Selective Colour

Marzi

Marzi

Suspended / Banned
Messages
124
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All.

Only started just over a month ago and have noticed on the forum that alot of people do not like pictures with selective colour in them.

Was just wondering why this was the case?

Is it because it is done alot or is it just a general distaste for it?

Was just curious
 
It's quite a common processing technique that I think everyone tries at some point in their photographic journey. As such, it's done to death on all manner of subjects.

That doesn't mean it's not a valid processing method and there are some great examples out there of it working when done well.

As with anything photographic, it's all a matter of personal taste :thumbs:
 
It's true that people don't like it because they have, perhaps, gone past that point. But the people on here are photographers...they've often seen it all before (or think they have. ;) ) and don't always understand that people newer to photography HAVE to try these things.
Also, bear in mind that a non-photographer will probably like it a whole lot more than a photographer.
 
SCS - Selective Colour Stazi :D

People make statements and follow the crowd, the 'arts' are just that way, "oh it's so 1980's dear!" - if selective colour is used carefully and with purpose I believe it has a rightful place but if you start using 50% of a photo in selective I think you will lose the argument.

e.g. a drab wet street scene and a woman walking with an umbrella, the umbrella selectively coloured and the remainder desaturated or mono that sort of thing can work.
 
Simmotino said:
It's quite a common processing technique that I think everyone tries at some point in their photographic journey. As such, it's done to death on all manner of subjects.

That doesn't mean it's not a valid processing method and there are some great examples out there of it working when done well.

As with anything photographic, it's all a matter of personal taste :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Totally agree it is personal taste and some examples do look good.

Bend The Light said:
It's true that people don't like it because they have, perhaps, gone past that point. But the people on here are photographers...they've often seen it all before (or think they have. ;) ) and don't always understand that people newer to photography HAVE to try these things.
Also, bear in mind that a non-photographer will probably like it a whole lot more than a photographer.
Click to expand...

Definetly noticed amongst my friends who are not intrested in photography that they like selective colour with canvas's etc, however the people I know who are intrested in photography are very critical of the process.

gramps said:
SCS - Selective Colour Stazi :D

People make statements and follow the crowd, the 'arts' are just that way, "oh it's so 1980's dear!" - if selective colour is used carefully and with purpose I believe it has a rightful place but if you start using 50% of a photo in selective I think you will lose the argument.

e.g. a drab wet street scene and a woman walking with an umbrella, the umbrella selectively coloured and the remainder desaturated or mono that sort of thing can work.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree that if done properly it can work and look good. I myself do like it but agree it has been done way too much on subjects that didn't need it.
 
Because its normally done to demonstrate the photographer's 'skill' with post processing rather then to add any value to the photo
 
Selective colouring looked rubbish when it was first done on yoof TV in the early 90's - and it still looks bad today.

Furthermore, I think a lot of people use the technique to try and cover up... i.e. 'improve' what is an already badly taken photograph.

In the vast majority of cases, selective colouring is unsettling on the eye and contributes absolutely nothing to an image. It is extremely rare that you come across an image where it actually works. I've only seen one good example of selective colouring this year.

So to sum up, its the work of Satan.
 
Yep, it's often used in a desperate attempt to "rescue" a shot that is not particularly good. This is one of the reasons why I'm not a fan of "effect" photography in general.
 
For me the biggest problem with FOTM processing (selective colour, HDR, etc) is that an image is picked, the process applied.. and very frequently it's just not that interesting an image to start with (poor composition, dull subject - typically with HDR it's an unwashed car or the view of the shed in the garden on a dull day) or the subject just doesn't suit the process (selective colour needs an image where colours are clearly defined).

Start with a good image, apply sympathetic processing and the result will always be worthwhile.

Here's a question for anyone processing a selective colour image at the moment.. why did you choose red? :lol:
 
So to sum up, its the work of Satan.
Click to expand...

agreed....'except when a portrait client specifically asked for it and then spent £1000 on two pictures (only one of which featured said effect). I know, I'm going to hell for that....but I was probably going anyway.
 
DT01 said:
agreed....'except when a portrait client specifically asked for it and then spent £1000 on two pictures (only one of which featured said effect). I know, I'm going to hell for that....but I was probably going anyway.
Click to expand...

Roger that dude. The customer is always right....may not be correct....but always right..
 
I was looking at a "proper" photographer's website last night, and he had images taken during this years riots.

Some of them had areas that were clearly partially desaturated. Shops signs were dulled down to match the surrounding concrete and brickwork. Standing out amongst this were bright colourful flames, or hi-vis vests.

Is this not a form of selective colouring?
 
If you're talking about a Press photographer, then I'd be very surprised if the image had been altered like that.

Remember that when it's dark colours tend to flatten anyway and the flames & high-vis gear would have stood out like sore thumbs.
 
yes and may work well to highlight exacty what the photographer wanted to convey.

As said above it can work....... but rarely does. I've used it and probably have one on my own website that I've not updated in ages - but no ger use it much unless a customer requests it (which they do)!
 
I like it but I'm not bothered if anyone else does or doesn't, I dance to my own (slightly mad) drummer lol :banana:
 
I used to like it.... but as noted above one you get more experiene you'll get past that point. You'll wonder what you seen in it.
 
IanRC said:
Is that not what all post processing is about?
Click to expand...

Not really....
You cannot make a silk purse from a sows ear as it were. Get the shot right and and the post processing can enhance it.
 
Alastair said:
No.
Click to expand...

I am a complete novice when it comes to post processing, what I don't understand is, if the photo is perfect straight out of the camera why do you need to post process? If it is not perfect, and you post process, then that is the point I was making (perhaps not very well).
 
Ian, for some people, perhaps shooting in jpeg, they maybe happy with the image straight out of the camera but certainly for those shooting in RAW (NEF for Nikon) the image is literally raw, it needs to be adjusted to make it come to 'perfection'.
The advantage is that there is much more to work with in a RAW image so the photographer can either process nearest to what he saw (better than possible in a degraded 'average' jpeg image) or he can manipulate the image with processing to 'paint' it the way he or she wants.
 
IanRC said:
I am a complete novice when it comes to post processing, what I don't understand is, if the photo is perfect straight out of the camera why do you need to post process? If it is not perfect, and you post process, then that is the point I was making (perhaps not very well).
Click to expand...

OK - on a very basic level every digital photograph will have a degree of post processing applied, even if its only those settings you've chosen to apply in the camera, its still some level of PP. Every photo needs some work as well. RAW files straight out of the camera are dull and lifeless regardless of how well taken they are.

PP isn't a way of fixing a bad photo (though there is some limited scope for exposure and crop changes etc etc) but enhancing a good one.

That may be as simple as boosting the levels, or increasing contrast to give a little more 'punch', fixing a subjects skin (you couldn't do that in camera) or removing minor irritations that detract from the photo, or even just a B & W conversion. PP has been with us as long as photography, knowing how to use it well can enhance a good photo into an even better one
 
IanRC said:
I am a complete novice when it comes to post processing, what I don't understand is, if the photo is perfect straight out of the camera why do you need to post process? If it is not perfect, and you post process, then that is the point I was making (perhaps not very well).
Click to expand...

Straight out of camera is still processed - it's all a matter of whether you choose to do it in-camera or afterwards. But this is an argument between those that pursue the grail of a perfect SOOC image, and those that think it's a false quest. There is no answer, it's dogma ;)
 
And the PP debate is off to another flying start!

I've tried selective colour,never found it really worked, can be useful for certain types of product shots etc but as a rule it just doesn't look right really.
 
Thanks Gramps, Hugh and Alastair, you have given me a better understanding of why post processing is carried out.
 
Selective colour is generally low brow, which is why the masses like it. Because of that it probably won't be admired on a specific photography forum just as the arrangement of an X Factors contestants song won't be appreciated on a song writers forum.
 
It's a bit controversial for various reasons, but it really doesn't matter. Amateur photography is pretty personal. You learn, experiment, gain experience and shoot - mainly - for your own satisfaction. Professionals are usually bound by the client's wishes but they have their personal preferences too, and I've known a few who turn down commissions because they disagree with what the client wants, and won't put their name to it.

Some people have a passion for black and white, particularly in certain situations, and others can't see why anyone would shoot monochrome when colour is available. Shoot JPEG or raw, full auto or any other mode, process the images as you please, or don't process them at all if you don't want to. Your choice.

I like photographs of cats, mainly because I think cats are wonderful, but I'm not very interested in dogs and don't go out of my way to look at photographs of them. I don't take portraits either, because they bore me. That's not a value judgement, it's just my preferences.
 
The only obvious selective colouring I've ever done was in the darkroom with some strange gel to mask parts of the print and sepia / selenium toner. Much more fun then the PC version. If I was asked to create it for someone else then I would, you'd have to be an idiot to not provide someone with what they are asking for.

As for the comment on selectively desaturating sections of an image, it’s like any process. Do it well and most people won’t notice and you’ll have a great image. Do it poorly (over cooked HDR, a red floatation device on a B&W pier, etc) and it’ll look clichéd and amateur, not that being an amateur is anything to be ashamed of!

Post processing shouldn't be the cure for bad photographs. If the shots are bad, get back out there and try again until they are great!
 
the worst examples of selective colour i've seen is in fact in wedding photography;

a mono picture with a tiny flower or tie in colour. urrgh. dreadful.

it can look good, but i've seen few examples of it genuinely doing so.
 
Most professional photographers dislike it as I can see - and most of my friends with any sort of artistic eye dislike it too (the ones into crafts etc).

Of course, it does vary - I've seen a few good images where the surroundings are desaturated but not completely black and white where it works (to me that is, it's personal opinion!). I also remembering seeing a photo of silver wedding rings where they were kept silver with the rest black and white - the silver was subtle, but just had a bit more... Well looked nicer than just grey.


But unfortunately, most examples are red roses at a wedding or the eyes of children or pets, which just looks creepy!



Ian, even if a photograph is perfect out of camera, most times the size is reduced for digital viewing or prints, which reduces sharpness - so for viewing at a standard 1024x768 they'll need done PP sharpening even I'd they were perfect at full size.

Unless you're in even, completely unchanging lighting and can change to a custom white balance, that often will need a quick adjust too, as a cloud outside moving over the sun can change the settings you need :) And likewise if shooting in manual, that cloud could change your lighting by half a stop - which is a 2 second job to fix an otherwise perfect shot.

Does that make sense?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top