# Avert Your Eyes - Selective Coloring in Effect



## AgentDrex (Jun 18, 2012)

Hopping on the abandoned bandwagon.  Flame away!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 18, 2012)

This is just evidence that many new 35 year old men suddenly hit advanced senility!  (and often buy a sports car, and get an 18 year old mistress too!)

I like that one better than most...


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Jun 18, 2012)

Its black and white, and color, all in* one picture! *

You sir, are a master of light and sound. 

:lmao:


----------



## Jaemie (Jun 18, 2012)

"This must be what going mad feels like."


----------



## GreggS (Jun 18, 2012)

So...Yes I'm a photography newbie, yes I've experimented with selective color/color splash. After spending some time on TPF, I realize it's a huge "newbie red flag" and is generally HATED by the majority of experienced photographers. At the risk of sounding too fresh...why is it disliked so much by experienced photographers? I'm looking for legitimate responses...not looking to get bashed for asking the question.

Thanks!


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Jun 18, 2012)

GreggS said:


> So...Yes I'm a photography newbie, yes I've experimented with selective color/color splash. After spending some time on TPF, I realize it's a huge "newbie red flag" and is generally HATED by the majority of experienced photographers. At the risk of sounding too fresh...why is it disliked so much by experienced photographers? I'm looking for legitimate responses...not looking to get bashed for asking the question.
> 
> Thanks!



Besides being a technique that is worn out and tired from it's boom in popularity about a decade ago, it *almost never* enhances a photo. 99% of the time it is distracting or unnecessary.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 18, 2012)

As Rotanimod said! Very few photos are actually improved by selective color... it is mostly a gimmick used by some in an attempt to improve the unimproveable!


----------



## AgentDrex (Jun 18, 2012)

Yeah, most times its done wrong.  Like a red bow on a young girl's head in a b&w portrait.  It detracts from the subject.  A good photo (in my opinion) should cause the viewer to look at the whole photo, not just one area.  When you do selective coloring, you generate more visual interest in a small portion of the photo.  Kind of defeats the purpose of the photo.  Then again, a lot of people like it as well.  Que sera sera me thinks.  My photo here uses it well enough.  But its still gimmicky and unnecessary.

Go outside, find a piece of dog poo.  Now take that brown monstrosity and put a nice, shiny, red ribbon on it.  Now smell it.  Does it smell better with the pretty ribbon?  No?  Same thing with a photo.  If it doesn't come out of the camera looking good, no amount of "pretty ribbons" is going to save it.


----------



## snowbear (Jun 18, 2012)

I've seen very few examples that work (or rather, that work for me) and most were in advertising.
You could have added some white vignetting to make it extra special.


----------



## GreggS (Jun 18, 2012)

AgentDrex said:


> Yeah, most times its done wrong.  Like a red bow on a young girl's head in a b&w portrait.  It detracts from the subject.  A good photo (in my opinion) should cause the viewer to look at the whole photo, not just one area.  When you do selective coloring, you generate more visual interest in a small portion of the photo.  Kind of defeats the purpose of the photo.  Then again, a lot of people like it as well.  Que sera sera me thinks.  My photo here uses it well enough.  But its still gimmicky and unnecessary.
> 
> Go outside, find a piece of dog poo.  Now take that brown monstrosity and put a nice, shiny, red ribbon on it.  Now smell it.  Does it smell better with the pretty ribbon?  No?  Same thing with a photo.  If it doesn't come out of the camera looking good, no amount of "pretty ribbons" is going to save it.



Thanks for the response. Rotanimod was nice enough to check out some of the selective color shots I've done and give me feedback. He happened to give decent feedback on my favorite of the bunch. I realize that you say the majority of time it's done wrong...but in this case, I feel it added to the final photo. I'd really appreciate your feedback on this shot as well if you don't mind...if I'm wrong, it's good to know for the future. (please ignore the watermark...I don't have the chance to take it off right now.)


----------



## snowbear (Jun 18, 2012)

GreggS said:


> Thanks for the response. Rotanimod was nice enough to check out some of the selective color shots I've done and give me feedback. He happened to give decent feedback on my favorite of the bunch. I realize that you say the majority of time it's done wrong...but in this case, I feel it added to the final photo. I'd really appreciate your feedback on this shot as well if you don't mind...if I'm wrong, it's good to know for the future. (please ignore the watermark...I don't have the chance to take it off right now.)



I think this one works.  The background is simple, the subject is obvious (with or without the color) so there is no confusion; it helps that it is a strong photo to begin with, though uncentering the leaf may improve it a bit.


----------



## JG_Coleman (Jun 18, 2012)

GreggS said:


> So...Yes I'm a photography newbie, yes I've experimented with selective color/color splash. After spending some time on TPF, I realize it's a huge "newbie red flag" and is generally HATED by the majority of experienced photographers. At the risk of sounding too fresh...why is it disliked so much by experienced photographers? I'm looking for legitimate responses...not looking to get bashed for asking the question.
> 
> Thanks!



Pretty much entirely agree with many of the previous responses.  Certain techniques, like selective color, just don't hold too much all-around usefulness in terms of creating a photograph with more emotional appeal, more striking visuals or stronger communicative qualities as compared to the same photograph without selective color applied.  It honestly doesn't get more technical or complicated than that, because the degree to which selective color is frowned upon is the degree to which it tends to be used indiscriminately without any apparent thought as to whether or not it was _actually improving_ the photograph it was applied to.  Selective color simply tends not to be very impactful in most photographs, but rather to be somewhat distracting and strange.

I think the important question to ask yourself when considering selective coloring is:

*"Is there a clear purpose for using this technique which will genuinely enhance the photograph?"  *

If you can't really think of a clear purpose, then it's probably just the novelty value that got you thinking about it in the first place.

There are undoubtedly those individuals that will think that my criteria for using selective color is "too purposeful", "too stuffy" or "too self-conscious" for the realm of art.  But as much as art is about expressing one's self, that expression is degraded if we forget that the choices we make in creating our art need to communicate in some way with our viewers.  The use of editing techniques that don't really communicate any enhanced emotional/introspective response just tend to detract from whatever it is that we're communicating.  So, I think that there's more that ought to go into it besides "hey, this looks neato!"... and, quite frankly, I feel like most examples of selective color editing emerge from that very thought.


----------



## AgentDrex (Jun 19, 2012)

> You could have added some white vignetting to make it extra special.



I will do that in a future edit.  Thank you for the tip.  I may also add a watermark using the Verdana font!


----------



## AgentDrex (Jun 21, 2012)

Well here it is:


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 21, 2012)

AgentDrex said:


> Well here it is:
> 
> View attachment 11919



Very nice... it looks like you graduated the freshman class of the Facebook Academy of photographic art (Except your watermark is not big enough)!  lol!   (no offense intended!)


----------



## sm4him (Jun 21, 2012)

AgentDrex said:


> Well here it is:
> 
> View attachment 11919



Oh, yes, THAT did it!! Perfect!! Well, "perfect" in a very twisted definition of the word. 

Actually, I agree with Charlie; that watermark is not NEARLY obtrusive enough.


----------



## AgentDrex (Jun 21, 2012)

None taken!  I was going to do an angled watermark across the whole photo but then decided to add two smaller ones on opposite corners.  By the way, I re-joined facebook if anyone wants to add me...I don't know if this will work or not but here's the link to my profile regardless:

Craig Myran | Facebook


----------



## sm4him (Jun 21, 2012)

GreggS said:


> Thanks for the response. Rotanimod was nice enough to check out some of the selective color shots I've done and give me feedback. He happened to give decent feedback on my favorite of the bunch. I realize that you say the majority of time it's done wrong...but in this case, I feel it added to the final photo. I'd really appreciate your feedback on this shot as well if you don't mind...if I'm wrong, it's good to know for the future. (please ignore the watermark...I don't have the chance to take it off right now.)



If you really want feedback on this photo, you should probably create your own thread for that, rather than hijacking this one.


----------



## snowbear (Jun 21, 2012)

AgentDrex said:


> Well here it is:
> 
> View attachment 11919



Yep - that's what I'm talkin' about!


----------



## GreggS (Jun 21, 2012)

sm4him said:


> GreggS said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the response. Rotanimod was nice enough to check out some of the selective color shots I've done and give me feedback. He happened to give decent feedback on my favorite of the bunch. I realize that you say the majority of time it's done wrong...but in this case, I feel it added to the final photo. I'd really appreciate your feedback on this shot as well if you don't mind...if I'm wrong, it's good to know for the future. (please ignore the watermark...I don't have the chance to take it off right now.)
> ...



Didn't mean to 'hijack' a thread...in any case...I don't think I did. And when i'm targeting feedback from the audience specific to this thread, I think it's a legitimate post.


----------



## Joel_W (Jun 21, 2012)

Your definition of that a good photograph should make the viewer look at the whole image. In your 1st image I just focused on the yellow colored Daisies, yet I do like the composition. I guess you can call that sitting on the fence.


----------



## ghache (Jun 21, 2012)

Jaemie said:


> "This must be what going mad feels like."



i guess you know the feeling.


----------



## Jaemie (Jun 21, 2012)

ghache said:


> Jaemie said:
> 
> 
> > "This must be what going mad feels like."
> ...



It was a Firefly quote.  Heh...


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 21, 2012)

GreggS said:


> Didn't mean to 'hijack' a thread...in any case...I don't think I did. And when I'm targeting feedback from the audience specific to this thread, I think it's a legitimate post.



Isn't that a bit like stopping on someone's toe and then telling them it didn't hurt?


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jun 21, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> GreggS said:
> 
> 
> > So...Yes I'm a photography newbie, yes I've experimented with selective color/color splash. After spending some time on TPF, I realize it's a huge "newbie red flag" and is generally HATED by the majority of experienced photographers. At the risk of sounding too fresh...why is it disliked so much by experienced photographers? I'm looking for legitimate responses...not looking to get bashed for asking the question.
> ...



Yet, Kim Anderson photos have sold by the millions.


----------



## northierthanthou (Jun 21, 2012)

Neat!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 21, 2012)

HughGuessWho said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > GreggS said:
> ...



yes.. and she does it artfully! Because of that popularity, it has been overdone by the masses... most of who do not do it artfully. Which is probably why so many are tired of seeing bad photos done that way!  (but you already knew that!)


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jun 21, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> HughGuessWho said:
> 
> 
> > Rotanimod said:
> ...



Agreed. My point was that selective color isnt bad, bad photos are bad, selective color or not.

Selective color, HDR, Faux DoF... aint gonna fix a bad picture.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jun 21, 2012)

AgentDrex said:
			
		

> Well here it is:
> 
> <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=11919"/>



This photo is eyegasmic....


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 21, 2012)

AgentDrex said:


> Well here it is:
> 
> View attachment 11919



Your watermark(s) aren't big enough.  :-D


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 21, 2012)

well I sound dumb, I didn't finish reading the whole thread and I see now that Charlie beat me to it on the corrective watermark statement.  blah.


----------



## AgentDrex (Jun 22, 2012)

Hahahahahahaha.....oh so much fun reading all of this...by the way (and this is just me), I don't mind any of my threads being "highjacked"...as long as everyone gets a chance to learn and teach and the "highjack" at least has some semblence to the original theme, I'm down for it and will not be hurt by it...


----------

