What is it with colorizing part of a B&W....maybe I don't get it.

[kenyc]

I keep seeing more and more images (or maybe I'm just noticing them more) where the image has been converted to B&W and then part of it (the eyes or face or ??) are intensely colored. Is it just me or does this "bother" others? It just seems silly to me and very fake....

Your mileage may vary.

KAC

[PhotosGuy]

I tend to agree, but "different strokes for different folks"? ;-) Considering all the $s & technology that has been spent to get colors "right" & then converting to B&W leaves me wondering "Huh?", but if it makes them happy, who does it hurt?

[David1943]

They do nothing at all for me and I wonder whether some are merely latching on to a trend. I also have to accept though that different effects appeal to different people and some perhaps really like them for aesthetic merit aside from technical novelty.

[UncleDoug]

Goes back to the thread about "is post processing cheating". One persons "cheating" is anothers art.

You may not like it, but apparently the photography-purchasing public does.(why you are seeing more and more of it) So, as long as the customer wants it I'll do it!

Looking at it from a design perspective, it is a way to salvage a less than stellar image. Also, it draws attention to an element in the image. For wedding shots it helps tell a story.

[martook]

I think it works very well with some pictures, but that would be about 10-20% of the ones I see :)
As UncleDoug says, some wedding shots I've seen here with this "effect" has been really nice, unfortunatly a lot of people don't choose the right photo or just don't do it very well. But whatever works for them... I can only tell people my own opinion, and if it's a negative one, I usually don't :)

[Rigrider]

Ok, I'll admit I jumped on the "selective Colour" bandwagon....and did it poorly. But it is an effect that I do like. When done well, the technique is used to emphisise a specific element of a photograph. But like Photosguy said: Different Stokes for different folks.

L8r,

[sdommin]

Some people like it and some don't. Personally, I liked the technique for about 5 minutes, then I got tired of it after it seemed like everyone did it.

Same with infrared.

[Brian Burns]

I'm a fan of the effect as well but I do agree it can get out of hand and it just doens't go with some pics that people apply the effect to.

I like it best for floral shots - either where the flower is the picture or if someone is holding the flower. It can have a pretty good effect on head shots with someone that has great eyes but soso skin.

[GSHodg]

I read this thread with interest as I tried the technique for the first time just a few weeks ago.

So I've stuck an image over in the critique corner, to see whether you think the technique works well for this shot.

Link: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=89473

[Longwatcher]

I tend to like the technique when it is done correctly. It is an artistic effect so of course not everyone will like it.

I have used every once in awhile when I thought it might make the picture more interesting. Usually I get the color all correct and then select the area I want to keep and desaturate and fix everything else separately.

A couple of attempts have been failures but a few have been well recieved.

I do tend these days to prefer leaving subtle colors in the desaturation process as I have found the best results doing that then completely going shades of only gray.

My one example I can link to easily
http://www.longwatcher.com/images/20040518_Grey/CRW_4573_Edit_vamp_crop.jpg
I had tried it with eyes and lips colored, but it looked best with just the rose.
Not my best, but it worked okay in this case. I think GSHodg's shot was a better example of quality.

My best are not online at this time and only available in print form.

I like B+W effect because it tends to have more emotion then color for some reason.

Just my opinion,

[Andy_T]

Really depends on how it's done.
I've seen great ones and awful ones. About balanced :wink:

But I'd suspect that you desaturate the whole image apart from the portion you would like to keep the original colour ... maybe easier than colouring a B+W image.

Best regards,
Andy

[AjP]

I agree, this is an art, sometimes it looks good but doesn't mean this effect must be used on everything, one few pic with curtain theme might really look good with this effect... so definately up to someone taste

we can talk same way about any post processing effects...my IMHO, must be good balance in everything

[Duder]

Some people like it and some don't. Personally, I liked the technique for about 5 minutes, then I got tired of it after it seemed like everyone did it.

Same with infrared.

well, infrared it not a photoshop effect. it's a type of photography.

[GSHodg]

Technique - I used a Channel Mixer layer to de-saturate the whole pic to B&W, and the used a layer mask to 'punch holes' in the B&W layer to reveal the colour underneath. Was this the best way?

When to do it - Longwatcher's vamp girl (v interesting shot) works with this technique as there's something 'right' about vampires and black & white. When I saw the old boots with stuff growing in them - it suggested 'oldness' and I thought of trying the technique. So there was some sort of context where B&W fitted for both - and a splash of colour added an interesting effect.

Request - the 'Old Boots' shot is wanted for a postcard. :) So I'll be re-doing it with all the suggestions taken on board. If you have any further suggestions/advice I'd appreciate hearing it. Ta.

[Lotto]

My take on this is that if someone spend $300-$600 on a piece of software, he/she better learn and get the most out off it. One great way to broaden my PS knowledge is to emulate what others do to their photos. So even I saw some selective coloring done poorly, maybe they are new learner like me, or maybe those are their style. But either way, it dosn't bother me as they are trying.

[Persian-Rice]

Selective colouring. It is a very debatable topic. I post in two photography communities. A lot of my work is done in B&W, either film or digital. When I get comments from the professional based community, its all good comments or constructive criticism etc etc.

On the other hand, I also post in a beginners community where I hang out to give tips and whatnot. One of the things I always get is "it would look so cool with selective colouring".

Now I'm not saying it in trying to imply selective colouring is a thing advanced photographers just don't do, but something I have noticed between the two communities I normally hang out at. Personally, I am not the type to heavily manipulate photo's. I do but just to get the look I want with digital photographs.

My basic colour and black and white PP methods before any selective editing or repairs come out to a rather complicated 10-12 layers of tweaks and adjustments where I hop from one colour mode to another, 4 for colour, 2 for B&W. I consider that heavy masking and adjustments but not to a points of a digital manipulation. I don't cut skies or replace things, and I don't agree with people who do, thats not a pure capture, which is important to me.

Achieving effects in Photoshop is great, but if you are manipulating an image to something it's not supposed to be, I personally feel people should not pawn it off as a photograph, but a digital manipulation. There is no shame in it, just it is what is. It might make it a less of a photograph, but it doesn't take away from the artisitc intent and idea.

[primoz]

I don't know but this thing is pretty much same as why panning? why ir photography? why tilted horizont? why I don't know what?
It's one way to show your photo and to empasize part of it. Personally it doesn't bother me IF it has some meaning, if it's not used to make crapy photo look better (which unfortunately is the case in most of situations... but crapy photo is crapy photo no matter what you do) and if it's not over used.

[Persian-Rice]

primoz, the things is, IR or panning etc et are all shooting methods. Selective colouring is more of a manipulation of the final product, something that is impossible to do with the camera, or even in the lab. It is possible in the lab, but also takes very heavy editing.

[primoz]

I agree about this. But I look at this as one way to present your photos. If it's not overdone or used too much, or used for reasons which I mentioned before it's fine with me.

[Big_B]

well, infrared it not a photoshop effect. it's a type of photography.

What's the difference between a photoshop effect and a filter you put on your lens?

[Sean-Mcr]

I've hardly seen it done well, but like it when i have


Speilberg used it in Schindler's List to great effect. Red coat of the little girl and the two red rose buds

[Duder]

What's the difference between a photoshop effect and a filter you put on your lens?

a big difference. filters certainly affect (to varying degrees) whatever you're pointing the camera at, but once you press the shutter it's a pure photographic capture onto the film/sensor. photoshop effects are manipultions/fabrications of an already photographed image.

[Radtech1]

I keep seeing more and more images (or maybe I'm just noticing them more) where the image has been converted to B&W and then part of it (the eyes or face or ??) are intensely colored. Is it just me or does this "bother" others? It just seems silly to me and very fake....

Your mileage may vary.

KAC

You are correct to be bothered by it.

Personally, I thought it passed the threshold of overdone when Spielberg did it in Schindler's List. However, it is what is hip, slick and cool right now. Remember those posters with the patterns, where you have to cross you eyes to see the "hidden" picture. Well, everyone took those posters down to put up black and white posters with a red rose. And just think, the next hip, slick, and cool thing is lurking out there somewhere.

I am reminded of a quote by Oscar Wilde, "Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months."

Rad

[DwightMcCann]

I agree with Primoz! What's with this getting religious about how one enjoys enjoying? As for the result ... some is excellent and some sucks ... reminds me of my friends!

[kenyc]

Dwight you should get rid of those friends that suck. :)

KAC

[DwightMcCann]

Oh, no, Kenyc, they help me keep my perspective. And after all, even ugly children need love! ;-)

[martook]

Everyone that despises the colorizing - you should see the movie Sin City (warning: extreme amount of cartoonish violence), you'll love it! *muahahaha* <--- evil laugh :D

[jfrancho]

Considering all the $s & technology that has been spent to get colors "right" & then converting to B&W leaves me wondering "Huh?"It is kind of funny, but the irony is that being able to get all those colors "right" helps make a better black and white.

Back to the original thread...

I've tried the "colored eye" or whatever technique. It was really easy, and I think that is the key to it's popularity. You get a digicam, and want to be able to show off something more than a nicely pp'd portrait. To the uninformed, the effect is so obvious that they will be more impressed by a mediocre selective color job, than a masterful glamour portrait or high contrast B&W landscape.