring and what is monochrome. 

The level of colour needs to be appropriate to the scene; in the first image, the yellow is far too intense, whereas in the second, the colours are much more subtle, but definitely strong enough to graby your eye.  In the last, the colorus are decent, but I would be inclined to colour all of the chickens; what makes one more special than the other?

Now... say to yourself:  "I've tried selective colour and I am done with it.  Under the threat of one thousand lashes from a rusty cable release I shall never use it again!"


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 5, 2015)

The chicken is great. The others are definitely unclear. After you explain the boy in the street, well, maybe. But you shouldn't have to explain it.

I read the boy as a somewhat clumsy statement about the separation of the boy from the crowd, and I was confused as to why anything but the boy was in color.


----------



## Snagproof (Feb 5, 2015)

I think the one with the boy would be good if just the boy and the gate were coloured.  I really like the chicken one though.


----------



## Designer (Feb 5, 2015)

RichieTang said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > it serves no purpose on any of these
> ...


I think if you're going to use that technique, you should reserve it for those (few, IMO) shots that actually benefit. That is; to draw attention to one particular element in the composition.  

Also, a more delicate touch is going to be appreciated more than heavy-handed.  

I'm so glad you're not going to ask my opinion any more.


----------



## RichieTang (Feb 5, 2015)

tirediron said:


> IMO, there is no 'right track' for selective colouring.  Selective colouring is really an advertising method of directing potential buyers to the product.  If, for instance, I'm selling beer, I might show a scene in monochrome, with the product in colour to direct the viwer's eye right to that.  When it is used photographically, careful thought needs to be given to what you are colouring and what is monochrome.
> 
> The level of colour needs to be appropriate to the scene; in the first image, the yellow is far too intense, whereas in the second, the colours are much more subtle, but definitely strong enough to graby your eye.  In the last, the colorus are decent, but I would be inclined to colour all of the chickens; what makes one more special than the other?
> 
> Now... say to yourself:  "I've tried selective colour and I am done with it.  Under the threat of one thousand lashes from a rusty cable release I shall never use it again!"



Thanks for the mentoring =). I'll work on the coloring (making them less subtle but still just enough to stand out).

As for stopping SC, I won't. From what I've seen, heard, and read, photographers of all calibre seem to hate it for many reasons, but the main ones are that it's "overused" and "tacky". It definitely is "tacky" when used wrong, so I'm going to practice so people can only complain about overused. If other photographers don't like them, it's fine, but as long as I like what I do, and consumers/viewers like them (which I know there are a good portion who do - I don't need 100% of the population to like what I do), then why should I stop? 

To Designer: For those "few" shots that actually benefit, of course those are the ones I'd want to focus on. Who creates/showcases a portfolio with 99% of their photographs?


----------



## snowbear (Feb 5, 2015)

Since you knew the technique isn't very popular here, you shouldn't be surprised at negative comments.

If you're interested, I can point you to a forum where they _love_ selective coloring and sepia conversions.

That said, I'll take my one and only chance at opining, as well.
The first doesn't work.
Try the second one without coloring the garbage in the gutter - just the boy & gate.
The last one is somewhere in between.


----------



## AKUK (Feb 5, 2015)

Selective colouring is a bit like the overuse of HDR. Ever since the effect first appeared on DSLRs about 5 years ago, every man and his dog was doing it. It is one of those post processing effects that overwhelmingly ends up making a photograph looking amateurish because so many amateurs would just use the effect because it was "cool" at the time or for the sake of it.

As @tirediron mentioned, it does have its uses but they are few and far between for the vast majority of photographs. Product and advertising it definitely has its place. I personally have desaturated certain backgrounds (white backdrops mainly) because they were too warm/cool or had colour cast of some kind in them. Desaturating a white backdrop and leaving the subject matter in colour is selective colouring but, it's so subtle that people wouldn't immediately, if ever notice it. I'm definitely in the "less is more" camp and selective colouring as in the images you have posted are just too "in your face" with what has been done.


----------



## FITBMX (Feb 5, 2015)

I like the chicken!
And on a different note, I never thought of transporting chickens that way, it's brilliant!!!


----------



## RichieTang (Feb 5, 2015)

snowbear said:


> Since you knew the technique isn't very popular here, you shouldn't be surprised at negative comments.
> 
> If you're interested, I can point you to a forum where they _love_ selective coloring and sepia conversions.
> 
> ...



I enjoy negative points of view and criticism because then I know what to work on. What I don't like (same as others) is useless comments that provide nothing to help you improve. On the flip side,  if people were just to tell me they're good, I'd never find anything to improve on.  So thank you for your offer and your advice, but I don't think I'll need that forum that loves sc.


----------



## RichieTang (Feb 5, 2015)

AKUK said:


> Selective colouring is a bit like the overuse of HDR. Ever since the effect first appeared on DSLRs about 5 years ago, every man and his dog was doing it. It is one of those post processing effects that overwhelmingly ends up making a photograph looking amateurish because so many amateurs would just use the effect because it was "cool" at the time or for the sake of it.
> 
> As @tirediron mentioned, it does have its uses but they are few and far between for the vast majority of photographs. Product and advertising it definitely has its place. I personally have desaturated certain backgrounds (white backdrops mainly) because they were too warm/cool or had colour cast of some kind in them. Desaturating a white backdrop and leaving the subject matter in colour is selective colouring but, it's so subtle that people wouldn't immediately, if ever notice it. I'm definitely in the "less is more" camp and selective colouring as in the images you have posted are just too "in your face" with what has been done.



Thanks, I am definitely going to try a less "in your face" approach by reducing the color of the subjects so they pop out less.

As for the effect looking amateurish, I feel the same about Black and White and just about every other effect. Anything can look amateurish in amateur hands, the goal is to use the effect that just about anyone with fingers can do nowadays, and making it look professional. As for everyone hating sc, coupled with knowing first hand that there are consumers out there that like it, to me it seems that there is a niche market that has very little competition because professional photographers (with self-esteem issues) don't want to look like amateurs in the eyes of other photographers. I would rather compete with 10 photographers in sc than 100,000 in b&w.


----------



## Geaux (Feb 5, 2015)

What I find funny is that you call Black and White amateur, yet we wouldn't even be here today (as photographers), if it wasn't for black and white starting it all.  Whereas, selective coloring screams "omg, I just pirated photoshop, look what I can do!"

Sure, the general public seems to love it, but that doesn't make it any better.  Do what you do, but also don't compare selective coloring to black and white and stop being so defensive when people call you out on it.  You asked on a public forum their thoughts on a subject matter that is normally frowned upon.

With that being said, I agree with others in this thread questioning why you colored what you colored and it mostly doesn't make sense.  The only one that makes sense is the chicken, but you colored the one that stands out the most in the image, so it defeated the purpose of selective coloring.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 5, 2015)

B&W can look incredibly amateurish. It can scream LOOK I JUST PIRATED SILVER EFEX AND NOW I AM ANSEL ADAMS!

Also, the OP got a couple of really fairly snotty responses from the residents, and was justifiably irritated by them.


----------



## RichieTang (Feb 5, 2015)

Geaux said:


> What I find funny is that you call Black and White amateur, yet we wouldn't even be here today (as photographers), if it wasn't for black and white starting it all.  Whereas, selective coloring screams "omg, I just pirated photoshop, look what I can do!"
> 
> Sure, the general public seems to love it, but that doesn't make it any better.  Do what you do, but also don't compare selective coloring to black and white and stop being so defensive when people call you out on it.  You asked on a public forum their thoughts on a subject matter that is normally frowned upon.
> 
> With that being said, I agree with others in this thread questioning why you colored what you colored and it mostly doesn't make sense.  The only one that makes sense is the chicken, but you colored the one that stands out the most in the image, so it defeated the purpose of selective coloring.



1. I know how to get people to look at a thread so I can receive the feedback that I want to receive. Otherwise It'll end up like the other ones that don't get any feedback at all (pointing this out can effectively stop this thread, but I've already gotten enough feedback to work on). Also I am simply giving my reply to other peoples' opinion...if that is not allowed/frowned upon, then most conversations in life are moot. 

2. Black and White did start it all...so did the loincloth in clothing, CRT televisions, computers the size of buildings, landline phones, and scratching your history on caves. Just cause it started it all doesn't mean it's not tacky to go back to the original. You know what society usually calls someone who reverts to using something outdated/old? A hippie or a 80 year old retiree. 

My point being: Any category imaginable has both amateurs and professionals. Yes I am an amateur at photography, doesn't mean I should switch styles just so I can do what everyone else is doing. I wasn't born a sheep (which is ironic cause my zodiac is a sheep ).


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 5, 2015)

RichieTang said:


> ......... I would rather compete with 10 photographers in sc than 100,000 in b&w.



That alone should tell you something.


----------



## AKUK (Feb 5, 2015)

RichieTang said:


> Thanks, I am definitely going to try a less "in your face" approach by reducing the color of the subjects so they pop out less.
> 
> As for the effect looking amateurish, I feel the same about Black and White and just about every other effect. Anything can look amateurish in amateur hands, the goal is to use the effect that just about anyone with fingers can do nowadays, and making it look professional. As for everyone hating sc, coupled with knowing first hand that there are consumers out there that like it, to me it seems that there is a niche market that has very little competition because professional photographers (with self-esteem issues) don't want to look like amateurs in the eyes of other photographers. I would rather compete with 10 photographers in sc than 100,000 in b&w.



I agree with you that any effect can look amateurish in the hands of amateurs. Like you say, B&W images often are poorly done because to most newcomers, a black and white image is just a desaturated image, whereas more experienced photographers and editors know that there is significantly more involved to produce a photograph with impact in that medium. Mostly this stems from the lighting at the time of capture. If it lacks contrast to begin with, then in all probability, it's going to lack impact as a monochrome image.

Of course there will always be customers out there that like the SC effect. I've been asked for it in the past and at the end of the day, you meet your clients requests. You just don't necessarily display those images in your portfolio for others to see. The reason for this is that more often than not, the SC effect is requested on images that it really doesn't work on and is the primary reason why I didn't display the images. 

I don't know so much about self-esteem issues being the reason (I dare say it is for some) but, more to the point that certain effects can detract from your body of work and potentially be off-putting to other clients. If you're producing something that is deemed kitsch by a potential big client, that may cost you a job or repeat business. They may also be looking for something different or a specific style and if you're putting out work that every schmo can do at the click of a button, you'll look run-of-the-mill and get passed over. 

If on the other hand the SC was requested on an image that did merit it, then of course it would be included in the portfolio. At the end of the day, your work is also your marketing to other potential clients and is why professionals are more picky. So I wouldn't put it down to snobbery or ego as to why professionals tend to steer clear of selective colouring, it's more from a sensible business ethos. Also, going off of the amount of "professional" photographers just local to me (and I use that term loosely because most are just snappers with a dslr and rudimentary editing skills), you'll be competing with an equal amount of photographers in SC, as you will in B&W. Look through any world reknowned photographer's websites/portfolios and you'll be extremely hard pushed to find SC images, outside of advertising/product photography. There is a reason for that.


----------



## RichieTang (Feb 5, 2015)

AKUK said:


> RichieTang said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks, I am definitely going to try a less "in your face" approach by reducing the color of the subjects so they pop out less.
> ...



Thanks this is very helpful. If I was looking to be a professional photographer as my choice of career, I would have done everything you've said. You've definitely confirmed for me everything I've wanted from photography. I now know for certain I don't want to have my hobby, something I enjoy, as my main source of income (thereby effectively drawing out the fun out of it).

Luckily, I have other means of bringing in much more income (and more stable too) that requires very little of my time and I find very enjoyable, which gives me the incredible luxury of doing photography for fun on the side. So when the "odd" customer wants SC, I'll be able to produce professional work that those who think SC is nothing more than a gimmick that requires no other consideration for B&W, color, contrast, composition, etc, cannot provide.

From this, you can gather that I am putting a portfolio for just SC, and a portfolio for the more "pro-tographers recommended" pieces. No one will be able to deter me from SC, so constructive criticism such as the one you gave is definitely well appreciated.

perhaps people can stomach SC better if they think of it as the same as post-processing B&W...with a little patch of color.  Most of your effort will still be on editing the B&W for good contrast, oh and taking a good picture.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 6, 2015)

no.


----------



## Overread (Feb 6, 2015)

MODERATOR NOTICE

You are all free to hold your own likes and dislikes, but please can we stop trying to force ones dislike of something over another member. If the OP wishes to use selective colouring then let them - trying to force or mock them to change (or as a couple seem to be - trying to start a fight) is very impolite and not an attitude we want on the site. 

By all means disagree and share your reasoning why; but keep it polite.


----------



## waday (Feb 6, 2015)

My favorite use of selective coloring is #3. It evoked emotion for me, which #1 and #2 didn't.

In terms of processing, and absolutely IMO, I think you're on the right track for #2 and #3. The coloring in #1 was too subtle, and it was lost for me. I'm assuming you colored the building behind because of the Ford logo/name? Trying to link the newer Toyota dealership to the defunct Ford dealership? It wasn't readily apparent to me.

In #2, the bright yellow barricade demands the viewer's attention, but for what purpose? It's a kid standing on a barricade. The composition does not evoke any emotion for me. I know you stated that your intention was to link the gutter to the shoe-less kid, but I did not make that connection looking at the photo. It looks disorganized to me.

I think #3 is the best of the series. It evokes emotion for me, especially with the chicken looking at the camera. Good work.


----------



## DavidVote (Feb 6, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> B&W can look incredibly amateurish. It can scream LOOK I JUST PIRATED SILVER EFEX AND NOW I AM ANSEL ADAMS!
> 
> Also, the OP got a couple of really fairly snotty responses from the residents, and was justifiably irritated by them.



What's up with the obsession with black and white? I get that it creates contrast and get rid of distracting colors / colors that don't go well together in shots such street shots, but I think I've seen less than a couple black and white photo that blew me away.

I also get that photography started out in just black and white. I know, I have a film camera that I used to shoot and develope my own black and white films on.

But this is coming from a guy who likes noise and grain, and thinks every color is pretty in some way or another.

And to OP:

Yes, I believe that selective coloring would be beneficial to a photo if used in the right context. It's just another tool in photography just like HDR is. You can't slap HDR onto any image and call it good. Know when and where to use it, recognize the appropriate situations in which to use it.

I find it funny how some people rips on other people's preference in photography even though photography is probably as subjective as things get.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 6, 2015)

For me there is never a reason to use selective colour


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Feb 6, 2015)

I agree with everyone else that the 3rd is the best.. However I completely disagree with everyone saying number 2 is the best processed. The colors are too vibrant and they make the image seem gross and over processed. The selection for color (in terms of the boy and fence, not the gutter) is good however. The opposite is true for #1 The processing is nice and the subtle color makes it seem more like a complete image rather than a cardboard cutout shoved on a black and white photo.. however, the selection is off and makes the viewer unsure of what to look at. That's not to mention that it really is an uninteresting image and no amount of selective coloring will make the subject matter itself better....

#3 is really quite on track. Though I always feel quite annoyed looking at selective color images I think it gets the closest in terms of what you are trying to do with the process..

I like that you are willing to go against the grain with your methods of processing and I appreciate that. The greatest artworks were made by people who were willing to break the rules or straight up change the rules in order to make the work that we now consider masterpiece's. I think if you work hard and keep striving to be better at it you could really take SC and turn it into something good rather than having people scoff and scowl at it; in order to do that you need to be willing to work hard and improve it from something typical to something extraordinary.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 6, 2015)

I mainly do black and white because color is too hard. I usually can't make any sense of color.

I appreciate some color photos but I have no skill with shooting then.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 6, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> I mainly do black and white because color is too hard. I usually can't make any sense of color.
> 
> I appreciate some color photos but I have no skill with shooting then.


You should try shooting colour then, you never no you could get some good shots


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 6, 2015)

I don't even have enough time to shoot the b&w I want to get done. Maybe when the kids are older.


----------



## DavidVote (Feb 6, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> I don't even have enough time to shoot the b&w I want to get done. Maybe when the kids are older.



Yeah... All you really have to worry about in black and white are the blacks and whites


----------



## gsgary (Feb 6, 2015)

DavidVote said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't even have enough time to shoot the b&w I want to get done. Maybe when the kids are older.
> ...


Thats rubbish


----------



## DavidVote (Feb 6, 2015)

gsgary said:


> DavidVote said:
> 
> 
> > photoguy99 said:
> ...



That wasn't supposed to be serious 

My bad if it didn't sound the way I intended


----------



## gsgary (Feb 6, 2015)

DavidVote said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > DavidVote said:
> ...


Just pulling your leg


----------



## DoctorDino (Feb 6, 2015)

I can't really comment on the selective coloring because I'm not a fan of it, but my favorite shots composition wise are the 2nd and 3rd. Both of those are nice shots.

Ask yourself - what is the message you're trying to convey? If there is a specific message, that's the part of the image you'll want to stand out.


----------



## Rob Powell (Feb 6, 2015)

I thought these pictures were quite interesting. The boy and the gutter needed no explanation I thought that was fairly obvious.  In fact too obvious and the colours were a bit too strong for my liking. The other two I could read many things into which as an art form is sometimes best left down to the viewer. 

The answer to your question in my opinion is yes, you probably are on the right track but not quite there yet. And maybe where you get to will not be sc but I think you are going somewhere. 

I look forwarded to seeing more your photos as they develop!


----------



## Vince.1551 (Feb 6, 2015)

Rather then just commenting on the issues with SC on the photos why not post some photos that you think SC works so the OP has a visual how SC should be used ;-)

I like all 3 btw.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidVote (Feb 6, 2015)

Vince.1551 said:


> Rather then just commenting on the issues with SC on the photos why not post some photos that you think SC works so the OP has a visual how SC should be used ;-)
> 
> I like all 3 btw.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I don't think the forum allows it. If you are going to link a picture it should be from the original source. 

But if you search up good examples of selective coloring, there's a lot of examples. There's one with taxis that is good.


----------



## waday (Feb 6, 2015)

For an example, I like this by Lew:
the Side of the Road Photography Forum


----------



## Vince.1551 (Feb 6, 2015)

I don't mean posting links. Commenters can work on their own images and show an example of the good use of SC ;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RichieTang (Feb 7, 2015)

I took people's advice  (i think) and took the coloring down several notches in the 2nd photo. Is this more pleasing to the eye? (first is the altered one based on suggestions, second is the one you'd find on the first page)






 

and yes. I have been looking at a lot of examples. The Taxis (new york/yellow cabs) one really is amazing. And I want people to know that I don't use SC for every single photographs. I only use it on photos that I believe work with it (still need a lot of practice), or photos I specifically arrange so that I can use SC. I only apply this form of post-processing on maybe 1 out of 200 useable photos.


----------



## DavidVote (Feb 7, 2015)

RichieTang said:


> I took people's advice  (i think) and took the coloring down several notches in the 2nd photo. Is this more pleasing to the eye? (first is the altered one based on suggestions, second is the one you'd find on the first page)
> View attachment 94868
> View attachment 94869
> 
> and yes. I have been looking at a lot of examples. The Taxis (new york/yellow cabs) one really is amazing. And I want people to know that I don't use SC for every single photographs. I only use it on photos that I believe work with it (still need a lot of practice), or photos I specifically arrange so that I can use SC. I only apply this form of post-processing on maybe 1 out of 200 useable photos.



How about you try bringing in a tiny bit amount of color back into everything else in the image?


----------



## RichieTang (Feb 7, 2015)

DavidVote said:


> RichieTang said:
> 
> 
> > I took people's advice  (i think) and took the coloring down several notches in the 2nd photo. Is this more pleasing to the eye? (first is the altered one based on suggestions, second is the one you'd find on the first page)
> ...



I could be wrong, but if I brought back a bit of color into everything else, then it wouldn't be SC...


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 7, 2015)

RichieTang said:


> DavidVote said:
> 
> 
> > How about you try bringing in a tiny bit amount of color back into everything else in the image?
> ...



I would say it is.  You're selecting some colors to be bright and vivid, and selecting others to be muted and desaturated.


----------



## RichieTang (Feb 7, 2015)

480sparky said:


> RichieTang said:
> 
> 
> > DavidVote said:
> ...



Okay I can sort of agree. This is more of a pure vs leeway argument. Unfortunately I think I'll stick to B&W + coloured subject.


----------



## DavidVote (Feb 7, 2015)

RichieTang said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > RichieTang said:
> ...



If it floats your boat haha


----------

