How do you use color?

[drg]

The changes in photography and the ever evolving tastes in art made me wonder how some photographer's are viewing the use of color in their work today?

We have more choices and far more and easier control than probably ever before in this field and has it changed your photography?

Do you consciously use or manipulate color in your photography? Do you do this as part of the acquisition process or relegate it to a graphic manipulation stage or post processing phase?

I have had several discussions of late regarding this topic and have discussed and heard comments ranging from absolute realism to the the complete graphic manipulation school.

Or is it just another element that 'happens' in your compositions?

Looking forward to comments and even quick thoughts any and all might care to contribute
to this evolving area of photography!

[Ronnoco]

Well, colour is one of the main elements that cuts across both composition and technique when it comes to critiquing photos. To quote from one photographer: "Colour is the soul of the image. It deserves perfection." It is not something that just happens. One needs to shoot for colour as much as for the other elements in technique and composition.

Also involved is the fact that the eye sees a greater range of colour than film and film sees a greater range of colour than digital imaging. This means that as well as shooting for colour, post-processing is also necessary. To put it another way, an as-shot digital photo is not accurate in the area of colour range. It can come closer only through post-processing.

Complicating things further, too many photographers pay too little attention to colour in their work and rationalize that the weak colour in their photo is what they saw and that in my edit or their work, I created a "painting" by correcting the colour and making it more effective. The easy answer is that the colour information is in the photo or I would have not been able to bring it out.

Most important however is that the standards for photographic work are the photos that are published in photo, sports and travel magazines, as well as the large tabletop books since they come from top pros in their fields. Colour is the main feature in these photos that give them impact.

Ronnoco

[drg]

Ronnoco,

Thanks for the response. I concur that color is neglected by many photographers. Certain projects require the color must be exacting for a range of reasons including just getting the customers Trademarked logo color to reproduce properly. The skills of the printer contribute to that as much as the photographers. The commercial standards are, and for many decades, have been demanding, and that is driven by the fact the items you mention are produced with sales as the foremost concern.

The question I am really interested in is how the photographer thinks about color as a intrinsic element or the response it will generate or the contribution it makes to the impact of the work. Or all of the above.

A photographer may, for example, incorporate a signature color element (some without being aware) that may also be expressed by the exclusion of a color or range.

Thematic studies and series might emphasize an element of a particular shade or color. One facet to this is that with the tools now available it much easier to ‘insert’ that color than ever before.

We see the frequently the de-saturation of a range or the entire spectrum as a statement that has an inherent artistic reason.

Has or does the photographer look for, stage, design, light, or otherwise work to make their photographs ‘use’ or ‘incorporate’ some color element?

Highbrow, beret wearing, cappuccino sipping responses are welcome. I too welcome the, ‘it is red, I like red, I use red in all my photos’ response. I want to know how the responder uses color, thinks about color, sees color. If it sells, well, that’s another tale, probably only full of sound and fury as far as this topic reaches.

I look forward to seeing what everyone who cares to will offer regarding how their photography is colored.

[photophorous]

DRG,

My contribution to this thread may not be exactly what you had in mind, but I hope that it's still relevant.

I have no issue with manipulation of color in a photograph, whether it be to alter reality or imitate it. Digital photography has no doubt made such manipulation easier. I do consciously manipulate color in my photos, most often by removing it completely. I do this in post processing as a matter of convenience. Applying filters in photoshop and uploading a file to a print shop's website is much easier than carrying around a bag of color filters, buying film, developing film, and making prints in the darkroom. Plus, the filters in photoshop don't degrade image quality as much. Basically, I switched to digital for all the same cost and convenience reasons as everyone else. I'm not going to stop making B&W photos, just because my camera happens to capture color. I learned to see tones, shapes, textures and lines, while shooting B&W film. It's what I like. When I'm out shooting with my DSLR, color rarely crosses my mind. I don't think color is any more necessary to a photo than triangles or s-curves. It's just one of the many compositional elements we have to work with and it can just as easily detract from a photo as add to it. It all depends on the way it is visualized by the photographer, which is the only reality I feel we need to be faithful too. Properly used, color can have a very powerful impact on a photo, but color just because it's there causes conflict as often as not. Until I learn to use it properly, I expect my best photos will remain B&W.

Paul

[Ronnoco]

DRG,
I don't think color is any more necessary to a photo than triangles or s-curves. It's just one of the many compositional elements we have to work with and it can just as easily detract from a photo as add to it. It all depends on the way it is visualized by the photographer, which is the only reality I feel we need to be faithful too. Properly used, color can have a very powerful impact on a photo, but color just because it's there causes conflict as often as not. Until I learn to use it properly, I expect my best photos will remain B&W.

Paul

To express the contrary opinion, black and white photography had some validity 75 years ago or so, when it was the only game in town, as did black and white movies and black and white television.

At the moment I would say black and white digital photography has exactly the same validity has black and white HD TV or none at all.

That is as a matter of fact, why you almost never see published black and white photography in mainstream photography magazines.

Ronnoco

[photophorous]

To express the contrary opinion, black and white photography had some validity 75 years ago or so, when it was the only game in town, as did black and white movies and black and white television.

I don't know what you mean by validaty? How does a photograph become valid? I have a feeling this is the root of our disagreement. As far as I'm concerned, art needs no validity. B&W still photography is still very much alive, unless you are talking about commercial or documentary use, which is irrelevant in the "Photography as Art" forum. When I go to art galleries that deal in photography, I see a disproportionate number of B&W prints. People buy them.

At the moment I would say black and white digital photography has exactly the same validity as black and white HD TV or none at all.

Since there has been no B&W analog TV since long before the digital revolution, you're analogy is kind of hard to follow. Are you saying B&W photographers are not allowed to enjoy the same quality and convenience benefits of digital photography as color photographers?

That is as a matter of fact, why you almost never see published black and white photography in mainstream photography magazines.

Except in that one called "Black and White Magazine."

[drg]

Even the current Popular Photography has a featured photographer whose primary work is using Photoshop in unusual ways and who works in B/W. There are several excellent examples of b/w photography of his included in the article. The September/October 2006 issue of Digital Photo Pro had a cover article on B/W and featured a portraitist whose work is heavily B/W oriented.

Black and White Magazine is but one of many others including but not limited to View, Lens Work, Camera Arts, and several of my Photoshop User's this year have had extensive sections on or focus on B/W photography.

Whether or not this popularity is a phase or not isn't clear, but B/W is as valid as ever artistically.

This year I've had three large commissions to be done in B/W by request. I was approached by very knowledgeable customers with projects that were specified all or in part to be presented in B/W or monochromes. One was admittedly architectural in nature.

[adina]

To express the contrary opinion, black and white photography had some validity 75 years ago or so, when it was the only game in town, as did black and white movies and black and white television.

At the moment I would say black and white digital photography has exactly the same validity has black and white HD TV or none at all.

That is as a matter of fact, why you almost never see published black and white photography in mainstream photography magazines.

Ronnoco

Again and again you say that black and white is obsolete and irrelevant. Just because you prefer color doesn't mean that everyone else should shun b&w as well. It's a personal preference, personal meaning for each person to decide for themselves.

And a photo that's black and white isn't automatically better if it's in color. Again, personal preference. There is a difference between opinions and facts.

[Ronnoco]

Again and again you say that black and white is obsolete and irrelevant. Just because you prefer color doesn't mean that everyone else should shun b&w as well. It's a personal preference, personal meaning for each person to decide for themselves.

And a photo that's black and white isn't automatically better if it's in color. Again, personal preference. There is a difference between opinions and facts.

Not preference at all. Look at television. Do you see any black and white there? No, it was obsolete when colour came in. Look at movies. Do you see any black and white main stream films? No because it is obsolete. Look at video. Do you see any black and white main stream video? No, because it is obsolete.

What it basically comes down to is that everyone sees in colour. Colour is natural. Black and white is artificial, unnecessary and obsolete. That is a fact, not an opinion.

And a photo in black and white, if it is a quality shot is usually much better in colour. Not an opinion, but fact. I have NOT seen a top quality that is better in black and white than colour, if you display both versions side by side.

Ronnoco

[drg]

I must have a hit a sore point along with photophorous regarding Black and White in print as Ronnoco changed the topic again and opined this time on film and television.

Raging Bull, Schindler's List, and Sin City are three films I do hope Ronnoco has heard of, and thus I can't disagree more with his viewpoint. And that is what it is, a viewpoint - not an indisputable fact.

The television/cable market is full of channels and programming that is highly popular from the era when much of it was filmed in b/w. Funny thing is, the quality of the product was so much better this programming is still wildly popular. Whether the Outer Limits, the original Combat series, the Honeymooners, The Andy Griffith Show, and on and on, the black and white episodes score viewers right along side color versions and modern color only programming. There was even a widely watched, made for TV production of Fail Safe recently with George Clooney that did not depend upon color for its success.

Now we return to you to our regularly scheduled broadcast.

[photophorous]

I must have a hit a sore point along with photophorous regarding Black and White in print as Ronnoco changed the topic again and opined this time on film and television.

Raging Bull, Schindler's List, and Sin City are three films I do hope Ronnoco has heard of, and thus I can't disagree more with his viewpoint. And that is what it is, a viewpoint - not an indisputable fact.

The television/cable market is full of channels and programming that is highly popular from the era when much of it was filmed in b/w. Funny thing is, the quality of the product was so much better this programming is still wildly popular. Whether the Outer Limits, the original Combat series, the Honeymooners, The Andy Griffith Show, and on and on, the black and white episodes score viewers right along side color versions and modern color only programming. There was even a widely watched, made for TV production of Fail Safe recently with George Clooney that did not depend upon color for its success.

Now we return to you to our regularly scheduled broadcast.

Sorry for getting your thread so far off topic. I would like to hear what others have to say about your original question.

Paul

[drg]

Sorry for getting your thread so far off topic. I would like to hear what others have to say about your original question.

Paul

I believe you made a perfectly good comment. You spoke of how you have chosen to not use color which is perfectly valid. It is very interesting as well about what appears to be an increase in those shooting digitally for the purpose of producing b/w or mono final images.

No need to apologize. Sometime after your original post is when it just went downhill for awhile.

I do hope someone will start a post about the state of b/w photography in this digital age. There are two or three opening topics I can think of, but would like to get a few more responses here and have some relevant discussion!

I'll think about an 'opener' on that topic if no one else does!

Thanks

[adina]

Not preference at all. Look at television. Do you see any black and white there? No, it was obsolete when colour came in. Look at movies. Do you see any black and white main stream films? No because it is obsolete. Look at video. Do you see any black and white main stream video? No, because it is obsolete.

What it basically comes down to is that everyone sees in colour. Colour is natural. Black and white is artificial, unnecessary and obsolete. That is a fact, not an opinion.

And a photo in black and white, if it is a quality shot is usually much better in colour. Not an opinion, but fact. I have NOT seen a top quality that is better in black and white than colour, if you display both versions side by side.

Ronnoco

And how many people still go out and rent old black and white movies. How many people buy the boxed sets of old tv shows that are black and white.

To say that black and white is artificial, unnecessary and obsolete is your opinion. I know many b&w film photogs who would say that color is artificial, b&w brings out the emotion and soul of what you're photographing. Unnecessary? Not for those people who make a living as a b&w photog. Obsolete? Maybe in your area, but I know people who are charging hundreds of dollars for black and white stuff.

And because you think a top quality shot is better in color than black and white doesn't mean everyone does. It's your opinion.

This is exactly the same arguement as the film/digital debate. Except there people have accepted that it is a choice, and you choose what works best for you.

[Ronnoco]

And how many people still go out and rent old black and white movies. How many people buy the boxed sets of old tv shows that are black and white.

To say that black and white is artificial, unnecessary and obsolete is your opinion. I know many b&w film photogs who would say that color is artificial, b&w brings out the emotion and soul of what you're photographing. Unnecessary? Not for those people who make a living as a b&w photog. Obsolete? Maybe in your area, but I know people who are charging hundreds of dollars for black and white stuff.

And because you think a top quality shot is better in color than black and white doesn't mean everyone does. It's your opinion.

This is exactly the same arguement as the film/digital debate. Except there people have accepted that it is a choice, and you choose what works best for you.

To start at the end first, the reality of the film/digital debate is that film is better quality according to proven test results (not opinion) and less expensive, but digital is more convenient, easier to use, and gives the photographer more immediate control and more flexible post-production editing. Digital is where things are going, so change with the times or get left behind.

Any photographer who says that colour is artificial is in the same category as those that originally condemned automatic cameras, autofocus cameras, point and shoot photography and the colourizing of movies. Resistant to change, out-to-lunch, and left behind by improvements in technology.

I prefer to start my car with a key, not a crank, shoot video on a flash card rather than 2 inch reel tape, use electronic flash rather than bulbs, use cooler studio lights than the 5,000 + watts I used at one point, edit on a computer rather than in a dark room and shoot colour rather than black and white.

As to the old movies in the video stores, most people who rent them do so for the actors/actresses that were in them and/or the storyline. I rented them to study the camera work, editing and direction in my film production course work. The fact that they were black and white was most definitely irrelevant, and some were in colourized versions in any event.

Even this month's Popular Photography indicated that digital does a much poorer job of black and white photography than film ever did.

It is of course, your choice to be left behind by technology and continue to produce poor quality black and white work, or accept the challenges of working with colour.

Ronnoco

[Frog]

I don't have the expertise that most of you do but this is an interesting question.
I don't think about color very much when I'm searching for a photo but I do recognize it when its there. Soft filtered light on fall leaves, a brash conflicting color amongst other colors, etc.
I'm only recently getting back into photography and when I shot 35mm I went for the realist approach and never added objects or color to photos.
Now that I have an editing program at my disposal, I find myself manipulating color quite often. It is often necessary to bring out the 'feel' of the photo I wanted.
I'm beginning to manipulate to black and white also which I'm sure is much to your chagrin, Ronnoco(wink), but I do think sometimes black and white is called for to bring out the mood.

[Ronnoco]

I'm beginning to manipulate to black and white also which I'm sure is much to your chagrin, Ronnoco(wink), but I do think sometimes black and white is called for to bring out the mood.

I think the problem is that what I have seen here is that too many photographers manipulate a photo to black and white when it doesn't work or is not effective in colour and unless you see in black and white, it really does not bring out the mood either.
A photo that does not work in colour, does not work in black and white either. At the other end of the spectrum ( pun intended! ) a photo that is very effective in black and white is even better in colour.

Ronnoco

[photophorous]

I think the problem is that what I have seen here is that too many photographers manipulate a photo to black and white when it doesn't work or is not effective in colour and unless you see in black and white, it really does not bring out the mood either.
A photo that does not work in colour, does not work in black and white either. At the other end of the spectrum ( pun intended! ) a photo that is very effective in black and white is even better in colour.

Ronnoco

I think the problem is that too many people assume that a digital photo is black and white only because the photographer screwed up and couldn't make it work in color. You should consider that the photographer may have created something very different from what you would have seen in that situation, had you seen anything at all. What works in B&W does not always work in color, and vise versa. There is no doubt colors can elicite a strong response from people and should be used accordingly. But I think the presence of color can cover-up bad technique just as easily as the absence. Take sunsets for example. People love them. Ever look at one in B&W? About 99% of them have weak compositions once you take away the pretty colors. My point is just that it's not the same. If color photos are all you seek out, you will simply overlook many oportunities to take good B&W photos. Obviously no one actually sees in black and white, but you can visualize a shot in black and white, even if you're shooting digital. It is a different process than visualizing in color. It's not just a mistake that is being covered up. You don't have to like it, but many people do.

Paul

[drg]

There are several good points that have been brought up already! Black and white photography is certainly topical as it is devoid of color. A photographer who shoots this way is probably more closely connected with the original physical medium of photography. Color after all, is a process more than a medium.

There are topics worth much discussion about b/w and color that could use another thread I am sure!

However:

The idea of this topic is about how we use color. To clarify, add to the topical list, and perhaps steer this back on course:

Do you as a photographer use the language of color consciously? If so, do you enhance as in ‘warming up’ a photograph with a yellow cast? Or perhaps you have ‘cleaned up’ or ‘made cooler’ as in the use of a green? Have you used yellow in it’s ambiguous nature? Do you make strong statements of passion by employing the tonalities of red? Flavoring below is another ‘language’ example.

Have you used color as a subject?

Have you used color as an alternative to negative space?

Have you used color to ‘flavor’ a picture? There are yearly surveys conducted by marketing agencies to determine what shades and colors evoke what taste and textures. Certain light browns people associate with creaminess and full bodied textured as in ice creams or puddings or even potato dishes as examples.
[The flavoring and language comparisons are based on several of the response models mentioned in beginning of the thread]

Have you used color to add weight to a photograph?

These are just some examples of how one can use color.

I am looking forward to how you see your world - -

or maybe you just want to paint it black!

[adina]

I spent Friday night at a gallery. Everything in it is black and white, handprinted. I was very tempted to tell that guy who was selling his prints at thousands of dollars a pop that he was obsolete and his work was unnecessary. I'm sure he would have thanked me for pointing out the error of his ways, and run right out and bought himself a new digital camera so that he could change with the times and not get left behind.

I'm not saying there aren't new and better ways to do things. I'm saying that it is a choice people make for themselves how to do them. And some people prefer shooting black and white film, some people shoot slides, some people shoot digital. It's a choice you make for yourself, so a blanket statement about something being obsolete and unnecessary is an opinion, because those people who choose those things would disagree.

[drg]

Bond, James Bond.
Casino Royale, 2006.
Black and White lives!

Then maybe, we can talk about color again.

[Frog]

Yes, please! I've been following this thread because I've never thought about :"using" color except to photograph what I find pleasing.
To actually think about it ahead of time and think of how to use it for whatever purpose, I'd like to find out how it is approached.

[drg]

[I see as I am about to post this we now have blogs here at PR! This discussion may move back and forth between the two places.
Thanks CDP dr g ]

True Blue


Look around your world. In the home, the office, packaging, even your athletic shoes. There is blue.

Chances are that the top and bottom of your Windows computer screen is blue. My coffee mug is blue, my mouse pad is mostly blue. Clinical, cold, cool, but confident is blue.

Good old true blue. Solid, dependable, and a fine compliment that willingly takes to the background. Can stand on its own if called upon.

So how do I use blue? Consciously I will schedule shoots of certain buildings and settings during October to get the 'bright blue skies' that are famed for that month. There are a few locations that I like to use for such things as Senior Photos or Family Christmas photos that are outdoors and whether the trees are 'in color' or not, the natural backdrops and features are accentuated by blue skies.

A simple red filter (actual or virtual in post processing) takes a basic blue sky and turns it very dark whether in monochromatic rendering or regular black and white imagery. I am thus using an available element to produce an effect or alter the photography to achieve, for example, an ominous setting for the subject.

Deep blue often gets used for products. Jewelry (both stones and fine watches) is accentuated by and contrasts very nicely against blue. Gold and crystal overtones are highlighted by the contrast with a deep rich blue background.

One thing I am very careful of is skin tones and blue. Only certain tonal ranges are usable with each type of skin. Look at glamour/fashion/swimwear photography and notice that when 'on location' the photographer, art director, stylists, etc. use a lot of accents whether in clothing, accessories or setting to offset a very blue sky. That deep blue sky you see in the Caribbean photos we all love so much only usually occurs naturally a couple hours in the morning and evening when the weather is just right.

A blue sky can often be 'made' on an overcast day by shooting at sunset/twilight. Film will respond to the light as if it were blue. A day can be sometimes saved by shooting in a 'magic' hour with proper fill light or just lighting the subject. Slightly longer exposure times may help. It can be obviously more easily simulated with an all-digital shoot.

The color blue for me helps to set a tone that allows the main subject be highlighted and yet detached from the background. A structure against the sky, a seamless blue backdrop of just the right shade, lettering on a field of blue, all provide that assurance that a portion of the photograph I am making is covered.

These are a few of my uses of blue.

How do you do blue?

[Medley]

Funny that you should mention the blue hue, drg. There's quite a bit of it in the photo I'm using as an example here.

I don't much alter hues. I do the normal color cast removal (and ocassionally create a small cast to "lean" a photograph in a particular direction. What I do more than anything is boost them- substantially. I use LAB color for this, as it's different from merely increasing the saturation. The blues become bluer, but at the same time, the blue-magentas are actually driven farther away from the blue-greens. I usually describe it as driving a wedge in between colors. All I know is that the images are incredibly vivid, yet the color looks realistic.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...IMG_0788-1.jpg

Initially, I didn't like the technique. You look at the image, and it screams oversaturation. Nonetheless, I processed a batch of photos this way and sent them off to be printed (so as not to dry up my ink cartridges...). An amazing thing happened. The lab person told me she rarely saw images that looked that good, and wanted to know what my secret was. A gentleman in the store (who had the demeanor of a professional, but I don't know that, it was just my impression) asked me what camera I used. When I told him I used a Rebel XT, he raised an eyebrow and asked "and you get these results??" I get the same reviews even now at my home when someone sees one on my wall.

I've since come to a conclusion. Color is pleasing to the eye in the same way chocolate is pleasing to the pallette. More is better, so long as you don't go completely overboard. Still, every time I use this technique, I feel like I'm going too far.

I'd be very interested to hear what other photographers think.

-Joe U.

[drg]

Joe,

Thanks for responding with the very eye catching photo.

This photograph brings up the topic of color as subject in a composition. Color is traditionally thought of as a component of composition or a necessary requirement in photo-realism. A predominant tone or hue can be used as the primary focus and thus subject by playing upon its context and psychological effects.

It is not a new idea, but one that has really come of age in with digital photography. The photographer now controls color beyond set parameters previously dictated by laborious technique prior to ever making an exposure.

Your photo begins to explore color in photography as a subject. The blue of the seascape is the first thing that most viewers see when observing the image. The gradients, shades and tonal range of the blue make it a focus for evaluation of the photograph and thus elemental to the subject. Certainly, there are other colors, there are rocks, and waves, spray and foam, but blue predominates. The setting is appropriate and the blue defines the intent. Everything in the photo offset, highlights and points out just how much of good old "true blue" adds to this photograph. The color is thrust to the foreground at every point.

Technically it sounds and looks like what you are doing is actually adjusting the Lightness component of the L*a*b color space model. One primary advantage of L*a*b is the ability to adjust an image without actually changing the color. The perception of the color changes while the components or mix of color stays the same. This will make a huge difference when it is printed or displayed. That is because the range of difference in color in the printing process and in computer monitors. Thus, we calibrate!

Thanks again for your contribution. When this thread re-visits Color as Subject, we will refer to your photo and post again!

[Medley]

Actually, the boost in this image was accomplished by applying a Curve adjustment to the a and b channels individually. Simply move the endpoints of the curve to decrease the steepnes of the angle ( unless you have the sidebars reversed ).
Two caveats:
1) The curve must pass through the centerpoint of the grid, or you will introduce a colorcast to the image. So, either adjust both ends by the same amount or place an anchorpoint in the center of the grid before proceding.
2) Remove any colorcast in the image before applying the Curves adjustment, or the adjustment will amplify the cast.

-Joe U.