Selective colour in photography...

Skyline On Fire

Skyline On Fire

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,391
Name
Luke
Edit My Images
Yes
Do you feel there's a place for selective colour in serious photography, or do you just dismiss it as a gimmick?

As most people did, when I first discovered the wonders of photoshop and layers I had a play with it, but quickly decided it just looked damn gimmicky and didn't touch it again.

Recently had a play with a shot I took a while back for my project 365 http://takemetoanotherplace.deviantart.com/gallery/26316566

day_162_by_takemetoanotherplace-d38ex7z.jpg


http://takemetoanotherplace.deviantart.com/art/Day-162-195531695

I mean it's no masterpiece but it brightened up an otherwise pretty dull photograph.

Has anyone here ever used it for more serious work? I still don't think I'd ever do it, other than maybe to highlight certain colours more than others, but there are better ways of doing that with CS5 than selective colour.
 
Same as Keith. I've recently converted a whole shoot to selective colour at the clients request, but would never do it myself after those early excited experiments.
 
I'll add that I do use selective desaturation quite a bit though. It's much more subtle and just as effective.
 
its down there with HDR or most B&W street photography - only done to polish a turd.
 
POAH said:
its down there with HDR or most B&W street photography - only done to polish a turd.
Click to expand...

although I quite like some HDR and B&W your comment did make me pee myself laughing and spit out my coffee ;)
 
I've done a few selective colour prints for pictures I've taken at friends' weddings and they've absolutely loved them.

IMO, with photography being a form of art, there's going to be lots of stuff that's like Marmite where some people hate it and others love it.

Also, certain photos lend themself better to different "enhancements", there are a million and one difference scenarios but if someone has a particular colour scheme in their lounge and really want a picture where the majority of colours are going to clash then selective colour would allow that picture to look good on their lounge wall.
 
I actually think it can work if it's done tastefully.


1964-BW_web by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

But then we hall have different tastes don't we. I actually think that it can be used far more than just to "polish a turd". I once set out to take a picture of a traditional telephone box with the idea of using that in a selective colour shot, but couldn't find one !

Steve
 
At the end of the day it depends on personal taste. Selective colouring, I think, can work if done well and not overused. But you do have to question why it's used so much, there obviously have to be people out there who like it otherwise nobody would be doing it.

I personally prefer selective desaturation, as Dean mentioned, I feel it's a much less harsh result that works well a lot of the time. However in some cases that harsh result is exactly what people are after and that's why it's done.

I don't think it's appropriate to go around dismissing it's use as "polishing a turd", if customers like it and they're going to pay for it then people are going to do it.

HDR is similar, I like it when it's done well and discreetly, I have also seen a few photos where it's intentionally done completely over the top and I can appreciate it as a creation of art. It is however something that is very easy to do very badly and I think that contributes a lot to peoples dislike of it.
 
POAH said:
its down there with HDR or most B&W street photography - only done to polish a turd.
Click to expand...

You cant polish a turd...... but you can roll it in colourful glitter!
 
Worse use i've ever seen - wedding shot, two little bridesmaids, each holding a bottle of bright orange pop- you can image what the tog decided to leave in colour! :eek:

It can be used sometimes to good effect.
 
Last edited:
Rokkin said:
Worse use i've ever seen - wedding shot, two little bridesmaids, each holding a bottle of bright orange pop- you can image what the tog decided to leave in colour! :eek:

It can be used sometimes to good effect.
Click to expand...

Now that is NASTY!!!! :lol:

In a different scenario but similar outcome.....

At my niece's birthday party (think it was her 3rd Birthday) one of her friends (who happens to be my parent's neighbour's little girl) was drinking out of a pink cup and was wearing a pink sun hat.

There were other colours going on in the background (as you can imagine being a kids party in the summer) and the picture was OK but didn't really do Millie any justice as she's as cute as anything (yes, broody side is coming out :lol: )

Anyway, I went selective colour on her hat and her cup, her parents loved it :cool:
 
If you don't like selective colour don't do it!
It works with some images others it doesn't, it's one of those love it or hate it things. If it works for you go ahead, the world would be very boring if we all liked the same thing.

PS you can polish a turd, Mythbusters did it ages back.
 
Here's the photo's I mentioned earlier (OK, I got the colours a bit wrong but they were taken a couple of years ago ;) )

IMG_4889-BW.jpg


IMG_4890-BW.jpg


One at my cousin's wedding

mini-IMG_3483-BWColour.jpg


Friends' wedding

IMG_2663BW1_Resize.jpg


KerryDave01resize.jpg
 
Last edited:
Radiohead said:
It makes my teeth itch.
Click to expand...

:plusone:

It might be a preference but I cannot take any picture seriously that has colour selecting. It's almost worse when people cant get the rest of the tones as black and white, but rather leave then gray and dull.
 
i dont get the comparisons with hdr, one is about colouring parts if a mono image the other is about adding more dynamic range
 
A good picture is a good picture - regardless of technique. Often too much consideration is placed on the method at the expense of the image.
 
What possible emotive narrative does it add to a photo?

In both HDR and B&W (if done well) those techniques enhance details and draw you into the photo. The technique serves the photo the photo does not serve the technique. With selective colour it just informs you that the groom wore a pink cravat. It draws attention to the technique used as opposed to the subject in the photo.

It's up there with shooting muscular shirtless men holding babies or girls with angel wings.
 
I wouldn't say that I "HATE" selective colour. It's a technique that's just as valid as any other one when used on an appropriate photo.
However, IMO there are very few photographs that are actually improved by using selective colouring.
Given the choice, I think that selective desaturation is far more subtle and attractive . . . but it's ultimately a matter of personal taste.

And there are some photographs where I think it works well.
This example posted earlier in the thread really appeals to me - I think because even though it's selective colour, the end result still has some subtlety to it.

Dervish99 said:

The Observor B&W by dervish99, on Flickr
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I'm not a fan of it but I have used it on a couple of occasions. I think the key is subtlety and also the choice of colour. I always think if you're going to use it, red seems to be the colour that works for me but it should only be a small part of the image. It can also be a very emotive colour, just think of the girl in the red coat in Schindler's List.

Of course, sometimes it's just crying out to be done! :D

DSC07624-Edit-2.jpg
 
Personal preference is the order of the day here I think.

There's so many different avenue's in photography that I definitely think there's a place for selective color.

f71032b6.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top