Thoughts on selective coloring?

[TheBiles]

I thought I'd give selective coloring a shot in a couple photos of my latest expedition. What are your thoughts on the whole process? I know it can be used to draw attention to certain features, but at what point does it become gimmicky? I don't plan on using it a ton, but I just wanted to know what you thought. I'd also like to see your best examples if you have any!

1. This one definitely would have been over-powering without the selective coloring due to almost all of the photo being a shade of orangeish-brown. I thought the coloring was a way to save what I thought was an interesting photo that would have otherwise been much too crowded.

Moss by Quentin Biles, on Flickr

Full color of 1:

2. Didn't desaturate the background colors completely on this one because I thought it would have made the background just an amorphous blur. My mail goal here was to make the blue pop and fully desaturate the bark.

Trail Marker by Quentin Biles, on Flickr

Full color of 2:

 

[Christie Photo]

...at what point does it become gimmicky?

At the point of conception. At that moment when one thinks, "Maybe I'll use selective coloring."

-Pete

 

[Studio7Four]

I'm generally not a big fan of selective coloring, but I'll admit that I've done it. If the intent of this thread is to discuss the merits of selective coloring, may I suggest that you post the originals (or at least edited full-color versions) of the two shots above. We can judge these images as they are, but it's difficult to evaluate whether the selective coloring added anything or even detracted from the overall effect without seeing what they were otherwise.

 

[TheBiles]

I'm generally not a big fan of selective coloring, but I'll admit that I've done it. If the intent of this thread is to discuss the merits of selective coloring, may I suggest that you post the originals (or at least edited full-color versions) of the two shots above. We can judge these images as they are, but it's difficult to evaluate whether the selective coloring added anything or even detracted from the overall effect without seeing what they were otherwise.

I guess that would have been the wise thing to do. Updated original post!

 

[o hey tyler]

Using selective coloring oft doesn't help with turning boring photos into something interesting. You really have to have a good original image that stands on its own, and then decide of selective coloring would work or not.

I find that selective coloring never works, because it's tacky.

 

[Derrel]

I view selective coloring like the James Bond suicide cyanide capsule...

 

[Big Mike]

I don't mind selective coloring...or at least the concept of it. After all, it's not really all that different than selective exposure adjustments (burning & dodging)....and those have been staples of photography for a hundred years.

The problem with most selective coloring, is that it's often done poorly...or at least a poor choice is made. It often becomes the subject of the photo...as in the image becomes more about selective coloring and less about the subject. Further to that, when a poor choice is made, it attracts the viewer's attention to the 'wrong' parts of the photo. The one that I see all the time (and don't like) is when someone takes a photo of a baby/child and selectively removes the color from everything except a bow in their hair...or some accessory they are holding or wearing. That makes that photo about the bow...and not about the child.

I do think that the exercise of 'selective coloring' is something to try. The erasing or masking is a helpful technique to know and it does require plenty of practice. Plus, it can be helpful to see how selective coloring can direct the viewer's gaze within the photo...and the more you think about that, the more you will tend to think about composition etc. So while the results may not be the best photo...the act of doing it and thinking about it, can be a good learning experience.

 

[Christie Photo]

You really have to have a good original image that stands on its own...

Yes! That goes for full color photography too.

If an image is successful in black and white... tones, composition, lighting (especially lighting), then it's likely to be just fine in color.

-Pete

 

[photocist]

You really have to have a good original image that stands on its own...

Yes! That goes for full color photography too.

If an image is successful in black and white... tones, composition, lighting (especially lighting), then it's likely to be just fine in color.

-Pete

Not quite. One could have various distracting colors that black and white minimize. I would agree that good composition translates to color or black and white, but good use of color in a color photo and tones in a black and white are quite different.

 

[gsgary]

People that attempt selective coloring should be put up against a wall and shot

 

[Christie Photo]

Not quite. One could have various distracting colors that black and white minimize.

Wait for it.... wait for it....

AH! Did the lights come on?

 

[Blake.Oney]

I've done it once or twice because where I live is behind the times so it is still somewhat popular here. The only time I've done it and actually wanted to use it was for this photo

Becca by BlakeOney, on Flickr

And I did it because of the camera she is holding.

 

[Soulz3urn3lack]

I like selective coloring, people have just turned it into a fad. I do agree the image itself already has to stand on its own merits.

 

[fokker]

OP, you need to choose much better subjects for selective colouring than those that you posted. Why is the tree blue? It makes no sense. Why are we supposed to be so interested in the front portion of the log that you would want to make it stand out so boldly by making it green in a black and white photo?

 

[vtf]

I've done it and really haven't gone back.
I find (and it's especially true here) that it is used to cover up images lacking in something else in hopes of saving them.