Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: Michael Haspert on July 10, 2013, 12:52:02 pm

Title: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Michael Haspert on July 10, 2013, 12:52:02 pm
The idiom of "barely color" or "nearly monochrome" has attracted my attention. What I mean by barely-color is a shot where the color is subdued but necessary-- in other words, a shot where it looks like a B&W conversion would work, but the B&W turns out to be not as compelling.

Question 1: If "not quite black and white" is a well-known idea, who are some famous practitioners I can study? (I just can not get anywhere trying to google this.)

Question 2:  What do you think of my notion that the small amount of color is needed in the attached shots?

Any comments or thoughts are most welcome, remakes included.
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Rob C on July 10, 2013, 02:43:06 pm
I have played with it too, but mostly it seems a waste of effort to get there. It becomes neither fish nor fowl, just a statement that one knows how to do it. As with many 'tricks' it doesn't often make a weak picture any the stronger and could possibly make a reasonable one look less so.

But with personal photography, do as you please!

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Hening Bettermann on July 10, 2013, 04:11:15 pm
I would like this if it is in fact the visual impression at shooting time, and not a 'style' that is applied by post processing.

In 'HarrysFence', I get the impression that the boards are bleached by age and weather to a degree that makes them look gray; only the little rest of color is left to show this, i.e. to distinguish it from a b&w photo.

Same in 'PatioBench. Both the 'over-exposed' wood of the bench and the tiny rest of blue in the shadows emphasize the impression of "very light" in a way that might not be achieved otherwise.

Good light!
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Michael Haspert on July 10, 2013, 05:23:57 pm
I didn't mean to mislead by using the word 'style'. These are pretty much as-shot, not post-processed to get the look.
Maybe I should have said category or concept. What happened was I luckily took a high-key muted-color shot that appealed to me, so I kept the idea in-head and started checking for when it might be applicable.

Sometimes it works when the color is more definite. In the last photo, only the bit of brick-red and plant-green explain that the reflection in the plate is a view out a window
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: RFPhotography on July 11, 2013, 10:15:40 am
I didn't mean to mislead by using the word 'style'. These are pretty much as-shot, not post-processed to get the look.
Maybe I should have said category or concept. What happened was I luckily took a high-key muted-color shot that appealed to me, so I kept the idea in-head and started checking for when it might be applicable.

Sometimes it works when the color is more definite. In the last photo, only the bit of brick-red and plant-green explain that the reflection in the plate is a view out a window

Except that without the explanation, the viewer has no idea where the colour is coming from.

This is almost, particularly with the fence shot above, getting into the realm of selective black and white.  Selective B&W is pretty much a cliché that has been significantly overused and improperly used (hence why it's become cliché). 

Here's a question I have for you:  Are you looking for a way to rescue a picture that would otherwise not make the cut?

Looking at the 4 images posted originally, I don't find the colour adds to any of them.  The first doesn't appeal to me at all as a composition.  As far as the second, I love texture.  I love old wood fences, garage doors and the like.  But in the kind of shots I'm thinking of there's more of it.  Much more.  And usually there are boards askew or old rusty nails with interesting heads or other things to add visual interest and complete the idea of texture.  This fence is too regular, too smooth, too new.  The third, I think has some very compelling lines and shapes and could be strengthened with a crop.  Down from the top to eliminate the bit of shadow in the upper left corner and, if you want to maintain the aspect ratio, in from the right.  The skylight does nothing for me, personally.
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: PeterAit on July 11, 2013, 10:37:15 am
I sort of agree with Rob - actively manipulating an image to get this effect seems pointless and falls into the area that is, for me, too much manipulation. But, there are indeed some very effective images that are this way by the nature of the subject.
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Michael Haspert on July 11, 2013, 02:40:59 pm
HI Bob:
Thanks for the feedback and for the question that made me question.  :-)

1. I'm not trying to rescue shots. These are low post-process shots of sought-out muted-color subjects. I guess what I'm doing is reacting against the "It only looks good if it's Vivid " idiom that I see all over the place. I'm trying to understand the situations where a little bit of color works--where it is the focus of the composition or the last piece of a puzzle. This is why my first question was essentially, "Who does this well?"

2. I shot the skylight because, when I first saw the shot, I saw the optical illusion called a Necker cube. To me, the corner (at top center) of the (actual) skylight seemed to oscillate--Is it sticking out or in? Finding that directly over my usual seat at the kitchen table made my day, photographically. So, maybe my shot fumbles the Necker illusion. (Once I see the illusion, I can't figure out how to not see it, so now I can't figure out how to exaggerate it (which is something I WOULD do in PP, if I could). Interesting catch 22.)

Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: RFPhotography on July 11, 2013, 10:33:29 pm
Now that you mention it, I see it too.  I can see it in the other corner as well.  So yes, I think the key to that one would be to come up with a composition that accentuated it but eliminated some of the other, less necessary, parts.
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Alan Klein on July 11, 2013, 10:55:39 pm
I think post processing to get the one or two colors is too gimicky as others have said.  Wait for it to be natural.
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2147/5721232348_141fdc2fa2.jpg)
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Gulag on July 12, 2013, 12:05:14 am
The idiom of "barely color" or "nearly monochrome" has attracted my attention. What I mean by barely-color is a shot where the color is subdued but necessary-- in other words, a shot where it looks like a B&W conversion would work, but the B&W turns out to be not as compelling.

Question 1: If "not quite black and white" is a well-known idea, who are some famous practitioners I can study? (I just can not get anywhere trying to google this.)

Question 2:  What do you think of my notion that the small amount of color is needed in the attached shots?

Any comments or thoughts are most welcome, remakes included.

Are you talking about much desaturated color images?
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Rhossydd on July 12, 2013, 02:07:57 am
Question 2:  What do you think of my notion that the small amount of color is needed in the attached shots?
I like the style a lot.
I think it works particularly well for subjects with simple, bold compositions (like your last shot), rather than your third shot which seems a bit too 'busy' to me.
Ironically, getting the colour right is very important in these type of shots as colour casts, as unnatural or exaggerated tones, can really distract from the purity of the image.

I'm surprised that so many respondents here haven't understood the concept; A full colour image of a subject with a small colour palette, nothing to do with post-processing at all.
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: louoates on July 12, 2013, 10:59:25 am
When dealing with such nuanced shades of minimal color I would think the biggest challenge is to get the prints to look right. Equal in difficulty to making toned prints that look right, especially in a series.
As to the "barely color" technique I don't particularly like it. It's not a good or bad thing. But I'm very sales minded about images and find it hard to visualize a high customer demand for such subtlety. If my image falls between a good b/w image and a more traditional color image I rarely proceed.
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Michael Haspert on July 12, 2013, 01:32:24 pm
I like the style a lot.
I think it works particularly well for subjects with simple, bold compositions (like your last shot), rather than your third shot which seems a bit too 'busy' to me.
Ironically, getting the colour right is very important in these type of shots as colour casts, as unnatural or exaggerated tones, can really distract from the purity of the image.

I'm surprised that so many respondents here haven't understood the concept; A full colour image of a subject with a small colour palette, nothing to do with post-processing at all.
Thank you Rhossydd. Exactly.
I see I need practice at simple things like getting my point across in less than 100 words. Apologies to all for the confusion.
Since I first posted, I found a master of the style--Saul Leiter. See below.
Any other suggestions?

Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Rhossydd on July 12, 2013, 01:53:45 pm
I see I need practice at simple things like getting my point across in less than 100 words.
Not your problem, you were perfectly clear.
Some folk simply don't read what's actually written.
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Rob C on July 13, 2013, 04:58:42 am
Not your problem, you were perfectly clear.
Some folk simply don't read what's actually written.


And some others never dowload other people's pictures, almost certainly without prior permission, either.

But let's avoid another long, boring interchange about legitimate usage etc.

Must be fucking wonderful being perfect; so far, I've found but two of you in that category - how exclusively delightful for you both!

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Rhossydd on July 13, 2013, 05:20:13 am
And some others never dowload other people's pictures, almost certainly without prior permission, either.
But let's avoid another long, boring interchange about legitimate usage etc.
What's this about ? Any relevance to this thread ?
Quote
Must be fucking wonderful being perfect; so far, I've found but two of you in that category - how exclusively delightful for you both!
Reading posts and commenting on what's actually been written is a simple courtesy you obviously seem to find difficult.
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Michael Haspert on July 13, 2013, 04:39:58 pm
I am not being ironic, sarcastic or anything else. I truly do not know the answer to the following questions.

Did I do something wrong? My experience with text and with graphics like maps and charts is that quoting (with attribution) for the purposes of discussion and analysis is well within fair usage.
Is this not true for photos in particular for some reason? If so, I'm sorry. I certainly do not wish to make trouble for the forum or the website.

If it is not legitimate to post a lo-res so that folks know the shot I'm talking about; what is Luminous Landscape's recommended way of referring to a well-know artwork?
Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Rhossydd on July 13, 2013, 07:02:47 pm
Did I do something wrong? My experience with text and with graphics like maps and charts is that quoting (with attribution) for the purposes of discussion and analysis is well within fair usage.
Is this not true for photos in particular for some reason? If so, I'm sorry. I certainly do not wish to make trouble for the forum or the website.

If it is not legitimate to post a lo-res so that folks know the shot I'm talking about; what is Luminous Landscape's recommended way of referring to a well-know artwork?
Some people would say that downloading and reposting any photo without permission is unacceptable.
Not sure I'd take that stance in this particular case given the tiny sizes involved.

It's generally regarded as better practice to just post a URL to another's work instead.
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Michael Haspert on August 04, 2013, 11:54:11 pm
Thanks for the kind advice, Rhossydd. It made me think about where I might have gone wrong.

Upon further research and consideration, why am I trying to figure this out myself??
You folks (on Luminous Landscape forums) have been having recurring debates about fair usage?
You're kidding.
How about consulting someone else, (for example, someone who must get it right) like wikipaintings.org?

This is Wikipaintings.org's official worldwide position, based on their legal counsel.
//Quote
The site presents both public domain artworks and works that are protected by copyright. The last ones are posted on the site in accordance with fair use principle, because:
  They are historically significant artworks;
  The images are only being used for informational and educational purposes;
  The image are readily available on the internet;
  The images are low resolution copies of the original artworks and are unsuitable for commercial use.
//endquote

Based on these principles, they are posting lo-res captures of (for just one example) Picasso's in-copyright art and no one is challenging them.

Now, I happen to believe that the membership of Luminous Landscape Forums  are experts in the field, so asking questions of experts in the field falls under 'educational purposes'.
Since I can't afford legal counsel of the stature that an expert in their field (wikipaintings.org) can, I think I will  'borrow their (wikipainting.org's) homework'.
So. feel free to diss me after you feel up to taking on wikipedia.org's and wikipaintings.org's position on this topic.

Best Regards,
Michael Haspert
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Rob C on August 05, 2013, 04:01:17 am
I've just watched a young female person on tv expounding about the 'problem' of zero-hour work contracts. That we are living through times when job seurity is a thing of the past, to hear a young person spouting forth with such a sense of entitlement was an eye-opener. One wonders on which planet such people are reared.

I would have thought that within the sorts of occupations these people move, Macjobs/temporary/peak-demand periods etc, where there is no way on Earth that business needs or should logically employ the same numbers 24/24, that an appreciation of the short-term need and quality of those jobs would also be understood by the person with the job. But no; even talk about unionising! The fact that a job exists because someone needs someone else to perform a specific function for a specific period doesn't seem to count: employment is turned into risk management, in the sense that once somebody hires someone, the hirer has stepped into a gin trap of obligations that can only act to ensure that as few people are offered any employment, permanent or temporary, as is possible! Way to go! No wonder I worked solo all my life.

It made me think of the parallels with using another's image without permission.

It's this sense of 'entitlement' again; because there may or may not be legislation about a particular usage doesn't mean that common courtesy should be discarded as an unnecessary evil, as if it were but another infringement of the user's sense of entitlement. What about the author's sense of entitlement, doesn't he even deserve the courtesy of being consulted? (Within LuLa that poses no problem of access.)

I'm perfectly aware that those exist for whom any attention to their image is better than no attention; thing is you don't know until you ask. It always pays to be polite; it even opens doors.

Rob C
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: kencameron on August 05, 2013, 06:58:45 am
Rob, you seem to be arguing that "quoting" photographs, by  presenting a thumbnail which can't be reproduced for commercial purposes,  in order to refer to them in a discussion on a relevant topic, without the permission of the author, is inappropriate. I find this line of argument unconvincing. Your initial use of it in this thread, in order to counter a plausible suggestion that you simply hadn't read the OP with any care, was flimsy and your attempt to sustain it is even less convincing than that.  I wonder if you would extend this to texts, or speeches, or paintings, or whether you would confine it to work produced by the living?

You seem to concede that that no law is breached but claim that some ethic of courtesy is, and you link this, with a rhetorical strategy you have used before, to your view that civilization is in decline, things ain't what they used to be, and so on. After the umpteenth time we have encountered this lamentation, we have to wonder if you aren't talking about yourself rather than the nature of things.

The quotation of images earlier on this thread involved no plagiarism and no disrespect to the photographer - quite the opposite, the photographer was "quoted" in order to be praised for the appropriate use of a stylistic device. The "fair use" concept (which isn't merely legal, it shows the law shaped by fairness and common sense) applies, because the "quotation" advanced the discussion by providing a clear explanation of the kind of thing the poster was talking about, and there is no collateral damage.

On "barely color", I am deeply curious about, because I  don't at all share, the viewpoint of those who object to it as necessarily excessive, artificial, gimmicky etc. It seems to me just another technique, like dodging and burning, a way of shaping the experience of the viewer. There seems to be a view in play as to what is and isn't acceptable in "photographs", some line not to be crossed, that I don't get. To me, photographs are another kind of painting and you can make choices about colors either before you press the button, or after. Lula does seem to be largely a temple in the religion of those who don't think like this, which makes it an interesting place to hang out for someone who does.
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: fike on August 05, 2013, 09:01:29 am
We need to stop harassing people who are new to LuLa forums when they post work in a desire to learn. He is absolutely right in his legitimate use.  Leave him alone on that topic and lets talk about his interesting original posting.

I happen to like reduced color, selective color, barely color...whatever you want to call it, and I don't put artificial limits on the technique like saying it needs to be "natural" or straight out of camera.  Humbug.  B&W or sepia, or cyanotype were "straight out of camera" at their time, but they weren't natural then and aren't natural now.  post processing to get an effect like this is no different than all these old "purists" making a choice to put velvia or TMax in their cameras 30 years ago.  

I also object to the notion that you don't try to use these techniques to "rescue" an image that isn't working in color.  B&W and its variants are very useful for reducing the distractions of color to focus on shades and tonality.  I do it all the time, and I have pieces that didn't work in color but that I love in B&W.

As for that limited color addition on top of B&W...I think it is critical that you are making choices about the images subject and how the color can reinforce the images story.  The pieces you posted from Saul Leiter are indeed masterpieces of the form.  They show how the emphasis on one color in an otherwise desaturated image can reinforce the story.  The green light does a great job, in the midst of a colorless snowstorm, of reinforcing the traffic moving during snow.  The colorful umbrella reinforces the story about a person making their way in inclement weather.  Nice stuff.  

Now as for your stuff:  The stuff you showed by Saul are Leiter have elements of human life and movement in them.  Aside from the color, they are realistic street photography-styled photos.  Your work is more about abstract shapes and textures.  As such they lack for individual elements that might lend themselves to the style.  They are nice abstracts with minimal color...perhaps more toned than color images.  To experiment with this style, I would look for more varied subject matter.  

And just to show it can be done in many styles...here is one of my favorite selective color images from one of Michael's Botswana trips:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/1photo-pages/leopard-1.shtml
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-botswana/leopard-1-8421.jpg)
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Rob C on August 05, 2013, 02:25:17 pm
Rob, you seem to be arguing that "quoting" photographs, by  presenting a thumbnail which can't be reproduced for commercial purposes,  in order to refer to them in a discussion on a relevant topic, without the permission of the author, is inappropriate. I find this line of argument unconvincing. Your initial use of it in this thread, in order to counter a plausible suggestion that you simply hadn't read the OP with any care, was flimsy and your attempt to sustain it is even less convincing than that.  I wonder if you would extend this to texts, or speeches, or paintings, or whether you would confine it to work produced by the living?

You seem to concede that that no law is breached but claim that some ethic of courtesy is, and you link this, with a rhetorical strategy you have used before, to your view that civilization is in decline, things ain't what they used to be, and so on. After the umpteenth time we have encountered this lamentation, we have to wonder if you aren't talking about yourself rather than the nature of things.

The quotation of images earlier on this thread involved no plagiarism and no disrespect to the photographer - quite the opposite, the photographer was "quoted" in order to be praised for the appropriate use of a stylistic device. The "fair use" concept (which isn't merely legal, it shows the law shaped by fairness and common sense) applies, because the "quotation" advanced the discussion by providing a clear explanation of the kind of thing the poster was talking about, and there is no collateral damage.

On "barely color", I am deeply curious about, because I  don't at all share, the viewpoint of those who object to it as necessarily excessive, artificial, gimmicky etc. It seems to me just another technique, like dodging and burning, a way of shaping the experience of the viewer. There seems to be a view in play as to what is and isn't acceptable in "photographs", some line not to be crossed, that I don't get. To me, photographs are another kind of painting and you can make choices about colors either before you press the button, or after. Lula does seem to be largely a temple in the religion of those who don't think like this, which makes it an interesting place to hang out for someone who does.


Ken,

In your view I certainly ‘seem’ to believe a lot of different things! Let me tell you what I actually do believe:

1. I believe in your right to think whatever you choose;
2. I believe in my right to do the same;
3. I am fairly old-fashioned and still foster a lingering belief and faith in the concept of property and ownership of same, even if the contemporary ethos suggests that collectivism is the new way forward to the next imaginary Utopia;
4. the concept of asking first, especially with images, seems at the very least, polite. How do you or anybody else determine where or when another person wishes his images seen? Someone might have a very real reason why display in a specific site may be off-limits – you don’t know.

But as I said in an earlier post in this thread, I honestly don’t have the stomach to enter into unending spats with you or with anyone else. Sadly, that’s pretty much all these threads become, in the end, last-man-standings of utter, repetitive boredom.

Hasta la vista,

Rob C
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Rhossydd on August 05, 2013, 05:26:45 pm
But as I said in an earlier post in this thread, I honestly don’t have the stomach to enter into unending spats with you or with anyone else.
If you believe that you'd just stop posting on issues like this.

Michael started an interesting discussion and developed it in a sensible and responsible way. You've added nothing of value to the thread and been quite offensive, leave it alone and go away.
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Rhossydd on August 05, 2013, 05:30:37 pm
I happen to like reduced color, selective color, barely color...whatever you want to call it, and I don't put artificial limits on the technique like saying it needs to be "natural" or straight out of camera.  

What baffles me about this thread is why so many people aren't bothering to read what it's about. It's not about manipulation or post processing to reduce colour, it's about photographing subjects with limited colour palettes.
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: fike on August 05, 2013, 05:49:32 pm
What baffles me about this thread is why so many people aren't bothering to read what it's about. It's not about manipulation or post processing to reduce colour, it's about photographing subjects with limited colour palettes.

Though I understand your distinction, I guess in this case, I don't see them as mutually exclusive.  I also didn't think it was important to the discussion about the aesthetic and artistic value works that use the style. Furthermore, choices about how to frame, expose, and set white balance for an image in camera are functionally very similar to choices about processing afterward, so within a range of veracity I rarely make a distinction. 

What film is in your camera? TMAX.  Velvia. PANx.  Kodachrome. sensor.
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: kencameron on August 05, 2013, 05:57:52 pm

Ken,

In your view I certainly ‘seem’ to believe a lot of different things! Let me tell you what I actually do believe:



Rob, I share most of the beliefs you go on to state. My post, the morning after, seems too cranky and I apologize for that. But I still think the quotation of images in this case was well within the bounds of law, ethics and good manners.
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Rhossydd on August 05, 2013, 06:00:36 pm
I don't see them as mutually exclusive.
That's the point here though, the discussion ISN'T about post processing, but about specific subjects.
Photographing a limited colour palette subject doesn't alter it's colour and has a different aesthetic to an image where the colours have been deliberately manipulated and destroyed.
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Rob C on August 06, 2013, 03:29:50 am
Rob, I share most of the beliefs you go on to state. My post, the morning after, seems too cranky and I apologize for that. But I still think the quotation of images in this case was well within the bounds of law, ethics and good manners.




Accepted, no problem, Ken.

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Rob C on August 06, 2013, 03:30:48 am
If you believe that you'd just stop posting on issues like this.

Michael started an interesting discussion and developed it in a sensible and responsible way. You've added nothing of value to the thread and been quite offensive, leave it alone and go away.


You wish.

Rob C
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Isaac on August 06, 2013, 12:33:55 pm
Is there too much color for "Bare Trees, Red Leaves, Acadia, Maine" (http://www.charlescramer.com/detail2.php?sort=7) to qualify?
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: fike on August 06, 2013, 01:32:11 pm
Is there too much color for "Bare Trees, Red Leaves, Acadia, Maine" (http://www.charlescramer.com/detail2.php?sort=7) to qualify?

I think that is a really nice and worthy example.  It shows a good choice of color highlighting as well as excellent execution photographically. It is a great autumn story reinforced by a beautiful earthy red.
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: kencameron on August 06, 2013, 05:32:58 pm
I think that is a really nice and worthy example.
+1. Intriguing example of the "unmanipulated" version of the style which the OP had in mind, where (I assume) no color has been removed or added in Photoshop. Its impact on me is to draw attention to the B&W parts as well as the color, with the reminder that nature likes B&W too (not just photographers) .
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: fike on August 06, 2013, 05:49:40 pm
...example of the "unmanipulated" version of the style which the OP had in mind, where (I assume) no color has been removed or added in Photoshop. ... .

Maybe.  We will never know.  It doesn't matter to me.
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: kencameron on August 06, 2013, 07:42:28 pm
Maybe.  We will never know.  It doesn't matter to me.

Interesting. In a sense it doesn't matter to me either, because the image would get my attention either way and because I have no objection to selective color created at a keyboard, but in a sense it does, because my actual response to this image is predicated on the notion that it is telling me something "true" about color in a particular scene and hence about color in the natural world.

I certainly don't know, but I do assume, and while I am certainly awake to the possibility that my assumption might be wrong, if I found out that it actually is wrong my response to the image would I think be different, and diminished, although still positive.

Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Michael Haspert on August 06, 2013, 08:10:18 pm
HI fike and kencameron:
No there's a twist I didn't see coming: How did the final presentation get to 'barely color'?

   1. My own naive bias was that there is a special (and fun) challenge to capturing the moment, a matter of marksmanship, to use a maybe iffy metaphor.
   2. My other naive assumption was completely predictable once you know I'm an engineer. Garbage in, garbage out. In other words, if I shot to get something under the assumption I can mostly fix it later, I'm doomed- or at least relegated to mediocrity by my laziness.

I abide by my own idiosyncratic rules on this topic even though I'm a rookie. I'll use Photoshop to re-frame or make corrections so that the image is closer to my own (probably overdone and romantic) memory of the moment, as opposed to the (probably closer to impartial) rendering of data off the sensor. In other words, if it wasn't a fine thing to see, why even try to crank it up to 11?

Well, you have changed my naive certitude to a more enlightened confusion. This last set of exchanges between experienced photographers was exactly the kind of free lessons I had hoped to get from posting to LuLa.

Thanks and best regards,
Michael Haspert
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Charles Cramer on August 07, 2013, 02:17:02 pm
This is Charlie Cramer.  Issac emailed me about this ongoing discussion, wondering about what "post processing"  I did in the "Bare Trees, Red Leaves" image.

This was made on Fuji Velvia around 1997.  I used Velvia since the scene was actually quite flat, being completely in shade near the end of the day.  (Would this be "pre-processing", since Velvia applies its own strong interpretation, boosting saturation and contrast?).  Another factor is what's done in scanning. Those were the days when I used to scan in LAB color mode, and the resulting colors are fairly strong.  

So, in my Photoshop file, I actually desaturate the reds.  Later I decided I also needed to desaturate the greens at the bottom, too.  It's an interesting image since most of the tones are basically B&W, except for the red/green complementary colors.  I wish I came across more scenes like this...



Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: fike on August 07, 2013, 07:38:00 pm
This is Charlie Cramer.  Issac emailed me about this ongoing discussion, wondering about what "post processing"  I did in the "Bare Trees, Red Leaves" image.

This was made on Fuji Velvia around 1997.  I used Velvia since the scene was actually quite flat, being completely in shade near the end of the day.  (Would this be "pre-processing", since Velvia applies its own strong interpretation, boosting saturation and contrast?).  Another factor is what's done in scanning. Those were the days when I used to scan in LAB color mode, and the resulting colors are fairly strong.  

So, in my Photoshop file, I actually desaturate the reds.  Later I decided I also needed to desaturate the greens at the bottom, too.  It's an interesting image since most of the tones are basically B&W, except for the red/green complementary colors.  I wish I came across more scenes like this...

It is very interesting to hear how you created this masterpiece.  It sounds like a bit of both worlds...you made a film choice that certainly amped things up a bit, but then in scanning you worked it a bit more to tone the aesthetic down.  Cool.
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: fike on August 07, 2013, 07:41:28 pm
And now for something completely gratuitous.  

...then for something with silvery light and a few small splashes of color..."straight" out-of-camera for you purists.

I presume you can tell the difference between the two.
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: kencameron on August 07, 2013, 11:01:46 pm
And now for something completely gratuitous.  

...then for something with silvery light and a few small splashes of color..."straight" out-of-camera for you purists.

I presume you can tell the difference between the two.

I am not sure who "you purists" are. If I am one of them, then I think I made it clear in my earlier post that I make no claim to be able to reliably tell the difference but I do, as a matter of fact, bring expectations to some (but not all) images.

As to your two, I love the first, the second doesn't do much for me, so how it was created isn't a question which comes up when I look at it. In the first, I see the color as working to draw attention to the figures, which is something I do myself through selective desaturation, but the lovely hint of color in the trees behind makes me think it might not have been done like that. Or maybe it was. But in this case, finding out wouldn't make any difference, because the reason it would make a difference in looking at Charlie's image doesn't apply.

I also hope it is clear that I am talking about how I respond to images, as a viewer, and not issuing instructions as to what anyone should do. In my own work I am anything but a purist. The argument about manipulation doesn't interest me much any more at the level of competing generalities, but I do enjoy looking at how I actually respond to images and checking whether other people respond in the same way. And there are no right answers - vive la difference.

Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Rhossydd on August 08, 2013, 02:00:53 am
a few small splashes of color...
Still not what Michael is looking at in the OP though. 'splashes of colour' does fit with 'barely colour'

Try:
Title: Re: The style or idiom of 'barely color"
Post by: Michael Haspert on August 08, 2013, 08:10:07 pm
That is what I was trying to get at.
The sandy color of the brick wall explains that we're looking at a vitamin D deficient leg.  ;D
Black and white wouldn't convey that.