Patriot and Protester (Candids)

rgphoto

A couple months ago, Pres. Obama came to my college to speak on behalf of Martha Coakley. The campus was swarming with protesters and supporters. It made for some really fun photos . I finally got around to editing a couple of them. I hope you like them!

Mr. Quiet

Love the second one...thumb

Betz

Nice candids.

ivar

Betz wrote:

Nice candids.

I've moved this to the street forum

Richard

ivar wrote:

I've moved this to the street forum

Where you will be duly chastised for using selective color.

I like #2 and I suspect that #1 would also be good as a straight B&W.

bfjr

Richard wrote:

Where you will be duly chastised for using selective color.

I like #2 and I suspect that #1 would also be good as a straight B&W.

Yeah isn't it against some Fed Law to use SS on the US Flag :wow
I to would like #1 in straight B&W

rgphoto

Haha alright alright guys...here ya go:

bdcolen

rgphoto wrote:

Haha alright alright guys...here ya go:

MUCH better!

Mr. Quiet

Can someone tell me the real reason they do not like selective coloring?

bfjr

Mr. Quiet wrote:

Can someone tell me the real reason they do not like selective coloring?

It's slap you in the face Fake! At least that's how I feel.
I have tried it myself so can't claim innocence

Richard

Mr. Quiet wrote:

Can someone tell me the real reason they do not like selective coloring?

I think the main reason is that it is rarely done well. By that, I mean that it is not serving any clear artistic goal, and so it just looks like a gimmick. In fact, it often seems to work against the goal--coloring a flower when the flower is not the subject of the pic, for example. One also sees it used as a desperate attempt to rescue an otherwise uninteresting shot.

Interestingly, there seems to be more hostility among photographers than in the public at large. I have seen comments from wedding photographers who don't like the technique themselves but do it because their clients request (or even demand) it. I suppose photographers look at more photography and are more likely to see it as a cliche.

In this case, the strong colors in the original post simply overwhelm the viewer so that it is easy to miss the nice expressions on all three family members. The flag doesn't need to be in color to be instantly recognized. So rather than help, SC harms the image, which (IMO) looks better in B&W.

Some people think that selective color is never acceptable, but to me that seems like an arbitrary rule just asking to be broken. So even if you have a very good reason in mind, you can expect some grumbling whenever you use it. Don't let that stop you, though, if you have a clear vision.

Mr. Quiet

I think if you have seen my work, you know I do not let what people think or say detour me from what I like personally. I might change it in ways I see fit. That does not mean I will not listen and think about what other people say, I do.

IMHO, I think people are, for some odd reason, bias toward SC. It is almost like it goes against their "artisticness." But what you say is right. If used, it should not be used to save a photo, but only to enhance it. Correct?

rgphoto

I think a lot of photographers are against selective color because it is an obvious post processing technique. When you see selective color, you automatically know that the photo has been edited or altered. A lot of photographers pride themselves in not editing their photos at all, and being able to get the image they like best by simply using their camera. I used to be one of those photographers. Even now, I edit 95% of my shots using just iPhoto, and rarely use photoshop.

Richard

rgphoto wrote:

A lot of photographers pride themselves in not editing their photos at all, and being able to get the image they like best by simply using their camera.

What you are saying is certainly true, but I wonder why we don't hear about novelists who only publish unedited first drafts.