First bw photo with one object color!!

[TwoTwoLeft]

Just give it some time. You'll figure out who REALLY know what they're talking about, who the "weekend pros" are, and who's just kissing your ass because of your avatar pic... It's tough getting a fair critique if you're ridiculously good looking. Yet, I manage to struggle through it & fight the good fight every day...

 

[Lazy Photographer]

I think the coloured seat sort of draws one's attention away from the baby's face, which is the opposite effect you'd want. I just posted a black & white with a colour element. Have a look.
Cute shot, though.

 

[gsgary]

Uh, NO, that's a bad,bad analogy; inside, a softshell crab is sweet and delicious. Inside of gsgary it's all bile and muscle and fermented beer...




As to " First bw photo with one object color!!", somehow I don't think this is the first photo that has been made that way...I **think** I might have seen that done before, maybe, a time or two. But it's a brilliant idea, no doubt!

I'm soft on the outside

I had no idea you were from the UK. I look at this picture and I said, "Damn he looks like he is from the UK!" :lmao:

Well if you look below my name it says Chesterfield UK

 

[johnh2005]

Yeah, that is how I figured it out. That and I looked up "Guy from the UK" in the dictionary and it was that exact pic.

 

[mishele]

In other words, Gary is like a soft shell crab. Looks intimidating and hard on the outside, but you can just bite right through him.

Uh, NO, that's a bad,bad analogy; inside, a softshell crab is sweet and delicious. Inside of gsgary it's all bile and muscle and fermented beer...




As to " First bw photo with one object color!!", somehow I don't think this is the first photo that has been made that way...I **think** I might have seen that done before, maybe, a time or two. But it's a brilliant idea, no doubt!

I'm soft on the outside

How you doin?!!

 

[franco stacy]

I found it strange that the seat was colored and not what I would consider the focal point.

Thank you for negating your own point.

It didn't negate my point, but made my point. Opinion is grey matter, right and wrong is black and white and if its not, then grey matter again. There is a difference between liking it and not liking it and saying its wrong for an artist to do and will be shunned. As in all things, how good it is depends on the goals and objectives of that photo. Wasit for Enjoyment, archiving a moment in time, sales, journalism, creativity, society acceptance, shock and awe, popularity, resume catcher, that will determine how effective it is. Some gave me the impression that it was flat out wrong or somehow cheapening the art and to me they are blending in their taste with being right. Like taking a pornographic photo of a 10 year old, that is wrong. Coloring images in a BW is only a matter of opinion. Some artist look to pay bills and others look to express themselves and some want both, to me neither one is right or wrong.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

It sounds to me like we shouldn't bother teaching anything about art, because in the end, if the doer likes it, that's all that matters.
Is that how I should start responding to c&c threads? "If you like it, that's all that matters."

Or is better to teach the theories and mechanics behind visual organization, and let the future artist make choices out of understanding rather than ignorance?

I will argue again, that if you respond to a noob doing selective color that, as long as they like it...YOU ARE NOT TEACHING THEM ANYTHING.

 

[Edsport]

As soon as i saw the first post with the selective coloring i thought there would be a bashing with immature comments. I wasn't wrong...

 

[The_Traveler]

As soon as i saw the first post with the selective coloring i thought there would be a bashing with immature comments. I wasn't wrong...

And of course yours is one of them, just dropping in to show how much better you are than all the rest of us.

 

[JeffieLove]

I don't think this thread is very useful anymore and I'm pretty sure it would be safe to lock it... Mods???

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I don't think this thread is very useful anymore and I'm pretty sure it would be safe to lock it... Mods???

Excuse me. There is valuable discussion going on. Would you care to contribute?

 

[franco stacy]

It sounds to me like we shouldn't bother teaching anything about art, because in the end, if the doer likes it, that's all that matters.
Is that how I should start responding to c&c threads? "If you like it, that's all that matters."

Or is better to teach the theories and mechanics behind visual organization, and let the future artist make choices out of understanding rather than ignorance?

I will argue again, that if you respond to a noob doing selective color that, as long as they like it...YOU ARE NOT TEACHING THEM ANYTHING.

Yes, like a flow chart on how to be spontaneous. If you ask about art, that is one thing and the answer will be worthless if you want a right and wrong answer. You ask about the mechanics of selective color and the technique and you provide a detailed description and perhaps society's fall out, then thats another viewpoint that is more objective. Answering artistic questions is like asking what't the prettiest flower, most beautiful woman, tastiest food or what is beauty, peace, happiness or satisfaction.

What do you tell a kid in art class that does a portrait in crayon....F because you didn't use a standard art tool, you used a childs play thing? You can teach art history and the lives of artists and the different styles and era's, but you can't run an assembly line in what is art and what is not. If you do its like a flow chart on how to be spontaneous.

 

[The_Traveler]

Yes, like a flow chart on how to be spontaneous. If you ask about art, that is one thing and the answer will be worthless if you want a right and wrong answer. You ask about the mechanics of selective color and the technique and you provide a detailed description and perhaps society's fall out, then thats another viewpoint that is more objective. Answering artistic questions is like asking what't the prettiest flower, most beautiful woman, tastiest food or what is beauty, peace, happiness or satisfaction.

What do you tell a kid in art class that does a portrait in crayon....F because you didn't use a standard art tool, you used a childs play thing? You can teach art history and the lives of artists and the different styles and era's, but you can't run an assembly line in what is art and what is not. If you do its like a flow chart on how to be spontaneous.

Pardon me for saying this, but what a colossal load of codswallop.
No one is trying to suppress art.
What people are saying is that a specific technique, which newbies seen to find as attractive as toddlers do their bowel movements, is generally ineffective and even ugly unless done by reasonably skilled and artistically insightful people. Technology has made it easy, but, as newbies do it, it is rarely done well just because their artistic vision is relatively primitive. Similarly to closeup portraits done with extreme wide angle. They may look interesting because they are unusual but but they are rare because they are, in general, ineffective in any artistic sense.

Only with some skill and taste do these become actually art rather than just grotesqueries.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

It sounds to me like we shouldn't bother teaching anything about art, because in the end, if the doer likes it, that's all that matters.
Is that how I should start responding to c&c threads? "If you like it, that's all that matters."

Or is better to teach the theories and mechanics behind visual organization, and let the future artist make choices out of understanding rather than ignorance?

I will argue again, that if you respond to a noob doing selective color that, as long as they like it...YOU ARE NOT TEACHING THEM ANYTHING.

Yes, like a flow chart on how to be spontaneous. If you ask about art, that is one thing and the answer will be worthless if you want a right and wrong answer. You ask about the mechanics of selective color and the technique and you provide a detailed description and perhaps society's fall out, then thats another viewpoint that is more objective. Answering artistic questions is like asking what't the prettiest flower, most beautiful woman, tastiest food or what is beauty, peace, happiness or satisfaction.

What do you tell a kid in art class that does a portrait in crayon....F because you didn't use a standard art tool, you used a childs play thing? You can teach art history and the lives of artists and the different styles and era's, but you can't run an assembly line in what is art and what is not. If you do its like a flow chart on how to be spontaneous.

Your argument is just all over the place. I NEVER said art is about right and wrong. It is about learning the FOUNDATIONS, which are GUIDES. Yes you do need to apply the context of the artists intent. On this forum the context is overwhelmingly people who buy cameras, with no experience in the many aspects of the world of art, who have decided to make a business out of portraiture. When giving crtitque, people here are, in general, sensitive to that fact. If the OP was doing a series of images, and the contextual statement was to bring attention to something we rarely appreciate, and titled the series "Thank A Chair", and then had 12 images of people sitting in selectively colored chairs...then the posted image works. It has an intent, context, and a message. It does exactly what selective coloring is effective at. That's bringing attention to the subject. I don't know how you can argue that it doesn't. You even said so in your "critique".

Your next paragraph is just out of the ballpark. Nobody is arguing about the medium used. A crayon is a standard tool. You are viewing it as a childs play thing, and passing judgement yourself. You also just applied a stereotype. That's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the foundations of visual organization and composition. These concepts have been around, AND USED for eons, and their existance has not stiffled creativity ONE BIT. We have the entire history of art to back that up.

We are also not talking about children here. We are talking about adults, who often are trying to become good at a craft. Good enough to sell their work and become successful, and compete against their more knowledgable peers. They come here to get better at what they do. They come here because they KNOW they are not measuring up to successful photographers. How do you help them? You teach them the FOUNDATIONS. You give them a guide to use to expand upon. The truely talented who gain a complete understanding, can then go on to challenge what is acceptable. Beginners cannot. They simply do not know what they are doing. They do not have an understanding of the visual language to back up what they have done.

Your response "as long as you like it" is not helpful, and I will say it as many times as I need, DOES NOT TEACH THEM ANYTHING. It does NOTHING to help the artist improve.
All it does is allow them to continue walking around in the dark, trying things willy nilly, with absolutely no understanding of what they are doing. Teaching fundamentals does NOT hamper creativity. It does the opposite. It allows the artist to further push the boundries without REINVENTING THE WHEEL.

It's like baking bread. You can take years of figuring out the science behind the ingredients, and lots of trial and error. Or you can start with a recipe, and start tweaking it from there. The recipe does not hamper your creativity! It gives you a successful starting place to push the boundaries, and create magnificient artisan breads. As you tweak that recipe, you start to understand how things work successfully, without having to first invent bread.

 

[gsgary]

It sounds to me like we shouldn't bother teaching anything about art, because in the end, if the doer likes it, that's all that matters.
Is that how I should start responding to c&c threads? "If you like it, that's all that matters."

Or is better to teach the theories and mechanics behind visual organization, and let the future artist make choices out of understanding rather than ignorance?

I will argue again, that if you respond to a noob doing selective color that, as long as they like it...YOU ARE NOT TEACHING THEM ANYTHING.

Yes, like a flow chart on how to be spontaneous. If you ask about art, that is one thing and the answer will be worthless if you want a right and wrong answer. You ask about the mechanics of selective color and the technique and you provide a detailed description and perhaps society's fall out, then thats another viewpoint that is more objective. Answering artistic questions is like asking what't the prettiest flower, most beautiful woman, tastiest food or what is beauty, peace, happiness or satisfaction.

What do you tell a kid in art class that does a portrait in crayon....F because you didn't use a standard art tool, you used a childs play thing? You can teach art history and the lives of artists and the different styles and era's, but you can't run an assembly line in what is art and what is not. If you do its like a flow chart on how to be spontaneous.

Your argument is just all over the place. I NEVER said art is about right and wrong. It is about learning the FOUNDATIONS, which are GUIDES. Yes you do need to apply the context of the artists intent. On this forum the context is overwhelmingly people who buy cameras, with no experience in the many aspects of the world of art, who have decided to make a business out of portraiture. When giving crtitque, people here are, in general, sensitive to that fact. If the OP was doing a series of images, and the contextual statement was to bring attention to something we rarely appreciate, and titled the series "Thank A Chair", and then had 12 images of people sitting in selectively colored chairs...then the posted image works. It has an intent, context, and a message. It does exactly what selective coloring is effective at. That's bringing attention to the subject. I don't know how you can argue that it doesn't. You even said so in your "critique".

Your next paragraph is just out of the ballpark. Nobody is arguing about the medium used. A crayon is a standard tool. You are viewing it as a childs play thing, and passing judgement yourself. You also just applied a stereotype. That's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the foundations of visual organization and composition. These concepts have been around, AND USED for eons, and their existance has not stiffled creativity ONE BIT. We have the entire history of art to back that up.

We are also not talking about children here. We are talking about adults, who often are trying to become good at a craft. Good enough to sell their work and become successful, and compete against their more knowledgable peers. They come here to get better at what they do. They come here because they KNOW they are not measuring up to successful photographers. How do you help them? You teach them the FOUNDATIONS. You give them a guide to use to expand upon. The truely talented who gain a complete understanding, can then go on to challenge what is acceptable. Beginners cannot. They simply do not know what they are doing. They do not have an understanding of the visual language to back up what they have done.

Your response "as long as you like it" is not helpful, and I will say it as many times as I need, DOES NOT TEACH THEM ANYTHING. It does NOTHING to help the artist improve.
All it does is allow them to continue walking around in the dark, trying things willy nilly, with absolutely no understanding of what they are doing. Teaching fundamentals does NOT hamper creativity. It does the opposite. It allows the artist to further push the boundries without REINVENTING THE WHEEL.

It's like baking bread. You can take years of figuring out the science behind the ingredients, and lots of trial and error. Or you can start with a recipe, and start tweaking it from there. The recipe does not hamper your creativity! It gives you a successful starting place to push the boundaries, and create magnificient artisan breads. As you tweak that recipe, you start to understand how things work successfully, without having to first invent bread.

What's the veiw like from your soapbox