"Friends"

GraphyFotoz

Named this one "Friends"
(Note sign "Sharon Share Alike")

My first time playing with Candid's!
Taken yesterday in a little Township in PA Called Wyalusing PA.

How did I do? :scratch

Color pic done in PhotoShop CS made into selective color.

rutt

In the interests of full disclosure, selective color is a pet peeve of mine. So you may want to take what follows with a grain of salt.

What is the point of selective color in this photo? Selective color is a very dramatic technique. It completely dominates any image where it is used. So I think it should be used only with great care to make very strong statements. What is the statement in this case? That these two women exist in some different plane than the background? That they have some different reality than the background? Were the background colors ugly? What was the point?

Compare selective color to selective focus or selective exposure. Both of these techniques are as old as photography itself and for very good reason. Selective focus derives from the laws of optics. Selective exposure derives from the laws of materials and photosensitivity. A photographer tries to ignore either of these effects at his/her peril. They are there whether you like it or not and you can use them or fight them.

Selective color, on the other hand, is relatively reecent. I'm sure there are older examples done in the darkroom, but they are very rare (I cannot think of one.) When applied to any image, selective color completely dominates the result. It's like being hit hard in the head with a 2x4. So there has to be a point and it has to be an original and interesting point. Something beyond just making the subjects stand out from the background when the composition, focus, &etc fail to do this. Has that happened here?

Just to prove that I'm not a complete curmudgeon on the topic, I have to (grudgingly) admit that I have seen one image posted here in the last year that I though worked and made good and original use of the technique. This was a shot of Andy's of a woman eating a strawberry. Here is the thread where he posted it, but I can no longer see the image. But the point was that the subject (the woman) was B&W and the strawberry was color. Yes, it was like being hit over the head with a sledgehammer, but I think that was the point. That strawberry was so delicious and the taste so unexpectedly wonderful. So it worked. But it's like a joike, it won't work again. That's another difference between this technique and the more essential elements of the photographer's toolbox.

Dee

I have to agree with you Rutt

rutt wrote:

In the interests of full disclosure, selective color is a pet peeve of mine. So you may want to take what follows with a grain of salt.

What is the point of selective color in this photo? Selective color is a very dramatic technique. It completely dominates any image where it is used. So I think it should be used only with great care to make very strong statements. What is the statement in this case? That these two women exist in some different plane than the background? That they have some different reality than the background? Were the background colors ugly? What was the point?

Compare selective color to selective focus or selective exposure. Both of these techniques are as old as photography itself and for very good reason. Selective focus derives from the laws of optics. Selective exposure derives from the laws of materials and photosensitivity. A photographer tries to ignore either of these effects at his/her peril. They are there whether you like it or not and you can use them or fight them.

Selective color, on the other hand, is relatively reecent. I'm sure there are older examples done in the darkroom, but they are very rare (I cannot think of one.) When applied to any image, selective color completely dominates the result. It's like being hit hard in the head with a 2x4. So there has to be a point and it has to be an original and interesting point. Something beyond just making the subjects stand out from the background when the composition, focus, &etc fail to do this. Has that happened here?

Just to prove that I'm not a complete curmudgeon on the topic, I have to (grudgingly) admit that I have seen one image posted here in the last year that I though worked and made good and original use of the technique. This was a shot of Andy's of a woman eating a strawberry. Here is the thread where he posted it, but I can no longer see the image. But the point was that the subject (the woman) was B&W and the strawberry was color. Yes, it was like being hit over the head with a sledgehammer, but I think that was the point. That strawberry was so delicious and the taste so unexpectedly wonderful. So it worked. But it's like a joike, it won't work again. That's another difference between this technique and the more essential elements of the photographer's toolbox.

But I have a few more pet peeves than you do -- IR just because you can do it, B&W conversion (just because it's "in" again) Blurred Out of Focus shots (it's an art statement, I wasn't too lazy to set up the tripod) and tilted photos (oops a pigeon was attacking my shoe).

Now when done well, with purpose and intent and careful fore thought these methods can work quite well, but often I see a lot of photographers just following the latest fad without understanding the purpose of the effect.

And yes, I have 2 or 3 favorite IR photos I dearly love taken by other photographers.

That said, in the case of the photo with the two ladies, the bright white door works against the selective color effect, almost overshadowing the two ladies. If there were something eye catching and colorful in the window, I'd almost be tempted to try the reverse, the window goodies in color, and the rest in B&W.

But, all in all, it's fun to try different things and to learn new skills, you'll never know when they will come in handy.

rutt

Dee wrote:

But I have a few more pet peeves than you do.

I don't think you have more pet peeves than I do. We violently agree about most to the ones you listed.

And I take your point. It is fun to screw around with new techniques. Wouldn't want to put the damper on fun, after all.

pathfinder

Karz wrote:

Named this one "Friends"
(Note sign "Sharon Share Alike")

My first time playing with Candid's!
Taken yesterday in a little Township in PA Called Wyalusing PA.

How did I do?

Color pic done in PhotoShop CS made into selective color.

Sorry Karz. I agree with rutt that the selective color is being overdone generally speaking , and in this image, the red coat just overwhelms me. The balcj coat and the color of the handbags do not enhance this image as they are not the subject in any way that I can identify. MAYBE if this was to be an advertisement for handbags perhaps. Not here.

I disagree with Rutt, though, in that the sign "Sharon Share Alike" is subtle enough, and, I think, if it were the ONLY color in the image might work to draw the viewer's eye.

I agree that the white door needs to be toned down also.