Endzo was here...

TEWMOM

First time posting to this forum as I am new to this style of photography. I was stuck in traffic yesterday while a really long freight train slowly crawled by. I liked all the graffiti artists work on the various cars.

michswiss

This isn't a bad use of selective colour. I didn't realise it was selective at first thanks to the comp that led me to the graffiti. But, it still bothers me. Is the full colour version that distracting? Otherwise, I'd crop the lower part of the frame taking the brake light of the truck and part of the street out. It feels like wasted space.

TEWMOM

michswiss wrote:

This isn't a bad use of selective colour. I didn't realise it was selective at first thanks to the comp that led me to the graffiti. But, it still bothers me. Is the full colour version that distracting? Otherwise, I'd crop the lower part of the frame taking the brake light of the truck and part of the street out. It feels like wasted space.

Thank you for the honest feedback and critique. First of all this was just a shot I took for my daily photo blog. But as I played with it, it began to get a bit more interesting to me. I did SC because the color version just didn't seem to be doing anything for me, also played around with crop. I will give your suggestions a try when I get home and will post a follow up.

Thanks again!

bdcolen

michswiss wrote:

This isn't a bad use of selective colour. I didn't realise it was selective at first thanks to the comp that led me to the graffiti. But, it still bothers me. Is the full colour version that distracting? Otherwise, I'd crop the lower part of the frame taking the brake light of the truck and part of the street out. It feels like wasted space.

I'm going to disagree - - and say that this is most definitely a bad use of selective color (which suggests that I think some uses of selective color in either street, documentary, or photo journalism are good - and I don't ). But what I find particularly bothersome about this use is that it creates a very misleading image. This was not a scene in which a brilliant flash of graffiti stood out in a gray world. The graffiti was executed on the side of what I'm going to guess was a dull red boxcar. The sky is blue. The autos are an assortment of colors, the sky is presumably a shade of blue, and the evergreens are just that. So the scene didn't look anything like this, no matter how one might visualize it. I know, the scene wasn't in shades of gray, black, and white either. But in digital we generally accept conversion to black and white a a substitute for shooting film in black and white, which has always been seen as a valid choice in most forms of photography.

But this kind of use of spot color turns the graffiti into something it never was.

So sorry, Jen, but we disagree.

michswiss

bdcolen wrote:

But this kind of use of spot color turns the graffiti into something it never was.

So sorry, Jen, but we disagree.

B.D., we don't disagree. I'm convinced SC isn't a good thing. Just ask the lady I was talking to last night when she suggested that I should use SC in some of my shots because it would be fun. I was just pointing out that it wasn't the first thing I noticed about this image.

Oh, and there are whole shops here selling moody photographs of Shanghai that are nothing but SC where the city is drab B&W except for all the red lanterns. Seems the tourists love them.

Roadkill

I'm not going to claim to be any authority on PJ, so I may be out on a limb, but I like this shot and the selective color works for me. The B/w process looks great too.

Everybody that looks at a scene will see something different in it.

TEWMOM

Although I don't 100% agree on the comments regarding the selective color, I do appreciate the raw honesty that was given on my shot. Here is the scene as I saw it. Was ready to discard it, really only snapped it because I was bored while stuck in the traffic. It was the graffiti painted on the various cars that held my attention. There are some pretty fabulous artists out there, lol!

Thanks again for the feedback, as I said this is a completely new style for me.

TonyCooper

TEWMOM wrote:

Although I don't 100% agree on the comments regarding the selective color, I do appreciate the raw honesty that was given on my shot. Here is the scene as I saw it. Was ready to discard it, really only snapped it because I was bored while stuck in the traffic. It was the graffiti painted on the various cars that held my attention. There are some pretty fabulous artists out there, lol!

Thanks again for the feedback, as I said this is a completely new style for me.

Look, unless you do this for a living, photography is supposed to be an en enjoyable hobby. If you take pleasure in taking of photographs and you like the results, then there are no "bad" photographs. Sometimes you have to decide if you are shooting for you or for other people.

The treatment is misplaced in this group (been there, done that), but that doesn't mean you failed at anything. Place that photograph in the
"Other Cool Shots" forum and you'll find a lot of people will like it.

What I like about it - either version - is that you saw a scene and saw that there was a photograph there. Having an eye for what makes a good photograph is the important thing.

I happen to agree that the full-color version works better. The boxcar is sufficiently the center of attention because of the lighting. Including the traffic and the road (maybe a little too much road) placed the scene and made the composition. While I like this version better, I don't see any need to review the other version harshly. It's kind of a fun thing and there's nothing wrong with having a little fun with a hobby.

bdcolen

TonyCooper wrote:

Look, unless you do this for a living, photography is supposed to be an en enjoyable hobby. If you take pleasure in taking of photographs and you like the results, then there are no "bad" photographs. Sometimes you have to decide if you are shooting for you or for other people.

The treatment is misplaced in this group (been there, done that), but that doesn't mean you failed at anything. Place that photograph in the
"Other Cool Shots" forum and you'll find a lot of people will like it.

What I like about it - either version - is that you saw a scene and saw that there was a photograph there. Having an eye for what makes a good photograph is the important thing.

I happen to agree that the full-color version works better. The boxcar is sufficiently the center of attention because of the lighting. Including the traffic and the road (maybe a little too much road) placed the scene and made the composition. While I like this version better, I don't see any need to review the other version harshly. It's kind of a fun thing and there's nothing wrong with having a little fun with a hobby.

Okay, food fight time. I could be gentle here, but it's become quite clear to me over the past month or so that there's little point in gentility.
(Actually, let me preface this by saying that my remarks are intended for Tony, and not for TEWMOM):

Tony, everyone's excrement stinks. Period. It doesn't matter whether we're discussing Ansel Adams or a kid with a disposable camera - crap is crap. This applies whether one is a pro, paid thousands of dollars for each shoot, or Dad with a point and shoot at a kid's birthday. To say that "If you take pleasure in taking of photographs and you like the results, then there are no "bad" photographs" is not only foolish on its face - because the internet is swamped with utterly unviewable wastes of pixels, it's an insult to anyone who wants to improve his or her skills. Sure, if someone clearly doesn't give a damn what anyone thinks, then it really doesn't matter what they do. But if they really don't care, why would they post on a site like this? Yes, we expect different things from Ansel Adams and from the kid with the disposable, but we do neither any favors by looking at something that doesn't work and saying, 'oh, wonderful.' If we do that, one of two things will happen:
Either they will never improve, or they will decide that we are idiots, and they'll look elsewhere for comment.

B. D.

Richard

bdcolen wrote:

But this kind of use of spot color turns the graffiti into something it never was.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. Reality is overrated.

TonyCooper

bdcolen wrote:

Okay, food fight time. I could be gentle here, but it's become quite clear to me over the past month or so that there's little point in gentility.
(Actually, let me preface this by saying that my remarks are intended for Tony, and not for TEWMOM):

Tony, everyone's excrement stinks. Period. It doesn't matter whether we're discussing Ansel Adams or a kid with a disposable camera - crap is crap. This applies whether one is a pro, paid thousands of dollars for each shoot, or Dad with a point and shoot at a kid's birthday. To say that "If you take pleasure in taking of photographs and you like the results, then there are no "bad" photographs" is not only foolish on its face - because the internet is swamped with utterly unviewable wastes of pixels, it's an insult to anyone who wants to improve his or her skills. Sure, if someone clearly doesn't give a damn what anyone thinks, then it really doesn't matter what they do. But if they really don't care, why would they post on a site like this? Yes, we expect different things from Ansel Adams and from the kid with the disposable, but we do neither any favors by looking at something that doesn't work and saying, 'oh, wonderful.' If we do that, one of two things will happen:
Either they will never improve, or they will decide that we are idiots, and they'll look elsewhere for comment.

B. D.

I don't think a food fight is called for, or even a fight of any kind.

The OP has not desecrated the Mona Lisa here. All she's done is posted an image with a treatment that pleases her (or she wouldn't have done it) and opened herself to comments. Her greatest sin was not lurking in this forum before posting and determining what type of photos and what type of post treatment is acceptable to those who are most likely to comment .

I do stand by my statement that there are no bad photos if you (the photographer) like the results. I'm not going to take away someone else's pleasure in taking a photograph or processing a photograph just because I don't personally like the results. I'm not that egotistical.

I agree that we are not doing anyone any favors by saying "Oh, wonderful" about what we don't think is wonderful, but neither do we encourage participation in photography or in this forum by using terms like "excrement" and "crap" to describe what we don't personally endorse.

If the aim is to, as you say, "improve their skills", then the better way to critique in a situation like this is to ask for the original to be presented and then comment on how that image can be treated to maximize the effectiveness of the image.

In this case, the original does have some positive attributes. It's not what I would call "street", but it's an interesting photo. With a bit of cropping at the bottom, it would be a better photo. I like the contrast of the light on the boxcar and the subdued lighting on the traffic.

bdcolen

TonyCooper wrote:

I don't think a food fight is called for, or even a fight of any kind.

The OP has not desecrated the Mona Lisa here. All she's done is posted an image with a treatment that pleases her (or she wouldn't have done it) and opened herself to comments. Her greatest sin was not lurking in this forum before posting and determining what type of photos and what type of post treatment is acceptable to those who are most likely to comment .

I do stand by my statement that there are no bad photos if you (the photographer) like the results. I'm not going to take away someone else's pleasure in taking a photograph or processing a photograph just because I don't personally like the results. I'm not that egotistical.

I agree that we are not doing anyone any favors by saying "Oh, wonderful" about what we don't think is wonderful, but neither do we encourage participation in photography or in this forum by using terms like "excrement" and "crap" to describe what we don't personally endorse.

If the aim is to, as you say, "improve their skills", then the better way to critique in a situation like this is to ask for the original to be presented and then comment on how that image can be treated to maximize the effectiveness of the image.

In this case, the original does have some positive attributes. It's not what I would call "street", but it's an interesting photo. With a bit of cropping at the bottom, it would be a better photo. I like the contrast of the light on the boxcar and the subdued lighting on the traffic.

You may have failed to notice Tony that I specifically said I was not commenting about either the photo in question, or the photographer. I was NOT suggesting that the photograph in question was crap or was excrement, and I actually resent your suggesting that it was, and your implied suggestion that my comments were aimed at the photographer. I was commenting about your absolutely bizarre theory that there are no bad photos. There are bad photos, bad books, bad songs, bad paintings, bad drawings, bad kidney operations. To suggest that there are no "bad" photos suggests that all created material - for that matter - all work, is of equal quality, and such a contention us utterly absurd. It is literally impossible to provide a critique if you don't start with the premise that good, bad, and ugly exist, and that there are some basic standards.

What I also said is that people presumably come to this and other similar forums because they want feedback - criticism, because they understand that if they don't offer their work up for criticism they will never learn anything about how to improve it. All of us are good at some things, and not so good at others. Oddly enough, we may get enormous pleasure out of things we are not particularly good at. (I have for some 45 years fooled around with the 5-string banjo. Can I play it? Not well. In fact, I'm pretty awful and have never gotten beyond the basics - very basic basics - I learned in high school. I certainly enjoy playing it, but I would hardly take offense at being told that I can't play worth a damn - I'm not so stupid as to not know that. And I also have never been offended by those who have attempted - in vain - to help me improve my playing. But I digress.

I would suggest that even some excellent photographers on this site have, on occasion, posted "bad" photographs - I know I have; I'm extremely impressed that you haven't.

Richard

TEWMOM wrote:

It was the graffiti painted on the various cars that held my attention. There are some pretty fabulous artists out there, lol!

Selective color is about as popular here as a pedophile in Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. I'm not much of a fan myself, but unlike some, I think it's just one more thing you can experiment with. One does want to avoid clichés, so you ought to have a pretty good reason for using it. In this case, the color of the graffiti is much stronger than any of the others and it is well-positioned in the composition, especially if you crop it from the bottom and right into a 17x10. So IMO, it doesn't need selective color to stand out. There is a bit of a yellow cast to the image, maybe that's just sunset coloration, but I would correct it some.

TonyCooper

bdcolen wrote:

You may have failed to notice Tony that I specifically said I was not commenting about either the photo in question, or the photographer. I was NOT suggesting that the photograph in question was crap or was excrement, and I actually resent your suggesting that it was, and your implied suggestion that my comments were aimed at the photographer. [end quote]

Disclaimer aside, there was a strong implication in your comments that you were applying "crap" and "excrement" to the SC-treated photo. It's rather ironic that you can resent what you see as my implication but not see your own.


[resume quote] I was commenting about your absolutely bizarre theory that there are no bad photos.

It's the "There are no ugly babies" thing. The baby may be ugly in your view, but not in the mother's view. That's how I can say, as I did, "If you like the results, then there are no 'bad' photographs". The "bad" is in the view of the originator.

[resume quote] What I also said is that people presumably come to this and other similar forums because they want feedback - criticism, because they understand that if they don't offer their work up for criticism they will never learn anything about how to improve it. [/quote]

Yes, but I think they want helpful criticism. More on the line of michswiss' feedback: "This isn't a bad use of selective colour. I didn't realise it was selective at first thanks to the comp that led me to the graffiti. But, it still bothers me. Is the full colour version that distracting? Otherwise, I'd crop the lower part of the frame taking the brake light of the truck and part of the street out. It feels like wasted space."


[resume quote]I would suggest that even some excellent photographers on this site have, on occasion, posted "bad" photographs - I know I have; I'm extremely impressed that you haven't.[/quote]

I've never posted a bad photograph. I've posted photographs that others have adjudged to be bad (and I've sometimes come to agreement on that), but never one that I felt to be bad. I liked the results or I wouldn't have posted it.

TEWMOM

I never thought that my entry in this forum would become such a heated discussion. I totally understand that selective color is not a medium best used in the photo journalism style. This was merely a shot that I took while stuck in traffic which ended up in my daily photo blog. I am very interested in this style of photography and will keep attempting to capture something of interest.

sara505

TEWMOM wrote:

I never thought that my entry in this forum would become such a heated discussion. I totally understand that selective color is not a medium best used in the photo journalism style. This was merely a shot that I took while stuck in traffic which ended up in my daily photo blog. I am very interested in this style of photography and will keep attempting to capture something of interest.

You know, I said to myself a while back, I wonder what would happen if Tony C and BD ever crossed paths? Not sure what made me wonder such a thing, but is has proven to be interesting...

bdcolen

I've never posted a bad photograph. I've posted photographs that others have adjudged to be bad (and I've sometimes come to agreement on that), but never one that I felt to be bad. I liked the results or I wouldn't have posted it.

Oh, I have no doubt of that.

michswiss

TonyCooper wrote:

I've never posted a bad photograph. I've posted photographs that others have adjudged to be bad (and I've sometimes come to agreement on that), but never one that I felt to be bad. I liked the results or I wouldn't have posted it.

Here's a corollary. Have I ever posted a good photograph? If nothing's bad, what is good? In the case of this particular image, the composition and story felt good to me. My first impression was the line of cars in the shadows leading to the lit train holding things up. It was then that I noticed the SC graffiti. Thus my comment that this wasn't a bad use, as compared to your flower shot where the yellows required my attention away from everything else.

I'm going to draw a conclusion. Storyline trumps SC in a photograph, so you'd better be sure that there's a story to be told where SC is a punch line, or at least a plot device.