Reading mode: Light Dark

Do People Look Down on Selective Color?

Go to last post
... my one of many and not shouldn't be considered any kind of arbiter of taste. I do graphic design as well as photography and I feel like selective color can work well in graphic kinds of situations where type might match the selective color in a photo. Without some kind of type or graphic element referencing it though, it comes off as rather gimmicky to me and I don't really care for the effect...

I will say though that I use a lot of B&W toning though, particularly a "split toning" effect where highlights are one tone and shadow detail is another (in my case highlights are generally sepia and shadows a deep blue). I try to use this effect subtly (with most of my stuff anyway) but nonetheless some people are bothered by it and will tell me that they'd rather see a more "pure" B&W treatment. To each their own... Everyone has a different idea of what works.
 
Mark Scott Abeln said:
but nowadays it is an obvious gimmick because it does call attention to itself;
Click to expand...
Opinion. Look, I would likely have the same opinion on most instances of selective colour, but it would still be opinion.
Mark S Abeln said:
perhaps it works the first time one sees it, but it becomes less effective with overuse.
Click to expand...
Really? Then nearly the entire forum and almost every camera owner might as well throw their cameras away, because almost nothing is original. If it can be done it has, again and again.
 
sybersitizen said:
PGH423 said:
I'm getting the impression from old threads that there is a view that serious photographers don't do selective color, though? Is that true? Why?
Click to expand...
Serious photographers do almost everything differently from not-so-serious photographers, and generally look down on them for a number of reasons. You can often tell them apart immediately:

Serious photographer
Serious photographer

Not-so-serious photographer
Not-so-serious photographer
Click to expand...
Can I be a serious photographer without a weird hairdo ?
 
It's no different than how any other photographic artifact is seen. It is loved when it is used for a good reason. It is hated when it appears to be used as the "lazy way out", like if selective color is the only way to isolate a subject because all other photographic subject isolation techniques in that photograph failed to be executed.

Photographers hate the use of any technique as a "crutch." Like, over-HDR-ing a landscape because no other photographic attributes would redeem the photo. Or using razor-thin depth of field in every photograph, even in photos where a deep depth of field is called for. Or applying the same VSCO filter to every photograph.

A technique can also be hated when there was a better solution. Like where a portrait already has the right lighting and depth of field to make it an excellent portrait, but since selective color was also used, the special effect visually overwhelms the traditional qualities, the effect was never needed in the first place. It's like a movie where the story and actors were good enough that you would have been perfectly happy watching just them, but the over-the-top special effects kept slapping you in the face for two hours.

If you look at the history of photography, the ones using restraint and knowing when to stop are the ones that end up being the "classic" photos. The ones over-using effects like HDR, selective color, narrow depth-of-field, specific presets, are the ones that totally look trendy and dated in just a few years.

That's not to say "never use" selective color. Like any effect, use it only when it's called for, when it will have the most impact, when it doesn't detract from other parts of the photo. It can be used to "save" a photo, but just be aware that if used that way, it may be perceived as a sign of a failed photo. For a lot of photographers, the time when selective color is the best photographic solution comes up very rarely or not at all.
 
Last edited:
FrancoD said:
sybersitizen said:
PGH423 said:
I'm getting the impression from old threads that there is a view that serious photographers don't do selective color, though? Is that true? Why?
Click to expand...
Serious photographers do almost everything differently from not-so-serious photographers, and generally look down on them for a number of reasons. You can often tell them apart immediately:

Serious photographer
Serious photographer

Not-so-serious photographer
Not-so-serious photographer
Click to expand...
Can I be a serious photographer without a weird hairdo ?
Click to expand...
No, but you are allowed to cover the weird hairdo with a beret or an ironic trucker's cap.

--
Kristian
 
I don't really enjoy it myself, but there's no reason why you should care :) . Not that anybody would mistake me for a "serious photographer".

I don't feel what "serious photographers" think is particularly important if you like the effect in your images, although being able to make it work would probably help. :)

I suggest you try it out and see how your target audience reacts to the result.

As far as that goes, if you like it and you're not trying to make a living selling it, the "serious photographers" can kiss your butt. :)

--
But to be honest, it's probably the unicorns.
 
Last edited:
It's just too easy to do, Almost every pocket camera and phone has a setting,

Though I do know an artist who uses it occasionally in her work, and it can be eye catching. But (to me at least) her best work is full colour
 
PGH423 said:
I've always really liked the technique. I'm getting the impression from old threads that there is a view that serious photographers don't do selective color, though? Is that true? Why?
Click to expand...
If it did, i'd figure it would be something like"pedestrian" or "cliche." Speaking truthfully though, when done tastefully, it still has a place.

Or, with like so many other things, we could simply blame the Jews...

schindlers-list-06-girl-in-red-coat.jpg


In reality, Schindler's List does actually speak to tasteful use of the technique.
 
Last edited:
PGH423 said:
I've always really liked the technique. I'm getting the impression from old threads that there is a view that serious photographers don't do selective color, though? Is that true? Why?
Click to expand...
I'm mostly bored with it. It has become a cliche.

The first dozen or so I saw seemed OK. Now that I've seen a few thousand the novelty has worn off.

Every once in a while I do see one that is something special, some really effective or some sort of unexpected use, but not very often.

But maybe you are one of the few who can rise above the rest and make it work -- just keep in mind you have a tough audience and a lot of competition.

Gato
 
[No message]
 
Wow, a lot of interesting points here. I've been doing selective color occasionally for about 4 years now. I definitely wasn't planning to stop. I just wanted to understand why it has such a mixed reputation among photographers.
 
There is nothing right, nor wrong about it. Some people like extreme HDR, that some might have overdone it, but some to me looking fantastic that I wish one day I can produce similar piece of work.

I never agree that photography must be a record of what it should be. Indeed it should represent the eye and the thinking of its shooter. Do it as long as you are happy, if you are not required to please other people, who care their opinion.
 
alcelc said:
There is nothing right, nor wrong about it. Some people like extreme HDR, that some might have overdone it, but some to me looking fantastic that I wish one day I can produce similar piece of work.

I never agree that photography must be a record of what it should be. Indeed it should represent the eye and the thinking of its shooter. Do it as long as you are happy, if you are not required to please other people, who care their opinion.

--
Albert
Click to expand...
Yes it's personal choice.

We already have 3 rather bizarre hairstyles in this thread, here is another one :



0b468285d5e64fa1ad481a80b387fd7e.jpg

unlike it is for the rest of North Koreans, Kim has his hair cut like that because he likes it like that.

The same with every photographic style or technique, some like them, others don't.
 
SpiltMilk said:
For me, there needs to be some type of reason for a "special effect" or it's not special, just irritating to look at.
Click to expand...
I agree. And b/w is another example of this. Too many people turn a 'blechh' photo into b/w whereupon it supposedly becomes 'art'.
 
PGH423 said:
I've always really liked the technique. I'm getting the impression from old threads that there is a view that serious photographers don't do selective color, though? Is that true? Why?
Click to expand...
Selective color can be pretentious. So can looking down on selective color. ;-)

For a few years, vignettes were overused. Right now, the overused/over-rated technique for many photographers is thin DoF and creamy bokeh.

The use-and overuse- of any technique or effect comes down to people either doing the effect for the sake of the effect, or using the effect to further an aesthetic element or make an artistic statement.

The problem I see is that a lot of people use such effects as an afterthought, or a way to fix an otherwise unsuccessful image, rather than with planning and forethought. I see this same issue with a lot of monochrome images.

People convert to monochrome just to see how it works without understanding WHY monochrome can either add or detract from an image.

It's all just a matter of skill level and artistic goals. I think the last time I did selective coloring was about 4 years ago, keeping the eyes of my girlfriend's black cat color while I rendered the rest of him as monochrome. The fact that je was a black cat and it was a tight framing made it almost monochrome anyway.
 
Midwest said:
SpiltMilk said:
For me, there needs to be some type of reason for a "special effect" or it's not special, just irritating to look at.
Click to expand...
I agree. And b/w is another example of this. Too many people turn a 'blechh' photo into b/w whereupon it supposedly becomes 'art'.
Click to expand...
Yes.

All of these "things" - HDR, selective colour, B&W, artifying, etc - they are all dependant on a design, a reason.

A choice made for a plan or an idea rather than a "fix it".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Satyaa
Chasing light - what does it mean to you?
2
Replies
26
Views
111K
AshleyMC
A
WilyKit
I suggest to make a big effort to be nice and patient with the people who run this forum.
Replies
6
Views
3K
Overrank
Overrank
P
How do I get good at color grading?
Replies
2
Views
4K
capsized
C
LarryRC
Using the new Photoshop and Generative Upscale
Replies
14
Views
72K
LarryRC
LarryRC
O
  • Question Question
Hi, can I "select all" and globally replace the white in a photo to fix issues when printing?
Replies
4
Views
10K
graybalanced
G

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top