selective colouring, naff?

M

mart77

Messages
1,058
Edit My Images
No
Selective colouring in photos is quite popular but its one of those things that many find naff.
im personally not a big fan and feel it is a bit naff.
However, there are times where its nice so i dont think there are any rules to it.

What do you think?
 
I think everyone goes through a period of trying all the different styles and techniques, I can certainly remember doing a few selective colour pics (including an animated one of a police car with the lights flashing :shake:) and some HDR and light trails and.....and......
 
dseered said:
I have done it - I now don't, it actually makes me cringe now. Urghh, awful.
Click to expand...

Same here but I get customers asking for it, I point out that it might look a bit dated in a few years but if they want it I'll do it - they are the client after all!
 
very cliche and a pet hate of mine, but non-photographer-types seem to love it... :(
 
it's horrible.

challenge extended...someone find a nice selcol photo :)
 
It's a bit naff IMO.

The unfortunate thing is you see it used so widely on so few subjects; the yellow taxi in NY, the red poppy in a field; a blue eye in a portrait. It's all a bit twee and just never moves on. It's a pretty one-dimensional technique that is pretty much a victim of its own (limited) success.

itsdavedotnet said:
also, wow, HDR AND selective colour...it's a flickrite's ideal picture! surprised it's not like, permenant number one on explore!
Click to expand...

Don't get me started on HDR - if ever there was a case for means testing people's software skills then this is it!!!

HDR and selective colouring.... phew, that's pretty much my worst photographic nightmare!!!

...but, each to their own ;)
 
I feel its a bit tacky looking, but still i would like to tinker with it just to experiment.
 
I think selective colouring along with milky water etc are good things for learning how to use Photoshop but having learnt the lesson the techniques need to be filed under 'for use only when a client insists'.

Did anyone try selective un-colouring? Process a pic and instead of removing all but one colour do the oposite - remove one colour (or de-saturate it) and leave the rest. Depending on the content of the picture you can get some interesting results.
 
My most recent one:

13960_532181280387_309600936_1848320_6702328_n.jpg


I cant tell if I like it or not, the guy in the picture does though so thats all that matters :lol:
 
Isn't it good we all have a preferences - likes and dislikes! Goodness, we'll be saying of B/W - naff?

What comes around, goes around - fashions? Tsk!
 
Doug said:
My most recent one:

13960_532181280387_309600936_1848320_6702328_n.jpg


I cant tell if I like it or not, the guy in the picture does though so thats all that matters :lol:
Click to expand...

if that was an advert for everlast boxing gloves then it suits, if not then bin it.

i believe selectiv colouring is good when used in the correct circumstances such as the above posted by doug.
 
It becomes 'art' and then subject to personal opinion.

It emphasises a particular aspect of the photograph is a rather clumsy way. Great for children's books perhaps. For me, there has to be a really good reason why and often it's just because someone can.

And I wholly agree about milky water artyman. Last time I voiced my dislike, loads of people posted to defend it. Artistic integrity is something we should all strive for.

Graham
 
I quite like it on certain pictures but the actual picture has to be right for it to work in the first place. You see a lot of people trying it on Flickr on pictures where personally I don't think it really works that well.

The only picture that I actively show of my own where I've used selective colour was this one below entitled "Rememberence" a lot of people seem to like the selective colour in this instance.

16233_176562591490_510491490_3481711_3849518_n.jpg


I think it is very much a personal preference but then wouldn't life be boring if we all liked the same.
 
I have only tried it once and i quite like it. But i can see how it could be a bit of an easy trick to achieve some impact, especially if you do it often.

2.jpg
 
bass_junkie83 said:
I have only tried it once and i quite like it. But i can see how it could be a bit of an easy trick to achieve some impact, especially if you do it often.

2.jpg
Click to expand...

It works really well in this picture, I feel, as the effect does not hit one directly between the eyes.
 
i only ever really used it once, and even then i didn't discolour all the background. i think that sometimes it works really well. Someyimes its nice to try something different ;)

2703602792_43968552f1.jpg
 
l think you have to be a little discerning....use it carefully, and pick the shot well. l still find that people love it....when l present wedding image examples where it's been used, they are the shots people spot and are impressed by.

As for HDR...blurgh....hate it.
 
It's a pet hate of mine, though the shot above with the coloured umbrella is probably the best use of it I've seen.

I don't do it unless asked to, and I can count the number of times I've been asked on one finger...!
 
I have only ever done it once, and it was back in 2002/2003. Not done it since...never felt the need to.

 
technique is a bit like flared trousers they go out of fashion then come back in again :lol:
 
Put me as a 'naff' voter. Can't stand it. It's the sort of effect that you see on those godawful high street photography services. Nasty.
 
Zack arias put it very well (paraphrased from memory):

when a client hires you, they are not hiring a 'camera person', they are hiring you, and your style - and your style is one that doesn't include stuff like selective colour, so they 'shouldn't be after it, it compromises your artistic integrity to put it in the work that you give back to the client, and that if they do like your style, then they won't like it. However, of course, if they ask for a 24*30" acrylic print of a selective colour picture, as someone who needs to put food on the table, you're not gonna say no :P
 
The fact is that many customers love it! It may not make a technically great image but if you are in the market to make money then anything tghat can be done to do so works for me.

I get requests to do it all the time!
 
I hate the normal boring stuff. I also hate selective colour on something which isn't actually part of the picture. Like someones pink slippers. Doesn't do anything for me. I've dabbled, I've had some successes (I'd like to think):

4042788287_1d91167fc5.jpg


Believe it or not, that image has the most 'interestingness' on Flickr out of all my shots.
 
I think the problem with selective colour is that it smacks of trying too hard, and has the subtlety of a brick when there are far more understated methods of subject isolation using shallow depth of field and tonal differences etc.

That said I've tried it myself and do like the odd example; Glenn's shot posted earlier in this thread is a good case in point :)
 
I can count on one hand the amount of images i have seen that work (to my eye),when they do work they work very well.

Never turn the work down if that is what a client wants, and if they have to go elsewhere to get what they want, they may well stay elsewhere!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top