First go at selective coloring....

[jajomo]

This is a rose from my moms 70th b-day party. I placed it in a bare and dying bush...because I like that the rose was start to dye also. Any type of CC is welcomed.

[Ads]

[Sbuxo]

Honestly, so cliche. The fact that the background is out of focus, we can't even tell if you placed it in a dying bush or a normal bush. I would make the background darker, it just seems to flat in my opinion. I don't know if you raised the contrast to make it pop more, but I can see magenta in some of the petals. If that's from the rose 'dying' then fine, if not, fix it if you can. I would of liked a bit more negative space than just the rose smack dab in my face. Try playing with angles..sorry if it sounds as if I'm just picking at your photo but this is just so overdone, and I'm over it.

Happy Birthday to your Mom.

[Fedaykin]

Though performed well, this has been done approximately 234,567 times in the past year alone, sorry.

[Boomn4x4]

I'm not a fan of selective coloring in general... its rare I feel like it works. This is no exception.

For selective coloring to work, it must be used to bring attention to a subject that would have normally been lost in the shot. In this case, there is no reason to bring subject to the rose because there is nothing in that shot that would have hidden the rose. Its like Dolly Parton wearing a t-shirt that says, "look at my boobs".

[JasonLambert]

Its like Dolly Parton wearing a t-shirt that says, "look at my boobs".

Hahahahahah!!!!!

Okay... I have to agree that it doesn't work here but I do like it in some cases. I bet it was a nice photo without all the PSing. Can you post what you started from? Possibly just a little PP (i said little pp) to give it the kick it needs?

[jajomo]

Never claimed it was an original idea...only that it was my first attempt at PP like this. Thanks for definition of selective coloring. I'll keep that in mind for my next attempt. Appreciate the time taken for the CC everyone.

These are the originals. No PP at all. I didn't like the green steam so that was my reasoning for the tight crop.

[er111a]

interesting, but in photography you have to try to fine a new way never seen before, but this is cool.....like the last 10,000,000 ones

[jajomo]

Never claimed it was an original idea...only that it was my first attempt at PP like this.

Just as my photo maybe boring and done a million times....repeating the same sentiment as all the other posters does nothing to help me get better. The comment about how to use selective coloring that helped. The poster who wanted to see the original to maybe get a better idea where I was coming from...that helped....but just restating the all ready stated does nothing for me...but if it helps your post count please feel free to post away at any thread I may start in the future.

interesting, but in photography you have to try to fine a new way never seen before, but this is cool.....like the last 10,000,000 ones

[burstintoflame81]

So every photo that people take of a model and retouch isn't good because its been done a million times? Or every macro shot of a fly or spiders face sucks because its been done a million times? The guy didn't come on here claiming to be the most original photographer in the world. He was just asking for some C+C.

With that said, I am not a huge fan of selective coloring either, but I think in addition to the background being a little darker you could have lit the flower better, and looks like it has a bit of a blue color cast to part of it. ( I am on my laptop though so my screen kinda sucks. )

[da1nonlymikeo]

for real. the community on this forum kinda sucks. he asked for some advise, and everyone bashes. just like EVERY OTHER post i seem to click on in this forum. idk if its just this forum, or artsy photo nerds are just cocky a**'s. k thanks, now lets hear what you have to say to me.

[da1nonlymikeo]

oh and btw, I really like the second non PP shot you posted, you should give it another try with that one, I would definitely like the results.

[mostly sunny]

It's ok.. But I don't say WOW like I did with this....
Pg 2
Day 20
Project 365 - Page 2 - Dominant Photography-- Brandon Fischer

[aliciaqw]

for real. the community on this forum kinda sucks. he asked for some advise, and everyone bashes. just like EVERY OTHER post i seem to click on in this forum. idk if its just this forum, or artsy photo nerds are just cocky a**'s. k thanks, now lets hear what you have to say to me.

As a noob, I have to say that there are some VERY helpul, insightful individuals here. For every one of those however, there's another person who gets a couple of good CC's and starts to think their poop smells as good as those selectively colored roses. You just learn to ignore them because like I said, there are some people here who make it worthwhile to post.

[Fedaykin]

for real. the community on this forum kinda sucks. he asked for some advise, and everyone bashes. just like EVERY OTHER post i seem to click on in this forum. idk if its just this forum, or artsy photo nerds are just cocky a**'s. k thanks, now lets hear what you have to say to me.

In this case, we're doing the OP a service by expressing the general dislike of such incredibly cliched shots as these. This isn't the same as 'generic bee Macro' or 'generic model retouching', this is a specific shot that has been done to death and is to the point that 90% of photographers ignore/hate it. I a talking about 'selectively colored rose', not selective coloring in general, which when done right can work well(see "Shindler's List").

Also, the cursing/rudeness is unnecessary and unwarranted. If you don't like the community the door is right over there --->

[burstintoflame81]

for real. the community on this forum kinda sucks. he asked for some advise, and everyone bashes. just like EVERY OTHER post i seem to click on in this forum. idk if its just this forum, or artsy photo nerds are just cocky a**'s. k thanks, now lets hear what you have to say to me.

In this case, we're doing the OP a service by expressing the general dislike of such incredibly cliched shots as these. This isn't the same as 'generic bee Macro' or 'generic model retouching', this is a specific shot that has been done to death and is to the point that 90% of photographers ignore/hate it. I a talking about 'selectively colored rose', not selective coloring in general, which when done right can work well(see "Shindler's List").

Also, the cursing/rudeness is unnecessary and unwarranted. If you don't like the community the door is right over there --->

How are you doing him a service? You certainly didn't help give him any advice on executing that photo better, which was the point of his post. And selective coloring of a rose is EXACTLY the same as the cliche things I mentioned. Go on Flickr and search how many close ups of a bugs face you can find. The only thing you are managing to do is dillute the quality of this forum. Now had you attached some meaningful criticism to your pointless post, then I would have said "well he is stating his opinion that its been done a lot, which he is entitled to, while also offering some help" but instead your post was pointless and didn't offer any type of critique to help the photographer do a better job. Its irrelivant as to how common his shots are, he is asking for help and you did a dis-service by not trying to help. What if someone comes on here asking what kind of lighting to use to take your basic elementary school child portraits for school? Are you going to scoff at that and say "dude thats been being done at every school for years and years".