# Why do so many dislike selective coloring?



## blackrose89 (Dec 14, 2011)

I've never used it. Have no feeling one way or the other. Just curious why other people do. If there are some cases where it does work, please share the image


----------



## shootermcgavin (Dec 14, 2011)

I think selective coloring happens in the  beginning of learning photos and post.  You will probably over do it at first and eventually will realize it and that is like a step you  have conquered in photography.  In 10,000 photos I'm lucky if I have one that selective coloring works with.  I've seen photos I do like it in, but very few.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 14, 2011)

I think it's main use is in advertising imagery; to draw the viewer's attention to the brand of soft-drink, chocolate-bar, shoes, etc.  I think that most people new to post-processing try and find out that it's really quite easy, and are struck by how simple it was to make such a radical change to a photograph.


----------



## CCericola (Dec 14, 2011)

I think it is because people pick the wrong thing to colorize and it detracts from what the photographer meant to be the focal point. Kim Anderson is the only artist that I have seen do it successfully. But like Thomas Kinkaid, he became a target of ridicule (the Halmark card photographer) when it became uber profitable. kimanderson.com


----------



## bazooka (Dec 14, 2011)

I notice that it is usually newcomers that apply it to poor photographs to make them more pleasing.  If it truly benefits the photo, then by all means go for it.  I often find that selectively desaturating a certain color in an image helps simplify it.  I consider this to be of the same family as selective coloring.  I think it needs to be purpose-driven.  But no matter what reason it's done for, using it can send your image spiraling into cliche-land.  So you must be careful if you want your image to not immediately be thrown into the "noob" basket when it is viewed.


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 14, 2011)

I agree with Christina.

The reason that many [Photographers] dislike it when they see selective coloring, is because it's so very often done poorly.  Not necessarily the technical aspects of of doing it, but the choice of what to color/not color is a poor choice.  

It's pretty obvious that leaving a small part of a photo in color, while desaturating the rest of the image, will cause the viewer's eye to be drawn to the part that is in color.  It will likely cause that part to be the strongest focal point in the image.  But should it be?  

The example I see quite a bit, is when there is a shot of a baby with a bow or flower on their head.  The shot is converted to B&W but the flower or bow is left if color.  So what are they trying to say with that photo?  That the bow is more important than the child?  That's probably not the case, unless they are trying to sell bows. 
The focal point of a portrait should be the person/people in the photo.  And you usually want to draw the viewer's attention to the face & eyes the person.  If you draw their attention away from the face, it usually becomes a less effective portrait.
Plus, I just think there is something morbid about leaving something in color along side a colorless baby.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Dec 14, 2011)

I don't dislike it but have only used it once in my life - Clearwater Beach with a kit lens (I couldn't do much else with the pic, the two guys blended into the background).


----------



## ann (Dec 14, 2011)

Usually because it is overdone.


----------



## Dom6663 (Dec 14, 2011)

The only problem I have with it is that every teenage girl on facebook does it. I swear every teenage girl that aims a point and shoot camera at their face, makes a duck face, and then desaturated everything but their eyes, thinks they are an artist!

Come on girls if you want us guys to really look at your eyes don't include a down the shirt view in the photo! 

I don't like facbook.

I just find selective coloring to be tacky, and in many cases like a poor shortcut. If I want my subject to stand out from the rest of the photo ill do it with lighting, dof, and all those fancy creative settings


----------



## o hey tyler (Dec 14, 2011)

2WheelPhoto said:


> I don't dislike it but have only used it once in my life - Clearwater Beach with a kit lens (I couldn't do much else with the pic, the two guys blended into the background).



Those two bright, solidly colored spandex gimp suit wearers blended in with the background? WOW.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Dec 14, 2011)

yeah, busy flourescent style beach colors in the background


----------



## Edsport (Dec 15, 2011)

Selective coloring when done right can be awesome. My opinion why so many dislike it is because they read that someone else didn't like it lol...


----------



## blackrose89 (Dec 15, 2011)

Edsport said:


> Selective coloring when done right can be awesome. My opinion why so many dislike it is because they read that someone else didn't like it lol...


You're probably right! Seems to me a lot of photographers aren't very open have a close minded way of thinking.


----------



## enzodm (Dec 15, 2011)

blackrose89 said:


> Edsport said:
> 
> 
> > Selective coloring when done right can be awesome. My opinion why so many dislike it is because they read that someone else didn't like it lol...
> ...



it is exactly the same opinion as the others. _"when done right"_ is the key. Most pictures you see in this forum are simply badly done.


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 15, 2011)

enzodm said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > Edsport said:
> ...



*correction*
Most pictures you see *on the internet* are simply badly done.


----------



## enzodm (Dec 15, 2011)

Big Mike said:


> *correction*
> Most pictures you see *on the internet* are simply badly done.



ok  .


----------



## Derrel (Dec 15, 2011)

Selective coloring is kind of synonymous with newcomers to photo processing. It was big in the 1990's, back when "Adobe Elements" introduced the first generation of photographers to affordable $400 to $700 digicams. Selective color was one of a handful of special effects that were offered in Elements, and so, it became something that newbies would do to their pictures. It's kind of like the duck-face pose that so many high school and college-age girls do on their Facebook self-portrait shots...selective color was a Huuuuuuuge fad at the very start of the digicam revolution. Selective color had a very brief run as a wedding "special effect" among low-end wedding snappers as well, kind of like the cheesy "bride and groom inside wine glass" special effect of the 1970's, or the "lazser" backgrounds of the 1980's. The typical shot was the bride, holding colored flowers, while she was in B&W. Wow--creative, huh!!!


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 15, 2011)

> The typical shot was the bride, holding colored flowers, while she was in B&W. Wow--creative, huh!!!


Another example of a very popular 'bad choice'.  Is the shot about the flowers or the bride?  I'd argue that it could be a better option to remove color from the flowers, letting the focus of the shot become the bride, with no distractions.

That would look silly, of course, and B&W flowers would look so odd that they would draw attention anyway.

One thing that rarely gets mentioned, when talking about selective coloring....is selectively changing colors in an image, without going all the way to black & white (full removal of colors).  For example, if a bride is holding flowers that are really bright and colorful, it may be distracting.  But if you go in and just tone down those colors, it may improve the shot, without being cheesy.


----------



## KmH (Dec 15, 2011)

blackrose89 said:


> Edsport said:
> 
> 
> > Selective coloring when done right can be awesome.....
> ...



Define "a lot".

Basically it boils down to how a viewer responds to an image. The average Jane or Joe knows diddly about art or photography, but they know if they like/dislike, or are ambivalent about an image.

Ideally the most successful images cause people to linger in the image and to return to the image repeatedly.


----------



## MLeeK (Dec 15, 2011)

I skimmed through this, so I could have missed it...
What is "done right?" Well, here's my answer: When you selectively color something it becomes the subject of the image. So if you have a kid with a red sweater on and you leave the sweater in color it makes the photograph about the sweater. NOT the child. 
The spandex guys work well because they are the subjects of the image AND they are what is in color. 
The black and white part of the image also has to be done properly too... And that depends upon the image. I saw a SC image in a thread MUCH like this one once a long time ago where the item was a baby stroller and it was in the dump. All of the trash around it was left in black and white and the stroller was colored. The black and white part of the image was dark and grungy and pretty contrasty which was perfection for that image-it really made you feel the trash as well as the loneliness of the colored stroller sitting there like it had been abandoned being the subject of the image. Had I seen the same image in color? The stroller would have blended into the trash and it would have been a total trash heap. 
The spandex guys above the black and white is grey and not so contrasty overall and that works because he didn't want it to have a statement in the image. 
So... both elements of the image have to be done well in order for it to REALLY work.


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 15, 2011)

I like it so call be a newbie or beginner. I think its just who you talk to. Photographers and the most nit picky people when it comes to others work but, what sells is what sells can't argue that. The idea is to take a photo and profit off of it if its not just a hobby. Many people are drawn into bright colors and their are certain colors that the eye focuses on first that will real in a consumer, so many adds use it to draw people into their product. 

Once again it just depends on the group of people you talk to.  In HDR photography many people love that POP and then there are many that don't and will talk a world of crap about it. Same with selective coloring and or any other filter used to help enhance a picture. There are many other ways to achieve similar results. Even in the DSLR these days there are on spot color processing. There are shooting choices. If you use vivid it does same thing but with all colors. IF you can get it right out of the camera then good if you took a picture and want to tone down or make it pop to get a quality photo great. 

I could care less on how someone created an image in pp if the end result is eye candy than thats all that matters. The word newbie is a word to make people feel more better themselves or superior. I dislike that word as its like a bully word. Everyone knows the saying about a bull's, they are lacking in some other area of their life.

my .02 cents


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Dec 15, 2011)

vipgraphx said:


> I like it so call be a newbie or beginner. I think its just who you talk to. Photographers and the most nit picky people when it comes to others work but, what sells is what sells can't argue that. The idea is to take a photo and profit off of it if its not just a hobby. Many people are drawn into bright colors and their are certain colors that the eye focuses on first that will real in a consumer, so many adds use it to draw people into their product.
> 
> Once again it just depends on the group of people you talk to.  In HDR photography many people love that POP and then there are many that don't and will talk a world of crap about it. Same with selective coloring and or any other filter used to help enhance a picture. There are many other ways to achieve similar results. Even in the DSLR these days there are on spot color processing. There are shooting choices. If you use vivid it does same thing but with all colors. IF you can get it right out of the camera then good if you took a picture and want to tone down or make it pop to get a quality photo great.
> 
> ...


 The problem is, that your idea of eye candy may not be the same as my idea. I tend to dislike piss poor composition where your eye fights with bright colors that detract from the actual subject of the composition. I also dislike gaudy over-processed colors that result in splotchy images with loss of detail. The problem is that many people have a hard time seeing through the static to objectively judge their work and see the problems that it has. We all do it. Everyone on here can think back to when they first started post-processing images and would over do the settings and think that it looked good.  Its much easier to say "well I like it" or "well, I have sold a picture like this so thats all that matters" rather than actually grow a little and learn to see things a little differently.t If you don't wish to grow, and only wish to continue making the quickest buck that you can, then what is the point of posting your pictures for C+C or asking the opinion of others? Selling sh!t is not a barometer of skill or craftsmanship ( see: Walmart )


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 15, 2011)

GooniesNeverSatDie11- 

The usage of eye candy was in general terms not just me. How do you define many people is that your opinion or assumption? I do agree with you on in what you said about looking back to when we first start off and over processed images.  Looking at from that perspective I think its because people can see their ok images turn into something much better..It is somewhat fascinating. I am not about making just a quick buck but hey we all gotta eat and paybills right? I post pictures for CC to grow and develop. Not every time I agree but many times I do and when I don"t agree I will analyze my photo and see if changing things makes it difference to me sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. Your last statment about selling stuff is not a braometer of skill of craftsmanship but, indeed it is..the skill to sell something is the point you are missing. If I could sell stuff at walmart and earn a good living I don't care thats bringing in the money paying the bills funding the business. Things don't just have to sell in art galleries or high end places to say their is skill involved. 

Take this same way of looking at things into painting. You have many styles of painting from abstract to surreal and everything in between. I look at impressionism and think WOW takes talent to do that, then I look at paint splatter paintings and think where is the skill in this, but it sells people buy it. Then I look at Esher and WOW how in the world does he do that, then Andy Warhol and think this is not good...but it sells.

The point is that there are millions of people in this world and they all have different tastes. We can not just judge and say someone does not have skill or put them down but yes we can express our opinion and leave it that without categorizing peoples methods/talents as good or bad and think its how everyone sees it. Opinions matter assumptions don't


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Dec 15, 2011)

vipgraphx said:


> GooniesNeverSatDie11-
> 
> The usage of eye candy was in general terms not just me. How do you define many people is that your opinion or assumption? I do agree with you on in what you said about looking back to when we first start off and over processed images.  Looking at from that perspective I think its because people can see their ok images turn into something much better..It is somewhat fascinating. I am not about making just a quick buck but hey we all gotta eat and paybills right? I post pictures for CC to grow and develop. Not every time I agree but many times I do and when I don"t agree I will analyze my photo and see if changing things makes it difference to me sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. Your last statment about selling stuff is not a braometer of skill of craftsmanship but, indeed it is..the skill to sell something is the point you are missing. If I could sell stuff at walmart and earn a good living I don't care thats bringing in the money paying the bills funding the business. Things don't just have to sell in art galleries or high end places to say their is skill involved.
> 
> ...


 To be clear my post was also generalized, although in reaction to your viewpoint. I did not mean it as a specific attack on you, just responding to the points that you raised. So I do not have some hostile intent.

As for your thoughts on selling items, I still do not agree. Not everything is about money. Some people do not care about selling images at all, they just want to make quality pictures. You mention paintings. Many of the paintings that sell for top dollar today, were worth that well after the fact. The person that painted them did not structure their craft in order to mass market their art. I believe it is you that missed the point of my Walmart analogy. Quantity does NOT EQUAL QUALITY. It may pay your bills, and if you are satisfied with that, then great. However, some people want to have pride in their work, and put the integrity of their craft above monetary value. Lets face it, I could take pictures with a 5 megapixel $50 point and shoot camera and PP the hell out of them and find people that will buy the images. I wouldn't be able to live with myself though.


----------



## MLeeK (Dec 15, 2011)

The problem with "It Sells" is that my name is associated with that work. I do not want my name associated with anything mediocre.


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 15, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> vipgraphx said:
> 
> 
> > GooniesNeverSatDie11-
> ...




Good points!

And with that said I do agree with you about those artists who have passed on many years ago. The saying I am worth more dead than alive is what came to mind. I pride myself on my work really I do. With my quality control at my graphic design and printing shop I pride myself on having only one dissatisfied customer in the years I have been in business and I offered a full refund to them. I will not hire just anyone and they need to have the same work ethic and integrity as I do thus why its hard to find people like that however that is apples and oranges to what we are talking about here. In photography I don't think I will ever hit a point were I could make a comfterable living as much as I enjoy it and would like to sell my prints its not as easy 1,2,3 so my name has no baring on who I am as a person or what I can achieve in time there always is a starting point. I can bring photography into my business though. I can take pictures at car shows tweak them and print them on t-shirts for those guys who just love their classic cars. Their is a big market for that and a place where photography can bring in another avenue of money into my business. If I can get paid what I love to do I am so cool with that. This is where HDR comes into play. People well lets not just say all people but many love to see their classic car on their shirts something that is a great gift idea but from my dealings with cars and shirts is that photo realistic does not sell like highly saturated, selective colored, painterly look images do. 

Anyways I see your points and hopefully you see mine. Sometimes emails and postings are not the  best form of communication.:hug::


----------



## Dom6663 (Dec 15, 2011)

I remember I once did a selective coloring edit. But my reasoning back then was because I was a new photographer (im still new) and thought it looked cool, difficult, and all these adjectives that would only increase the aesthetic value of my photo, to teenagers. 







I thought this pic was *the sh*t *back when I took/processed it.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Dec 15, 2011)

HDR is the modern day selective coloring.  Yeah when its done right it looks good but overall I'll be glad when this fad is frowned upon too. Although I've yet to uninstall Photomatix lol


----------



## cyngus (Dec 15, 2011)

if you saw every movie do the "matrix bullet effect" you'd be sick of seeing it.. kinda the way i feel about selective coloring


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Dec 18, 2011)

For an example of when selective color works...




Lazy Photographer said:


>


----------



## mishele (Dec 18, 2011)

Whenever I think of selective coloring, this is what I think of......
I know this isn't photography but I believe it holds the essence of what makes selective coloring work. If you choose to use it, you need to have a powerful subject that helps provoke thoughts about the rest of the picture...=)


----------



## DiskoJoe (Dec 19, 2011)

Here is a post I made with a few selective desaturations from when I went to NOLA. 

New Orleans - Playing For Tips - SkyscraperPage Forum


----------



## mikemueller2112 (Dec 19, 2011)

I think it works well if there is a lack of colour in the image to begin with. That image with the building works well, because I don't think there's a huge variance in colours (the yellow of the light is still fairly subtle) in contrast to the greys. The week I got my camera I made one of these, I don't think it's too cheesy because there was a lack of colour aside from the orange which has been highlighted. I basically got rid of some of the yellows that were in the text.


----------

