Photoshop Question: Black&White w/Colour Images

Back in the '80s when I was doing a lot of B&W darkroom work, two of my favourite techniques were film colourization and the hand-painting of images: where I would selectively colour a single feature in the image.

I love the look of the modern equivalent of those techniques, but I can't figure out what the technical term is for the modern equivalent. As a result, I'm having a hard time finding tutorials for the technique. Some of the tutorials I've been able to dig up seem a bit chintzy. I suppose I'm looking for something with a bit of finesse, versus copious use of the eraser tool.

Can anyone advise me as to what this digital technique is officially called? Perhaps, in using the correct term, I'll be able to turn up more sophisticated results in Google when looking for tutorials.

Google "selective color photoshop"
Easiest way would be to add a B&W adjustment layer, and paint on the mask with a black brush.

Merlin_AZ wrote in post #16665311
Google "selective color photoshop"
Easiest way would be to add a B&W adjustment layer, and paint on the mask with a black brush.

Thanks, Merlin!

I've now got some good looking tutorials.

I don't actually know how to use masks in PS, but I'll read up on that, too.

Do it once to prove you can, then stop. Its an overused technique that screams I just learned how to do digital photography and photoshop. We all go through that phase, but its an image you wont be proud of later.

A certain type of paying client will like selective color.
MWCs friggin' LOVE selective color, almost as a rule.
Experienced professional photographers hate it.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16665409
Do it once to prove you can, then stop. Its an overused technique that screams I just learned how to do digital photography and photoshop. We all go through that phase, but its an image you wont be proud of later.

nathancarter wrote in post #16665448
A certain type of paying client will like selective color.
MWCs friggin' LOVE selective color, almost as a rule.
Experienced professional photographers hate it.

I'm finding that a lot of the things I used to do in the darkroom pretty regularly offend me now in a digital workflow: especially vignettes and grease jobs. And, I'm not sure why. Overuse? Ease of use? Too much precision? Lack of craft?

My results in the darkroom were often imprecise and a bit unpredictable. Vaseline could get smeared in the wrong place or be inconstant in thickness. Paint could run or bleed. The paperclip from my vignette tool (a cardboard circle taped to a straightened paperclip) was sometimes visible in the image if I didn't move it enough.

I've been doing a bit of playing around with basic HDR, and I'm finding that the more I play with it the more distasteful I find it.

Maybe it is just all too easy and perfect now?

Crap - that's what the technique is called.

Anyway, if you want to hand paint it - just convert it to B&W and then hand paint it. Don't use the original colors and a history brush. THEN you might get something interesting out of it. But don't do the selective color of one thing in the photo and the rest B&W. It's not that cool

neacail wrote in post #16665525
I'm finding that a lot of the things I used to do in the darkroom pretty regularly offend me now in a digital workflow: especially vignettes and grease jobs. And, I'm not sure why. Overuse? Ease of use? Too much precision? Lack of craft?

Maybe it is just all too easy and perfect now?

I think it comes from a lot of sources. Selective color is the first tool in the toy chest for people who are new to photoshop. The first time you do it, you can do in 30 seconds what would have taken a master craftsman hours to do in the film days. But with familiarity comes contempt. Too many people users rely on post processing tricks to try to make the mundane interesting. Take a boring shot, no problem, Add a thin black border, an instagram style faded color treatment, some guassian blur, a bit of heavy vignette, and a pretentious watermark, and presto you have ART!!! None of those techniques used with some skill and discretion is a bad thing, but all can be easily overdone very easily. The trick is knowing how to enhance a good shot, and not paint paint a pig.

With your comments in mind, Numenorean and gonzogolf, I decided to search the web for selective colour images that I wish I had created in an attempt to clarify to myself what I would like to accomplish with the technique. I found two that I really like (after looking at hundreds).

I love this one:
http://www.pxleyes.com …15b/The-Poison-Apple.html

In looking at it, I'm reminded of a very heated debate that I got into with a friend of mine (also a photographer) over the selective use of colour in the movie Schindler's List. I argued that the red colour of the young girl's coat was important to the story line and to the engagement of the viewer. He felt very strongly that the viewer would be appropriately engaged without the use of colour, and that the use of selected colour detracted from the bleakness of the film and cheapened it.

I'm not sure if the use of colour in the image I posted the link to is required or not. I think the depth of field may be enough, nonetheless, I really like it in this case. I think it is a really solid image to start with. I generally don't photograph people, so it may not be the best example.

Here is another one that I really like, that is closer to my own work:
http://www.flickr.com …/nhanchanahal/4​007816232/

In this case, I feel the selective colour may be a bit of a bandaid for an image that could use some composition adjustments. Despite what I see as composition flaws, I wish I'd done it.

In looking really critically at a lot of selective colour images, I found most of them unappealing.

Sorry but both of those seem gimmicky to me. They are reasonably well done, and I dont mean to take anything away from the photographer, but its still a photographic sleight of hand. Sort of like the overcooked HDR images, at first glimpse there is an appeal, but after a glance the power fades and the trickery shows through.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16665871
Sorry but both of those seem gimmicky to me. They are reasonably well done, and I dont mean to take anything away from the photographer, but its still a photographic sleight of hand. Sort of like the overcooked HDR images, at first glimpse there is an appeal, but after a glance the power fades and the trickery shows through.

No need to apologize. The technique certainly doesn't appeal to everyone (one of my dearest friends and I nearly came to blows over it . . . good thing he's not the type of guy to hit a girl ), and the technique is most certainly overused (along with overcooked HDR images) . . . especially when weddings and children are involved.

Having spent a bit of time examining both of the images, I still really wish both of them were mine to play with. But, what I see as compositional issues in the second one are bugging me, and the colour seems more and more like a bandaid.

So, because my curiosity is getting the better of me, have you ever seen an image with selective colour that you appreciated beyond first glance? If so, is it possible for you to put into words why you felt it worked?

neacail wrote in post #16665974
No need to apologize. The technique certainly doesn't appeal to everyone (one of my dearest friends and I nearly came to blows over it . . . good thing he's not the type of guy to hit a girl ), and the technique is most certainly overused (along with overcooked HDR images) . . . especially when weddings and children are involved.

Having spent a bit of time examining both of the images, I still really wish both of them were mine to play with. But, what I see as compositional issues in the second one are bugging me, and the colour seems more and more like a bandaid.

So, because my curiosity is getting the better of me, have you ever seen an image with selective colour that you appreciated beyond first glance? If so, is it possible for you to put into words why you felt it worked?

I'm sure I have in the past, but I rather doubt I could find any of them again as they were posted by members here and the specifics faded from memory just about as fast as they went from the screen. I know that sounds a bit like a cop out, but I tend not to like the technique generally but dont want to condemn it completely.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16665871
Sorry but both of those seem gimmicky to me. They are reasonably well done, and I dont mean to take anything away from the photographer, but its still a photographic sleight of hand. Sort of like the overcooked HDR images, at first glimpse there is an appeal, but after a glance the power fades and the trickery shows through.

I have to agree.

The only time I have ever seen selective color "work" is in the brief moment when Dorothy opens the door to her black and white tornado flung house and sees Oz in color through the doorway.

Kirk

gonzogolf wrote in post #16665989
I'm sure I have in the past, but I rather doubt I could find any of them again as they were posted by members here and the specifics faded from memory just about as fast as they went from the screen. I know that sounds a bit like a cop out, but I tend not to like the technique generally but dont want to condemn it completely.

No worries. That pretty much sums up my feelings with regards to sun flare portraits, so I can completely relate.

Numenorean wrote in post #16666055
I have to agree.

Have you ever seen it used in a circumstance where you liked it? I'm curious.

kirkt wrote in post #16666056
The only time I have ever seen selective color "work" is in the brief moment when Dorothy opens the door to her black and white tornado flung house and sees Oz in color through the doorway.

Kirk

Oh, I had forgotten about that. I think you're right and it worked really well. In a previous post in this thread I mention Schindler's List. If you've seen the movie, how did you feel about the use of selective colour in that?