Selective Coloring ?

[cnsconnor84]

I just wanted some opinions on this subject. I recently did my first wedding and it came out pretty good IMO. I posted pictures in the wedding forum and got good feedback, but one thing that I noticed, and I have seen it mentioned here before, is that most photographers seem to dislike selective coloring. So, my question is. Do you all dislike it ? If so, is it because it has been so overdone ? Do your non photographer friends & family like it ? The reason i'm asking is because out of the people I have shown these to at home 3 out of 4 seem to LOVE selective coloring. And the bride told me she really liked it also.( she has not seen these photos yet.) Also i'm just curious. Thank you.

[hofajoab]

I guess a photographers view on photographs is different from a non-photographers view. I mean, photographers would be looking at the technical side of things (lighting/composition/etc) whereas a non-photographer may just be looking at the subject and just think that selective colouring is 'cool'.

Personally I'm not a fan at all- I've rarely seen it done well and to an advantage to the overall image, most of the time it just doesn't work. There has been one or two occasions where I've seen selective colouring done to great effect though.

I never even try to do selective colouring. If I want to emphasise something then it'll be done through composition, use of light, use of DOF, etc - I generally try to get what I'm after at the shot rather than think ahead and consider what I could be doing in post.

[shannyD]

for me personally.. i dont like selective color that much because i think it looks cheap if its not done right.

i did it a couple of times, and i look back on it now, and i cringe to myself. because i cant figure out how to actually make it look good in my work.

i have seen very few photographers make it look good...

i didnt see your thread.. so im not attacking you personally..just saying that i think its over kill.. especially in this modern day thing.

but i suppose if a bride requests it.. then thats on her, and ill do it.

shannon

[SOK]

This is one of those tricky subjects...and I guess it's a 21st century version of the timeless dilemma of "artistic expression vs client satisfaction"...or more simply; a question of who you're trying to please.

It's the same with bad/OOF shots that you would normally bin without thinking...some people might really like it because it's a special moment you've captured - albeit poorly.

I've found that Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Flickr, and all the other networking/photo sharing sites have provided an outlet for really really bad photos. People upload entire albums of pictures that I would unceremoniously bin without a second thought. And yet, the funny thing is; because everybody does it, I reckon the general public has subconciously adjusted to the idea that grainy high-ISO photos with blown backgrounds and motion-blurred sujects are what photos 'look like'.

Therefore, when they see a photo with selective colour, or an overcooked HDR, or a shot with an action applied where the cheese-factor has been cranked up to 11...they are understandably impressed.

It puts us in a difficult position...do we try and educate people to show them the folly or their ways...or create what they want to see......?

[Aside; I'm not against selective colour, HDR and PS actions. They all have their place, and can be used effectively to to express a message. I'm just citing the ugly side of such effects in my example above.]

[obnoxiousmom]

I personally LOVE selective coloring but if not done right, can be tacky. Ive probably done some tacky work myself but I still like it :P I notice that a lot of "pro" photographers dont like it. Guess I havent been doing this long enough to hate it yet

[tim]

It's a cheesy looking effect to me, I do more subtle variations occasionally. Since most of my work ends up in albums I don't want one page/image looking hugely different from the other pages in terms of processing or style.

[cnsconnor84]

This is one of those tricky subjects...and I guess it's a 21st century version of the timeless dilemma of "artistic expression vs client satisfaction"...or more simply; a question of who you're trying to please.

It's the same with bad/OOF shots that you would normally bin without thinking...some people might really like it because it's a special moment you've captured - albeit poorly.

I've found that Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Flickr, and all the other networking/photo sharing sites have provided an outlet for really really bad photos. People upload entire albums of pictures that I would unceremoniously bin without a second thought. And yet, the funny thing is; because everybody does it, I reckon the general public has subconciously adjusted to the idea that grainy high-ISO photos with blown backgrounds and motion-blurred sujects are what photos 'look like'.

Therefore, when they see a photo with selective colour, or an overcooked HDR, or a shot with an action applied where the cheese-factor has been cranked up to 11...they are understandably impressed.

It puts us in a difficult position...do we try and educate people to show them the folly or their ways...or create what they want to see......?

[Aside; I'm not against selective colour, HDR and PS actions. They all have their place, and can be used effectively to to express a message. I'm just citing the ugly side of such effects in my example above.]

I think you are dead on. "Photo Overload" through the internet has lowered expectations, generally speaking.

As far as trying to show them the folly of their ways... or create what they want to see... I think the answer is... the customer is always right.

Also, I think that if someone is trying to tell you that what you like is "wrong" or something else is better it may come off the wrong way.

[Mike]

I have used selective colouring once or twice but only on an image that is right for the process. There are quite a lot of "non photographers" who like the look of it so I'll never rule out the option. Like everything really, there are lovers and haters.

[Peacefield]

I'm not a fan as I consider photography (when done well) to be an art. Selective color is more of a gimmick. It takes years of learning, experimenting, and growing to produce art. A monkey can produce gimmicks.

That said, I had a couple sign up the other night and she expressly asked for selective color. Ya gotta give 'em what they want.

[bnlearle]

I'm a firm believer in shooting for yourself (and in the end your couples will be happy) :)

Bobby

[Jared Byer]

My view is if you have to do it, try not to do it more than once per event/album.

[mmahoney]

Selective color is right up there with white vignette at the top of the "Tres Fromage" list of wedding photo effects.

[figmented]

I dislike selective coloring, though EVERYONE THAT I HAVE EVER CAME INTO CONTACT WITH (that isnt a photographer) LOVES IT TO DEATH. It's sickening.

It's EXACTLY what SOK said. Clients love the cheesy **** because it's different then their point and shoot. Same goes with the cheesy poses - jumping in the air, groomsmen picking up the bride, circle of people shot from below.

My girlfriend and assistant even loves it, ugg.

[Bobster]

just like photography, there are good and awful examples of it