It's a Photoshop trick that EVERYONE tries right after they've "figured out" layers and layer masks
It's seldom done correctly. The color should draw the viewer's attention to the point of the photo. In the case of a bride with her flowers, it should hightlight the bride. So often, it's the flowers that are left colored and the bride is all grayed out.
It's been done a million times.
However, there are instances where it is "the right thing to do"
When the bride asks for it
When it can be done right (see attached for just one example that does ... sorta .... work) Here, the bride is what is colored (as well as what isn't ), but the attention is drawn to her face. It also gives a "through the looking-glass" feel to the image. BTW - her gown really was a cream color rather than white.
I still do it....I still think it is cool, I see texture layers and vignetting as the redheaded photoshop step child of the future. Its a fad like anything else.
Believe it or not.....lots of brides still go gaga over it.
Darren Troy CRegistered UsersPosts: 1,927Major grins
edited April 22, 2009
With shots like that last one, Blurmore.....why wouldn't they?!!! Great use of color! Be damned the dreaded Heal cut-off ....but a great image to prove that this process works....and will for sometime to come.
Me personally, I think it's the same as everything else...if it works, use it...if your client wants it, give it to them.
Remember, no one may want you to take pictures, but they all want to see them. Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
I think your question is funny, as I see it, wedding shooters are the only ones left doing it.
I don't hate SC, I hate seeing it done poorly, or overused, or as is often the case when the image is just not suited for it.
I like it a lot more than the horrible failed attempts at selective blurring in post
As mentioned, it's one of those things that everyone wants to do once they learn how, get it out of your system and move on to the next fad.
I do believe we are done with HDR too, or at least at the tail end. I missed that boat, I just got the hang of producing a decent HDR.
How about the partial DeSat, are we still doing that one? I love that one cant get enough of it.
I think vignettes are safe
I think the subtle processes are going to be with us a for quite a while. A vignette, when not "in your face" really adds to the power and viewabilty of the image - it's a focusing tool. It's been around forever and I don't think it's going anywhere anytime soon.
The partial de-saturation, when subtle is a very nice touch and I really like it.
Anyone remember the "Midnight Black" and "Midnight Sepia" treatments that were all the rage about a year and a half ago? Don't see it too much anymore:D
If a client asks for it, i'll do it, with a caveat. I use my parents wedding album as the example... Their photographer used a bunch of cheesy vignettes. It makes the photos look SOOOOO dated, screaming late 60's /early 70's. Selective Coloring look, in 5 years (if not sooner, because to me, it already does) is going to look dated. If I add any "effects" I'll try to do it as subtle as possible, bending to the fads, but try to leave clients with a timeless look.
i agree. it looks dated, cheesy, and looks too "fake" to me. i'm a big fan of monochromatic wedding photos, and my preference is for B&W conversions that imitate classic B&W films. as for me, if i'm converting a photo to B&W, it's because B&W is perfect in itself. no selective color needed.
To me it looks amateurish, normally looks like a cheap effect, normally distracts from the photo does not add.
Having said that I just did one last night, the first one I have done in years, it just felt right.
I'm sorry but I think textures (which seem to get everyone who is calling selective coloring cheesy undergarments moist) is just as cheap, cheesy, and future dated. It is all fad, and lots of clients who don't see it all the time still like it, request it, and drool over it. Hard sell for me for people to call textures "cool" or "hip" and selective coloring "cheap" or "cheesy".
What a lot of younger digital photogs do not understand is that 99.9% of all these special effects have been done from almost the begining.......most of which I used to do in camera...vignetting, textures.....most of them excluding the selective coloration.....and that was a real art to be done properly and look good.....however no longer does one need a truly steady hand for that..............
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
edited April 23, 2009
I'm sorta the bad guy here already, so I'll just say it like it is- 99% of the time it is just an attempt at "rescuing" an otherwise boring photo. And it doesn't work. (Or, the bride thinks it looks neat-o and asks for it, in which case that is often an indication that YOUR personal style is not developed enough for brides to know what they can or cannot ask for from you. When a professional has developed a distinct, killer style that is 100% consistent from wedding to wedding, then you don't get brides asking for something way out in left field.)
I think out of this whole thread, the *one* shot that looks interesting here is Blurmore's shot with the blue shoes etc. And only because it is flat-out crazy looking enough to represent a style all of it's own... AND because of the tasteful warming of the rest of the photo, to sort of mute the overall starkness of the effect...
On the other hand, I almost disagree with Blurmore on the texture overlay subject. It is MOSTLY cheesy and will go out of style someday, but with the right photo and in the right frame etc, it looks great. For those of us geeks who appreciate what a pinhole camera used to do for us, etc. etc. (Don't gimme that lensbaby or holga crap!)
...I'll concede that it's surely not a style that everybody can get into, in fact I really only do this effect once every few months. And it will sure represent an era, in 5-10 years; people will say "yep that shot was from 2008!" ...But it doesn't necessarily have to go out of style...
Darren Troy CRegistered UsersPosts: 1,927Major grins
edited April 23, 2009
One thing we're all forgetting....or @ least not eluding to very much.....is WHO CARES WHAT WE THINK???? If paid and requested, I will stand on my head and snap an album full of images with a disposable. Ok, that's kind of over-the-top, but where does our creativity license stop and demand begin? I would be appauled to have to bend to conformity because "it's what everyone else is doing". Either fortunately or unfortunately, we are @ the mercy of the the person paying for the photographs. Could any of us turn down 2 grand because "your wish for cheesy photographic interpretations" simply is not part of my repertoire? It is now and always will be an industry full of "Holy crap, really cool processing!" that turns into "Yep, I've seen that before....several times....and it's getting kind of old".
I'm sorta the bad guy here already, so I'll just say it like it is- 99% of the time it is just an attempt at "rescuing" an otherwise boring photo. And it doesn't work. (Or, the bride thinks it looks neat-o and asks for it, in which case that is often an indication that YOUR personal style is not developed enough for brides to know what they can or cannot ask for from you. When a professional has developed a distinct, killer style that is 100% consistent from wedding to wedding, then you don't get brides asking for something way out in left field.)
...I'll concede that it's surely not a style that everybody can get into, in fact I really only do this effect once every few months. And it will sure represent an era, in 5-10 years; people will say "yep that shot was from 2008!" ...But it doesn't necessarily have to go out of style...
Respectfully,
=Matt=
Thanks for the compliment Matt, and for the record I never thought you were "the bad guy". In the case of the shot with the shoes, during my consultation with the bride she told me about her shoes matching his tie. I offer 3 "enhanced" photos in my packages, these can be desaturations, textures, or even the comic book effect or star adding I did for my last job. This bride wanted her enhanced photo to feature the shoes, tie and flowers. Most of the time I decide what the enhancement is going to be and which photo gets it. Then I print those on metallic paper in their proof album as a special touch. What I'm constantly surprised at is how many brides think this is an effect that can be done in camera. I get asked on subcontract jobs to do the effect, and I am left to explain that I can shoot the shot, but they will have to pay someone to do the PS work. I haven't messed around much with textures, but Iam planning on trying it over the next couple of jobs. I've always been HDR adverse because of how fake it looks in UE, and I have never used it in a wedding image. I think much better HDR like effects can be achieved with good fill flash, proper metering, and forethought.
What I'm constantly surprised at is how many brides think this is an effect that can be done in camera.
If I'm not mistaken, I think some fancier P&S cameras have this option in them...I don't know which though...I think I saw a commercial for it once...definitely not an option on SLR's though. However, I'm loving the B&W conversion in-camera of the D700, and it also has in-camera image overlays for bracketed exposures and HDR stuff...haven't played around with this yet though...I tend not to do HDR, because they end up looking fake to me...for some fine-art stuff I think it can work well...I've seen incredible HDR work, as well as not so incredible work.
Here's a 19-year old kid who seems to be making it big with HDR: http://www.joeyl.com
I don't believe in photography fads. I think that every technique has its place. Also, I disagree with the "done improperly" comments. The technique will appeal to different people. I've seen what I believe to be fairly crappy photos that were treated with selective colouring and brides love them.
As for the client is always right motto. Nope, don't believe that either in the case of photograph post-processing. I don't give them a choice between colour or black-and-white. They've hired me for my creativity so why should they tell me how to be creative? All of my clients know this going in.
For my money, anyone that says there is a "right" and "wrong" way to post-process is out to lunch on that part of photography. Its all about taste and creativity.
Personally, I don't much care for selective colouring. Usually I find those are weak photos that a photographer has to do something to in order for them to stand out. Ocassionally I do see the strong one though. To each their own.
"They've done studies you know. Sixty-percent of the time, it works every time."
Just to throw an outsider's (ie non wedding photog) wrench into the works: does the same pov apply to the hand-tinting/selective coloring that people used to do on fancy prints? My mom actually has one from when she was a little girl and won a costume competition - the prize was a portrait taken by the newspaper that ran the contest. She's there in a Snow White costume (hand made - as in EVERY STITCH handsewn, since my grandmother couldn't afford a sewing machine) - the child and dress are tinted, but the background is not.
I can see where selective coloring has become a bit of a cliche these days, but there's certainly a tradition for a similar aesthetic going way back before digital and photoshop.
Speaking for myself, I think that sometimes it can look very cool but, as others have said (and demonstrated) it needs to be used for a REASON rather than "just because" and needs to be done with skill and intent.
Interesting discussion (with relevance to far more than just weddings). Now back to lurking :lurk ....
As for the client is always right motto. Nope, don't believe that either in the case of photograph post-processing. I don't give them a choice between colour or black-and-white. They've hired me for my creativity so why should they tell me how to be creative? All of my clients know this going in.
For my money, anyone that says there is a "right" and "wrong" way to post-process is out to lunch on that part of photography. Its all about taste and creativity.
Personally, I don't much care for selective colouring. Usually I find those are weak photos that a photographer has to do something to in order for them to stand out. Ocassionally I do see the strong one though. To each their own.
Completely agree with you here...I tell them up front that I will be processing images how I see fit...some in B&W, some in color. I don't really do any selective coloring for weddings...I find it works
best for abstract/bold/graphic images.
I can see where selective coloring has become a bit of a cliche these days, but there's certainly a tradition for a similar aesthetic going way back before digital and photoshop.
I personally encourage all of my local competition to use selective coloring
Honestly, I hope that a bride doesn't look at my work and ask me to do SC, I probably won't. As stated, its been over done and rarely done correctly. In my use, I have found it to be more of a gimmick (read: crutch) than a useful image enhancing technique. More often than not, an excellent B&W conversion (again, not always something that's easy to pull off) is more powerful to my eyes.
With shots like that last one, Blurmore.....why wouldn't they?!!! Great use of color! Be damned the dreaded Heal cut-off ....but a great image to prove that this process works....and will for sometime to come.
I agree, shots like that last one Blurmore posted are the logic behind why some shots do just work great with selective color.
That being said, I very rarely do it do to a) the time consumption and b) the lack of requests for it. If done right it can look great, but you have to really know that you're picking the proper photo for it or it can just end up being distracting instead.
To be honest, I`ve never heard anybody say they hated it other than dgrin. I don`t think I would like to be locked in to a single frame of mind where I summarily dismiss a technique just because it hasn`t looked good in photos that I`ve seen.
"They've done studies you know. Sixty-percent of the time, it works every time."
In 20 years the out of date editing will fit right in with with the aged gown styles and colors and styles of suits chosen for the men. We are in a time that like times in the past stand out because of many different factors.
I personally don't care for SC, but have used it in the past, and will probably use it again!:D
So most of this discussion seems to be around SC and wedding photos of people (Primarly B&G). So what about the detail shots at weddings? For example something like this?
Obviously you don't want a green tree in the background to be green while the bride and groom are in B&W, but when what you want to be the focal point of the photo is left in color and the rest B&W...what's the issue? That color is going to bring you in to the that specific part of the photo. Now obviously, making the entire photo revolve around your focal point so no matter how you process it, your eye goes to that focal point is possible, but usually takes a little more time in setting every little possible detail up to make sure that there is nothing distracting, or lacking in the photo that would hurt it. And during weddings (at least the few that I've done), it's fairly fast passed. Now a day after shoot or something simliar is an entire different story, but you can't replicate the emotions of the day of.
I'm not sure if the dislike of selective coloring is specific to wedding photos, to be honest. I know quite a few (non-wedding) shooters who dislike it.
One reason I was given was something along the lines of "A good photo shouldn't need selective coloring to draw the attention to the important part". I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's an explanation.
Personally, I rarely care for selective coloring for a variety of reasons; because a lot of times it is just not done correctly, it doesn't add anything to the photo or, if the photo is just not great to begin with, the selective coloring rarely makes it better, I think.
Selective color is a silly gimmick. It doesnt look good(ever), But if your customer wants it then they can have it. Nothing posted in this thread is remotely pleasing to the eye, its like bad HDR.
Comments
- It's a Photoshop trick that EVERYONE tries right after they've "figured out" layers and layer masks
- It's seldom done correctly. The color should draw the viewer's attention to the point of the photo. In the case of a bride with her flowers, it should hightlight the bride. So often, it's the flowers that are left colored and the bride is all grayed out.
- It's been done a million times.
However, there are instances where it is "the right thing to do"My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
Believe it or not.....lots of brides still go gaga over it.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Ed
I don't hate SC, I hate seeing it done poorly, or overused, or as is often the case when the image is just not suited for it.
I like it a lot more than the horrible failed attempts at selective blurring in post
As mentioned, it's one of those things that everyone wants to do once they learn how, get it out of your system and move on to the next fad.
I do believe we are done with HDR too, or at least at the tail end. I missed that boat, I just got the hang of producing a decent HDR.
How about the partial DeSat, are we still doing that one? I love that one cant get enough of it.
I think vignettes are safe
Keith Tharp.com - Champion Photo
The partial de-saturation, when subtle is a very nice touch and I really like it.
Anyone remember the "Midnight Black" and "Midnight Sepia" treatments that were all the rage about a year and a half ago? Don't see it too much anymore:D
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
JUST MY OPINION.
respect the monochrome!
My Blog
My Twitter
My Facebook Profile
My Facebook Fan Page
Having said that I just did one last night, the first one I have done in years, it just felt right.
Sometimes...very seldom....it does work.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
I think out of this whole thread, the *one* shot that looks interesting here is Blurmore's shot with the blue shoes etc. And only because it is flat-out crazy looking enough to represent a style all of it's own... AND because of the tasteful warming of the rest of the photo, to sort of mute the overall starkness of the effect...
On the other hand, I almost disagree with Blurmore on the texture overlay subject. It is MOSTLY cheesy and will go out of style someday, but with the right photo and in the right frame etc, it looks great. For those of us geeks who appreciate what a pinhole camera used to do for us, etc. etc. (Don't gimme that lensbaby or holga crap!)
...I'll concede that it's surely not a style that everybody can get into, in fact I really only do this effect once every few months. And it will sure represent an era, in 5-10 years; people will say "yep that shot was from 2008!" ...But it doesn't necessarily have to go out of style...
Respectfully,
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Thanks for the compliment Matt, and for the record I never thought you were "the bad guy". In the case of the shot with the shoes, during my consultation with the bride she told me about her shoes matching his tie. I offer 3 "enhanced" photos in my packages, these can be desaturations, textures, or even the comic book effect or star adding I did for my last job. This bride wanted her enhanced photo to feature the shoes, tie and flowers. Most of the time I decide what the enhancement is going to be and which photo gets it. Then I print those on metallic paper in their proof album as a special touch. What I'm constantly surprised at is how many brides think this is an effect that can be done in camera. I get asked on subcontract jobs to do the effect, and I am left to explain that I can shoot the shot, but they will have to pay someone to do the PS work. I haven't messed around much with textures, but Iam planning on trying it over the next couple of jobs. I've always been HDR adverse because of how fake it looks in UE, and I have never used it in a wedding image. I think much better HDR like effects can be achieved with good fill flash, proper metering, and forethought.
If I'm not mistaken, I think some fancier P&S cameras have this option in them...I don't know which though...I think I saw a commercial for it once...definitely not an option on SLR's though. However, I'm loving the B&W conversion in-camera of the D700, and it also has in-camera image overlays for bracketed exposures and HDR stuff...haven't played around with this yet though...I tend not to do HDR, because they end up looking fake to me...for some fine-art stuff I think it can work well...I've seen incredible HDR work, as well as not so incredible work.
Here's a 19-year old kid who seems to be making it big with HDR: http://www.joeyl.com
www.dank-photo.blogspot.com
As for the client is always right motto. Nope, don't believe that either in the case of photograph post-processing. I don't give them a choice between colour or black-and-white. They've hired me for my creativity so why should they tell me how to be creative? All of my clients know this going in.
For my money, anyone that says there is a "right" and "wrong" way to post-process is out to lunch on that part of photography. Its all about taste and creativity.
Personally, I don't much care for selective colouring. Usually I find those are weak photos that a photographer has to do something to in order for them to stand out. Ocassionally I do see the strong one though. To each their own.
My Website
My Photo Blog
Twitter Feed
I can see where selective coloring has become a bit of a cliche these days, but there's certainly a tradition for a similar aesthetic going way back before digital and photoshop.
Speaking for myself, I think that sometimes it can look very cool but, as others have said (and demonstrated) it needs to be used for a REASON rather than "just because" and needs to be done with skill and intent.
Interesting discussion (with relevance to far more than just weddings). Now back to lurking :lurk ....
IMO selective color can work great for some wedding shots...I think Blurmore has surely shown that.
Completely agree with you here...I tell them up front that I will be processing images how I see fit...some in B&W, some in color. I don't really do any selective coloring for weddings...I find it works
best for abstract/bold/graphic images.
Layers too...look at Jerry Uelsmann for one: http://www.uelsmann.net/
and a great interview that touches on some issues in this thread...:http://shutterbug.com/techniques/pro_techniques/0907ueksmann/index.html
I've always loved his work...and I believe his work is timeless.
*edit-found the JU interview
www.dank-photo.blogspot.com
Honestly, I hope that a bride doesn't look at my work and ask me to do SC, I probably won't. As stated, its been over done and rarely done correctly. In my use, I have found it to be more of a gimmick (read: crutch) than a useful image enhancing technique. More often than not, an excellent B&W conversion (again, not always something that's easy to pull off) is more powerful to my eyes.
Now SC in video is another story...
I agree, shots like that last one Blurmore posted are the logic behind why some shots do just work great with selective color.
That being said, I very rarely do it do to a) the time consumption and b) the lack of requests for it. If done right it can look great, but you have to really know that you're picking the proper photo for it or it can just end up being distracting instead.
Facebook: Friend / Fan || Twitter: @shimamizu || Google Plus
My Website
My Photo Blog
Twitter Feed
I personally don't care for SC, but have used it in the past, and will probably use it again!:D
www.tednghiem.com
http://www.wppionline.com/competition/winners.taf?comp=16x20&year=2009
They know a thing or two about great shots and helping photographers to earn more.
Visit our [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Kalamazoo Wedding Photographers[/FONT] website!
View my Facebook Fan Page!
Visit our Kalamazoo Photography blog!
Hey Crockett- your link was bad... can you fix it? I was interested...
Obviously you don't want a green tree in the background to be green while the bride and groom are in B&W, but when what you want to be the focal point of the photo is left in color and the rest B&W...what's the issue? That color is going to bring you in to the that specific part of the photo. Now obviously, making the entire photo revolve around your focal point so no matter how you process it, your eye goes to that focal point is possible, but usually takes a little more time in setting every little possible detail up to make sure that there is nothing distracting, or lacking in the photo that would hurt it. And during weddings (at least the few that I've done), it's fairly fast passed. Now a day after shoot or something simliar is an entire different story, but you can't replicate the emotions of the day of.
OneTwoFiftieth | Portland, Oregon | Modern Portraiture
My Equipment:
Bodies: Canon 50D, Canon EOS 1
Lenses: Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS, Canon 50mm f/1.4, Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8
Lighting: Canon 580EXII, Canon 420 EX, 12" Reflector, Pocket Wizard Plus II (3), AB800 (3), Large Softbox
Stability: Manfrotto 190CXPRO3 Tripod, Manfrotto 488RC4 Ball Head, Manfrotto 679B Monopod
One reason I was given was something along the lines of "A good photo shouldn't need selective coloring to draw the attention to the important part". I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's an explanation.
Personally, I rarely care for selective coloring for a variety of reasons; because a lot of times it is just not done correctly, it doesn't add anything to the photo or, if the photo is just not great to begin with, the selective coloring rarely makes it better, I think.
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
Now lets talk about over softening a photo