Selective desaturation - My take

michswiss

Not unintentional, but also not sought. This came about while exploring the image during the conversion to B&W. Have I mentioned I lust for eye contact?

Nikolai

I have no particular take on the selective desaturation technique, but I think there is a conflict of interests here.
The primary subject of the image seems to be the guy looking at the camera (hence your "lust" comment:-), but it is not supported but colors or composition... Yes, you can "find" him eventually, but it's almost like looking at a puzzle and muttering "WTH I'm looking for here"

Richard

I agree with Nik. I don't understand what you were trying to achieve here. Mostly, it calls attention to the red clothing, but also to a few signs and indistinct patches. The amount of red in the face looking at the camera is barely visible. What do these have in common and why do you want us to notice them?

michswiss

I really, really have to hit myself to remind me to never, never put a subjective comment next to my own shots ever again. Dumb, dumb, dumb...

This is one of those shots that I like but knew instinctively that other's wouldn't get because they'd have to search for the payoff. And it's my payoff as I was there when I took it and know what else I felt and saw. Not the viewer's. I was in a strange mood that evening and had been walking around some central areas of Beijing for a long time knowing I'd end up in this area. I just wasn't sure what time of day.

I still like it and think it's worth studying. But I agree that it's unfair for others to see into my view at the time, and thus probably not a good shot.

Aside from all that, particularly interested in additional C&C. Gotta learn!

MrBook2

I was actually drawn to him immediately, but that might have been a happy coincidence.

I like the idea here a lot. Maybe a different crop would help guide others to him more quickly?

bdcolen

michswiss wrote:

I really, really have to hit myself to remind me to never, never put a subjective comment next to my own shots ever again. Dumb, dumb, dumb...

This is one of those shots that I like but knew instinctively that other's wouldn't get because they'd have to search for the payoff. And it's my payoff as I was there when I took it and know what else I felt and saw. Not the viewer's. I was in a strange mood that evening and had been walking around some central areas of Beijing for a long time knowing I'd end up in this area. I just wasn't sure what time of day.

I still like it and think it's worth studying. But I agree that it's unfair, and thus probably not a good shot for others.

First, the selective color: Why? What for? What's the point? "...what's it good for?!"

Second, the image - While you may, for some quite personal reason, "lust for eye contact," in most cases - yes, there are glaring exceptions - it ruins street photos. There's no trick to get someone to stare at you; the trick is getting an interesting scene, an unfolding story, and your presence doesn't disrupt and ruin. In this case, the photo is something of a human jumble, and the problem isn't the viewers don't have the patience to look for the subject, but rather the fact that, taken subjectively, there is no subject.

tonichelle

for whatever reason I suddenly thought of the scene in Schindler's List with the little girl in the red coat... obviously your photo is not that depressing...

Tim Kamppinen

Ok, someone please tell me that the OP has replaced the photo with a totally B&W version, and I'm not totally, hopelessly colorblind in the most literal sense... because I don't see anything colored at all in this photo...

adbsgicom

Tim Kamppinen wrote:

Ok, someone please tell me that the OP has replaced the photo with a totally B&W version, and I'm not totally, hopelessly colorblind in the most literal sense... because I don't see anything colored at all in this photo...

Time for the doctor visit!!! Front and center, the jacket is red. Other red stuff in the picture as well.

marikris

I feel the same as everybody else above me. Even without your comment about the picture, I'd still have been trying to analyze why the color. Why red? What am I supposed to see when I look at the red spots of color? I understand it in wedding pictures and in children's portraits that I have seen here (It's pretty, I get it). But I feel like there's a meta-narrative that I am not getting when I see the selective coloring in this scene and the fact that it's repeated.

Nikolai

Tim Kamppinen wrote:

Ok, someone please tell me that the OP has replaced the photo with a totally B&W version, and I'm not totally, hopelessly colorblind in the most literal sense... because I don't see anything colored at all in this photo...

There are a few reddish coats.. and yes, the image is still OP, not a copy...

Wil Davis

I think it might have been more effective if everything had been desaturated except for the person looking directly at the camera.

(check Gary Ross's "Pleasantville" (1998) for masterly use of such a device…)



- Wil

Nikolai

Wil Davis wrote:

I think it might have been more effective if everything had been desaturated except for the person looking directly at the camera.

(check Gary Ross's "Pleasantville" (1998) for masterly use of such a device…)



- Wil

Or vise versa :-)
Plus some radial zoom :-)

bendruckerphoto

Cropping would definitely help. But selective color actual hurts the image.

Tim Kamppinen

adbsgicom wrote:

Time for the doctor visit!!! Front and center, the jacket is red. Other red stuff in the picture as well.

Ok, this is just bizzare... I am actually somewhat colorblind, but between red and green... I know what the color red looks like, however, and I've seen selective coloring done before, with red objects, etc, and never had this problem...

So I saved the file and opened it in PS. I used the eyedropper to check the RGB values on the jacket, and I got results like (70,60,61) all over it. The other supposedly red areas (based on what people wrote) were similar. So does it look like a very faint, desaturated red color (it would appear that way based on the RGB values)? Because maybe my eyes just aren't sensitive enough for it to register... this sucks though, stuff like this makes me question whether my photos have all sorts of bizzare color casts that I'm oblivious to... although I try to stick to the numbers when doing skin tones, etc.

Why can't I just have a decent set of peepers, dammit?

michswiss

I am not a fan of selective colouring, in fact, I have never ever attempted it intentionally. I wouldn't have the PS skills to pull it off well any way. In this case it showed itself as I desaturated the image and for some reason I left the version in that state until I noticed it again recently. I remember enjoying the openness of the image with so much light in a dark setting, but being disappointed in the lack of sharpness of the subject as I perceived it.

Tim Kamppinen wrote:

Ok, this is just bizzare... I am actually somewhat colorblind, but between red and green... I know what the color red looks like, however, and I've seen selective coloring done before, with red objects, etc, and never had this problem...

Tim. I'm not colour blind, but I have a distinct variation of colour perception between my eyes. The best way to describe it is that they have a different white balance. Warmth and cool temperature differences. I attempt to use it to my advantage as a creative tool. Nice to have wet biology measuring devices available for some adjustments.

Here's the full colour version with the red very much front and centre as well as a quick B&W conversion. Both have been cropped identically and there's even a bit of lens flare that I hadn't noticed before. Everyone, I really appreciate the dialogue. People is turning into a great place to hang out.

Flutist

I actually don't have so much of a problem with the desaturation, as I do with the fact that the ONE person you caught looking at you is terribly out of focus. To my eyes it seems as though the moped in the lower left corner was the focus point?