Black & White vs Color

TonyCooper

In another thread BD wrote:

bdcolen wrote:

Yes, of course it's the photograph, and not the forum that should determine whether a photograph works best in black and white or color. But the important point to think about is that when all is said and done, color photographs tend to be about the color, rather than the people. If the color is the real subject of the photo, then by all means keep the photo in color. But if the person is the subject, and you want us to really see the person, 9 times out of 10 black and white will be a better choice. .:wink

I don't see it that way. The presence of color doesn't necessarily distract from capturing the essence of the person as a subject. It isn't a 9 out of 10 thing; it's a 50/50 thing depending on the individual subject as part of a whole. Every image can be evaluated on the basis of "Does color or black and white best present the intended effect?".

I would consider more than the person in this evaluation. For black and white to work, the person must be distinctive from the background...the surround. We see many images presented here where a b&w rendering does not allow the primary subject to be a distinct focus of attention. The color rendition of that same image could provide this separation.

There's a school of thought - of which you are the Professor - that says that photos of the type encouraged in this forum should be gritty and stark, black and white with strong contrast. And, that certainly works very effectively in many photos.

However, blanket rules bother me. I'm in the school that says "Take out what doesn't add to the photograph, and leave in what does add".
That applies to both cropping and color. If I go in with the idea that 9 out of 10 photos will be better in b&w, then I may be taking out what does add.

For the 9 out of 10 concept to apply, all of the ten photographs have to be taken from the right angle, have the right kind of background, and have the primary subject distinct. Unfortunately, we sometimes don't have that to work with. A lot of good shots are one-time grabs where not all of that is present or are shots where conditions don't allow us to incorporate all of those requirements.

black mamba

No doubt, this whole issue of B&W versus color....when to use which application, which is going to produce the best results, and on and on....is fraught with personal prejudice. There's simply no way to argue otherwise.
We each see scenes and subjects differently. We each have our own preconceived notions as to how best to record and promote what we see to others. I'd venture to suggest that a disciple of one discipline is seldom swayed to to the views and attitudes of the opposing camp. That statement, however, is not to be construed as an opinion that it's always one way or the other. Certainly there are instances of " cross pollination ".

I live in a world of color. Everything I visually perceive has, except in rare instances, an element of color involved. That said, a picture in which no color is evident is lacking a sense of reality that I'm so attuned to. A B&W picture can most certainly evoke strong emotions, create a contemplative mood, or otherwise influence a personal reaction. No question about it. But in the final analysis, I have difficulty relating to such an image as one that is real. A B&W image just doesn't strike some necessary chord within me that lets me accept it as the definitive answer. Obviously, as noted above, my individual prejudices and attitudes are hard at play in this case.

Thank goodness, we are all different in our wants and needs as relative to our appreciation and application of photography. The two schools of thought and practice exist and we are free to choose which one, at any given time, best suits our efforts and helps us achieve our goals. And, ultimately, that's a great thing.

Tom

michswiss

I don't think "rules of thumb" are necessarily blanket rules. That 9 out of 10 image probably will work better in B&W doesn't mean the photographer, or whoever is doing the post should assume that. But I do think the photographer should at least have some concept of whether they are composing for B&W or colour when they release the shutter. So in this genre, you're probably thinking and composing for B&W 9 out of 10 times. None of that stops me from taking a colour image if I see the opportunity or from going out for a walk intending to look for colour shots.

Your other points are good, but I feel they apply to B&W and colour equally. For example, while the techniques might be slightly different, the subject should almost always be visually separated from the background (or foreground).

Edit to add: One other point. As far as I know, there is no such thing as B&W RAW so we all see a colour version of our work at least for a fleeting moment. Studying the colour composition closely will also assist when converting to B&W

Richard

I'm guessing this is going to be a long thread. Some random thoughts:

• Color shooting on the street is problematic because the colors are frequently ugly--bad clothes, advertising signs meant to call attention to themselves, plastic objects. It's not easy to spot a harmonious mixture, though it is rewarding when you do.

• michswiss wrote:

  But I do think the photographer should at least have some concept of whether they are composing for B&W or colour when they release the shutter. So in this genre, you're probably thinking and composing for B&W 9 out of 10 times.

  Well, I envy you that skill. Millions of years of evolution has made my brain see in color and although I have tried, I usually find it really difficult to "see" in black and white. What I can do, though, is not let ugly colors stop me from taking a shot, as I always have the choice of going B&W in post.

• bdcolen wrote:

  ...when all is said and done, color photographs tend to be about the color, rather than the people. If the color is the real subject of the photo, then by all means keep the photo in color. But if the person is the subject, and you want us to really see the person, 9 times out of 10 black and white will be a better choice.

  I have to disagree. A color pic may be about color, but it certainly doesn't have to be. I recently saw a large, original color print of Annie Leibovitz's famous Vogue cover shot of a very pregnant Demi Moore. While I was impressed by the richness and subtlety of the color, I can't imagine anyone would say that pic was about the color, not the person. Most commercial portrait photography today is in color, and portrait work is nothing if not about people. Steichen was arguably the greatest portrait photographer ever, but do you really think he would be working in B&W if he were alive today? Not if he wanted to work for Vogue, Vanity Fair or Conde Nast. Eggleston (who I generally don't much care for) made color photography legitimate, but is this pic really about color?
  
  photo by William Eggleston
• In the end, I think color v. B&W is a false opposition. You will be more successful as a photographer and as an artist if you know how to use both and develop your sense of which works best for a given shot. Everyone is welcome to their own preferences, of course. Just recognize that they are matters of taste, that's all.
• If you don't like color, you're probably really going to hate it when photography goes 3D. Think it's not going to happen? Wanna bet?

michswiss

Richard wrote:

Well, I envy you that skill. Millions of years of evolution has made my brain see in color and although I have tried, I usually find it really difficult to "see" in black and white. What I can do, though, is not let ugly colors stop me from taking a shot, as I always have the choice of going B&W in post.

I did say compose not see. I also cheat a little in that I chimp in B&W. I find it easier to assess composition and focus when out and about.

When we all primarily shot film, we needed to understand the characteristics of the stock in the camera, be it colour or B&W. I pretty sure we would instinctively look for opportunities to exploit those characteristics when shooting. Now that we can choose the "film" in post it isn't as much a question. But I stand by my earlier comment in that when planning a day's shooting or a particular shot, it helps to have an idea how you intend to treat it in post.

TonyCooper

michswiss wrote:

. But I do think the photographer should at least have some concept of whether they are composing for B&W or colour when they release the shutter.

We might, but we might not end up using what our original concept was. When I shot "No Loitering" (posted in this forum), I was thinking b&w from the get-go. It didn't work for me in post-processing and I ended up with a color shot. The statue's detail got muddied up when I converted. Rutt, who is better in post than I am, showed how it could be done, though.

From the minute I lifted the camera for "In The Hood" (also in this forum) it was a b&w. The subject's complexion made it difficult to add the contrast I wanted, but it's still a b&w.

TonyCooper

Molsondog wrote:

Gritty, grainy and contrasty B/W shots are attractive to me. I prefer to hang this type of shot on the wall over a fancy shot of a barn (no offense meant the barn lobby. Feel free to substitute a subject matter of your choosing)..

In defense of the barn people, barns can be black and white and gritty.

This shot was taken in November in Virginia. The barn's colors were bland, the grass was yellowed from the cold, and the sky was colorless. Using my premise of "If it doesn't add to the photograph, take it out", I took out the color.

I'll do a link rather than use the image since the image is so out-of-place in this forum.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Current-Favorite-Shot/1631barn/759685327_5z45a-X2.jpg

damonff

Unobtrusive Color
Color can be used in a good way:

Tina Manley

I believe that people photos are better in B&W unless there is a particular reason for using color. My photographs of people in Guatemala are usually in color because color is such an important part of their culture. I could not imagine the Guatemalan indigenous people without their beautiful woven and embroidered clothes with the brilliant colors that indicate their villages. My people pictures of Honduras are almost all in B&W because color is not as important in their culture and in B&W you see their faces before their clothes. On the other hand, I also use B&W with Guatemalan photos when it matters.

http://www.tinamanley.smugmug.com/gallery/5885005_Vryn9#367425430_KikRj-L-LB

Tina

WillCAD

Why does it have to be one or the other?

spb13

Molsondog wrote:

Original in color?
The composition is obviously the same. The subject is the same. Does one change the story more than the other? Do you get a different sense from one vs. the other? Can you pass judgement on this alone?

Pardon the simplistic B/W conversion courtesy of SmugMug quick version change button.

I think that the B&W version of this shot could be stronger than the color version, however the "simplistic conversion" does nothing for the picture.

Wil Davis

WillCAD wrote:

Why does it have to be one or the other?

…else it becomes neither, the two ideas fighting each other instead of complementing (IMNSHO)…



- Wil

craig_d

WillCAD wrote:

Why does it have to be one or the other?

Because it just looks gimmicky otherwise. Your shot, for example, makes no sense to me. The couple are the subject, so why are they and the wall in BW while the colorful flowers distract the viewer's attention away?

I don't say that mixed BW/color never works, but it very rarely works, and when it does work, it does so reasons that have to do with the nature of the subject matter, and is usually done with some delicacy (for example, having the one color thing be partly desaturated so it doesn't stand out too much).

craig_d

spb13 wrote:

I think that the B&W version of this shot could be stronger than the color version, however the "simplistic conversion" does nothing for the picture.

This is an important point. B&W conversion is not just a simple matter of clicking on "Desaturate" in your favorite photo editing program. There are different ways to do it, some of which have parameters that can be adjusted. Also, the white balance of the color image affects the conversion regardless of how you do it. Then there are various things you can do once the image is in B&W. Changes to contrast, black and white levels, tone and luminance curves, etc. that might look absolutely awful in color may affect B&W in a more pleasing way.

In this case, I agree with spb13, the B&W conversion does not appear to have been done with any thought and is not significantly better or worse than the original.

WillCAD

craig_d wrote:

Because it just looks gimmicky otherwise. Your shot, for example, makes no sense to me. The couple are the subject, so why are they and the wall in BW while the colorful flowers distract the viewer's attention away?

I don't say that mixed BW/color never works, but it very rarely works, and when it does work, it does so reasons that have to do with the nature of the subject matter, and is usually done with some delicacy (for example, having the one color thing be partly desaturated so it doesn't stand out too much).

Sometimes beating your audience over the head to tell them what the subject of the photo is, is less effective than allowing them to realize it on their own.

In this case, the color flowers and boutonniere do not "distract the viewer's attention;" rather, they act as a framing element, and actually draw focus to the couple's faces. Or that was my aim when I colorized it, anyway. As with all things photographic, the artistic merits and effectiveness of the technique is entirely subjective.

Which brings us back, in a Family Guy random flashback sort of way, to the original topic of this thread - color or B/W? Sometimes one, sometimes the other, and sometimes both. Blanket statements like "most people shots are more effective in b/w" are a little ridiculous; rather like saying, "most people prefer to listen to country music."

craig_d

WillCAD wrote:

In this case, the color flowers and boutonniere do not "distract the viewer's attention;" rather, they act as a framing element, and actually draw focus to the couple's faces. Or that was my aim when I colorized it, anyway.

(shrug) I think it still leaves you with figure/ground confusion that doesn't help the picture. If other people think it's great, I hope they add their comments about why it works for them. It's not working for me.

WillCAD wrote:

Which brings us back, in a Family Guy random flashback sort of way, to the original topic of this thread - color or B/W? Sometimes one, sometimes the other, and sometimes both. Blanket statements like "most people shots are more effective in b/w" are a little ridiculous; rather like saying, "most people prefer to listen to country music."

I think the point of saying that "most" street shots work better in B&W is based on the assumption that color is usually not the most interesting thing about street images. The question I always ask about pictures is, what is color adding to this? If the answer is, not much, if the point of the image is conveyed as well or better in B&W, then get rid of the color.

To the extent that there is a middle ground, I think more often it is a degree of desaturation rather than desaturing only part of the image. Every once in a while, though, I see a mixed color/B&W image that works. Just not often. I could say the same of HDR, panoramas, and other currently-fashionable techniques that, like any tool of art, are easier to use than to use well.

bdcolen

TonyCooper wrote:

In another thread BD wrote:




There's a school of thought - of which you are the Professor - that says that photos of the type encouraged in this forum should be gritty and stark, black and white with strong contrast. And, that certainly works very effectively in many photos.

As I know we'll never agree, I wouldn't have bothered to respond, but I do want to set the record straight:

I do not say that street or documentary photos, or photo journalism, should be/must be "gritty and stark, black and white with strong contrast." I haven't ever said it; I wouldn't say it; and I don't believe it. What I believe is what I wrote - that color photos are about color - black and white photos tend to be about the subject and about composition and the elements of the composition. Do I believe that, on the whole, street photographs tend to be better in black and white - with the obvious exception of images, such as Virginia's shot of the couple crossing the street, or the red dress hanging in the air, where the color is part of the story? Yes I do. But must be? No. Stark, gritty and constrasty? No.

And finally, if you need color to make your subject stand out from the background, odds are you're doing something wrong in terms of either your exposure or your 'printing.'

bdcolen

WillCAD wrote:

Sometimes beating your audience over the head to tell them what the subject of the photo is, is less effective than allowing them to realize it on their own.

In this case, the color flowers and boutonniere do not "distract the viewer's attention;" rather, they act as a framing element, and actually draw focus to the couple's faces. Or that was my aim when I colorized it, anyway. As with all things photographic, the artistic merits and effectiveness of the technique is entirely subjective.

No, you don't think that the mishmash of color and black and white is distracting to viewers. Hmmmm, that sounds like a Family Guy kind of statement to me, because obviously there are some people here who find it distracting. I admit I can't for the life of me think of why you'd want to do this, other than to make the shot somehow 'different.' This is a dark image, with a distracting background, of a presumably just-married couple. By making the flowers magically appear in color, you make the background even more distracting, and highlight the fact that the groom's face is underlit. IF I was going to try to do some PS magic with a photo like this I'd work with Gaussian Blur to take the distracting photos out of focus, and lighten up the groom's face as much as possible.:D

TonyCooper

bdcolen wrote:

As I know we'll never agree, I wouldn't have bothered to respond, but I do want to set the record straight:

I do not say that street or documentary photos, or photo journalism, should be/must be "gritty and stark, black and white with strong contrast." I haven't ever said it; I wouldn't say it; and I don't believe it.

Although I didn't quote you, if you won't say that, I will. Black and white does need to be gritty, stark, and with strong contrast. How gritty, how stark, and how contrasty is a matter of application to the image at hand.

When b&w fails as a treatment (as opposed to failure of choice of subject matter), it is usually because the image is too soft (as opposed to gritty), the image is muddy (as opposed to stark), and too benignly gray (as opposed to contrasty).

Let's not get bogged down with adjectives here and argue that "gritty" or "stark" are not the words we would both use.

And finally, if you need color to make your subject stand out from the background, odds are you're doing something wrong in terms of either your exposure or your 'printing.'

And, as likely, because of the juxtaposition of the primary subject and the background. When a background object is of a different color than the primary subject, but b&w doesn't sharply delineate the primary subject, the inclusion of color can establish the details of the primary subject.

This is often correctable in the position taken by the photographer by moving to one side or the other in order to not have that juxtaposition, but candid shots are often one-off grabs where this in not possible.

TonyCooper

WillCAD wrote:

Why does it have to be one or the other?
/quote]

I don't particularly like that wedding couple photo rendered in both black and white and color. It seems to me that the wrong elements of the image are diminished by this treatment.

However, I'm not opposed to a bit of whimsy in photography. I'm an amateur photographer who shoots for my own enjoyment. I'm not trying to put together a book, not trying to come up with a portfolio, and not trying to get into selling stock photos. I do it for fun.

I posted this one here as a lark and titled it "Probably Illegal" because I knew it wouldn't be particularly accepted by this group. Leaving the one spot of color was my way of having a bit of fun. Leaving any more in color would have been over-the-top. If it's not treated seriously here, that's fine.

bdcolen

Richard wrote:

I'm guessing this is going to be a long thread. Some random thoughts:

• Color shooting on the street is problematic because the colors are frequently ugly--bad clothes, advertising signs meant to call attention to themselves, plastic objects. It's not easy to spot a harmonious mixture, though it is rewarding when you do.
• 
  Well, I envy you that skill. Millions of years of evolution has made my brain see in color and although I have tried, I usually find it really difficult to "see" in black and white. What I can do, though, is not let ugly colors stop me from taking a shot, as I always have the choice of going B&W in post.
• 
  I have to disagree. A color pic may be about color, but it certainly doesn't have to be. I recently saw a large, original color print of Annie Leibovitz's famous Vogue cover shot of a very pregnant Demi Moore. While I was impressed by the richness and subtlety of the color, I can't imagine anyone would say that pic was about the color, not the person. Most commercial portrait photography today is in color, and portrait work is nothing if not about people. Steichen was arguably the greatest portrait photographer ever, but do you really think he would be working in B&W if he were alive today? Not if he wanted to work for Vogue, Vanity Fair or Conde Nast. Eggleston (who I generally don't much care for) made color photography legitimate, but is this pic really about color?
  
  photo by William Eggleston
• In the end, I think color v. B&W is a false opposition. You will be more successful as a photographer and as an artist if you know how to use both and develop your sense of which works best for a given shot. Everyone is welcome to their own preferences, of course. Just recognize that they are matters of taste, that's all.
• If you don't like color, you're probably really going to hate it when photography goes 3D. Think it's not going to happen? Wanna bet?

Richard, I love ya, but if you don't think Eggleston's work - which I love, btw - is as much about the color as it is about the subjects, well, I have a bridge I want to sell you at a great price.

bdcolen

TonyCooper wrote:

WillCAD wrote:

Why does it have to be one or the other?
/quote]

I don't particularly like that wedding couple photo rendered in both black and white and color. It seems to me that the wrong elements of the image are diminished by this treatment.

However, I'm not opposed to a bit of whimsy in photography. I'm an amateur photographer who shoots for my own enjoyment. I'm not trying to put together a book, not trying to come up with a portfolio, and not trying to get into selling stock photos. I do it for fun.

I posted this one here as a lark and titled it "Probably Illegal" because I knew it wouldn't be particularly accepted by this group. Leaving the one spot of color was my way of having a bit of fun. Leaving any more in color would have been over-the-top. If it's not treated seriously here, that's fine.

/QUOTE]

It's not illegal, Tony, it's just plain silly. You've taken a nice street image - the photo of the sleeping flower guy - and instead of improving it by doing a square crop and getting rid of the wasted space to the right, you've turned it into a gimmick in which our eyes go right past the guy to the garish flowers. For why? (as an old friend of mine always used to ask.:D

Whimsy is fine. Fun is fine. Whether one does this professionally, or purely for one's own entertainment really has nothing to do with this discussion. The question is - does it work?

bdcolen

Molsondog wrote:

Original in color?


Or in B/W?


The composition is obviously the same. The subject is the same. Does one change the story more than the other? Do you get a different sense from one vs. the other? Can you pass judgement on this alone?

Pardon the simplistic B/W conversion courtesy of SmugMug quick version change button.

Which is "better" is tough, particularly with a push-button conversion. But I will say that I found the turquoise ring really distracting in the color version. If he wasn't wearing that ring, it would be a real toss up for me on that one.

Richard

bdcolen wrote:

Richard, I love ya, but if you don't think Eggleston's work - which I love, btw - is as much about the color as it is about the subjects, well, I have a bridge I want to sell you at a great price.

More about color in most of his work. But I believe color takes second or even third place in that shot, which I like a lot.

Tell me more about that bridge...:D

bdcolen

damonff wrote:

Color can be used in a good way:

Of course it can! Good jumpin' whatever...and this is not aimed at you Damon, because I know damn well you 'get it:'

Some images belong in color; some belong in black and white. Which is which? Figure it out for yourselves. But if you want some help - look at the photography of Alex Webb, and the more recent photography of Costa Manos, and I think you'll get what I'm saying about color being the subject of color photographs. Or, for that matter, go look at Eggelston's work and tell me it would be the same in black and white.

But then go look at the work of W. Eugene Smith, or Sebastio Salgado, and tell me it would be the same in color. Or imagine one of Smith or Salgado's images with a great big yellow sunflower in the middle of it.

bdcolen

TonyCooper wrote:

Although I didn't quote you, if you won't say that, I will. Black and white does need to be gritty, stark, and with strong contrast. How gritty, how stark, and how contrasty is a matter of application to the image at hand.

When b&w fails as a treatment (as opposed to failure of choice of subject matter), it is usually because the image is too soft (as opposed to gritty), the image is muddy (as opposed to stark), and too benignly gray (as opposed to contrasty).

Let's not get bogged down with adjectives here and argue that "gritty" or "stark" are not the words we would both use.


And, as likely, because of the juxtaposition of the primary subject and the background. When a background object is of a different color than the primary subject, but b&w doesn't sharply delineate the primary subject, the inclusion of color can establish the details of the primary subject.

This is often correctable in the position taken by the photographer by moving to one side or the other in order to not have that juxtaposition, but candid shots are often one-off grabs where this in not possible.

Good God, Tony. Do you just make this stuff up for the hell of it? Black and white has to be GRITTY? You consider the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson GRITTY? Karsh's portraits - (vastly overrated ) are GRITTY? Ansel Adams work is GRITTY?! Or how about Weston's work? GRITTY?!?

bdcolen

Richard wrote:

More about color in most of his work, I agree. But I believe color takes second or even third place in that shot, which I like a lot.

Tell me more about that bridge...:D

It's a gorgeous structure. Built in the last quarter of the 19th Century and still functioning, it connections what was the city of Brooklyn to Manhattan Island. And I can get you a really, really good price on it.

Seriously, while don't think color is the primary (sorry) subject of that photo, it is definitely an important element. The warmth of the light is really stunning, and contributes allot to the impact of the image, among other things contrasting with the cold steel of the grocery carts.

TonyCooper

It's not illegal, Tony, it's just plain silly. You've taken a nice street image - the photo of the sleeping flower guy - and instead of improving it by doing a square crop and getting rid of the wasted space to the right, you've turned it into a gimmick in which our eyes go right past the guy to the garish flowers. For why? (as an old friend of mine always used to ask.:D

Whimsy is fine. Fun is fine. Whether one does this professionally, or purely for one's own entertainment really has nothing to do with this discussion. The question is - does it work?

Ya gotta lighten up sometimes, BD. I still have the RAW original. I still have the .psd with a deletable layer mask. I still have a "nice street image" if I want to process it that way.

I shot this version off into the ether because it pleased me to do so. If I ever have need for a more traditional street shot, I still have it. It's not a competition here where I've fallen behind in points for posting something that didn't work. I'm not worried about my GPA here.

Richard

bdcolen wrote:

It's a gorgeous structure. Built in the last quarter of the 19th Century and still functioning, it connections what was the city of Brooklyn to Manhattan Island. And I can get you a really, really good price on it.

Seriously, while don't think color is the primary (sorry) subject of that photo, it is definitely an important element. The warmth of the light is really stunning, and contributes allot to the impact of the image, among other things contrasting with the cold steel of the grocery carts.

Yes, OK, then we agree--on this one . Color is an important element, but that doesn't mean that the pic is about color. A crude B&W conversion of it is still a good pic:


With apologies to William Eggleston

The hair is still there, as is the great composition--the shadow, the woman in the background. A pic to be proud of. What is missing is the golden light.

Thanks for the offer, but I'm more of a West Coast guy, so I think I'll wait for the GGB.

WillCAD

You know BD, I'm beginning to get the impression that you really dislike working in color and don't care for anyone else's color work, either. Maybe that's a mistaken impression, but I'm only going by your posts in this thread.

I disagree with your assertion that color photos are more about the color than they are about the subject. Subject IS color; every object in the universe reflects various wavelengths of light, and the human eye can detect a wide range of those wavelengths. Color is an inherent and vital part of EVERY photographic subject, as much as a human subject's hair and clothing.

That's not to say that a mono photograph can't more effectively convey the artist's sentiment, message, or intent than a color image. But those are cases, in my opinion, where the very removal of color from an inherently color subject is, in and of itself, a statement.

In other words, I believe that your assertion that color imagery is about color and mono imagery is about subject is 180-degrees off kilter. I say that a color image is about the subject, and a black and white image is about the statement that the artist wished to make in altering it so grossly.

Color images show you something. Mono images tell you something. I regard both as equally valid forms of artistic expression.

As to my own example, it was a rather poor photo that didn't show what I wanted it to show, so I altered it to instead say something. It doesn't have a deep philosophical meaning to it; it simply says, "Hey, look at the bride and groom!" in a somewhat whimsical fashion.

Here are the three versions of it - color, mono, and mono with color highlights. If you like the mono version better, just don't look at the others.

[Edited to add 4th version with Gausian blur to background and lightening of the groom's face per BD's suggestions]

WillCAD

bdcolen wrote:

No, you don't think that the mishmash of color and black and white is distracting to viewers. Hmmmm, that sounds like a Family Guy kind of statement to me, because obviously there are some people here who find it distracting. I admit I can't for the life of me think of why you'd want to do this, other than to make the shot somehow 'different.' This is a dark image, with a distracting background, of a presumably just-married couple. By making the flowers magically appear in color, you make the background even more distracting, and highlight the fact that the groom's face is underlit. IF I was going to try to do some PS magic with a photo like this I'd work with Gaussian Blur to take the distracting photos out of focus, and lighten up the groom's face as much as possible.:D

Not being a completely inflexible person (by about 1/2%, but still...), I have tried your suggestions. Any better? (keep in mind that I'm pretty ham-handed in Photoshop).