To be banned?

[CaolIla]

The trick to have a coloured detail left in a black-and-white image..
Is it so worn out that it should never be used if you have a little self-respect left?
Or, is it still allowed in some kind of picture?

A hawk-owl from a nearby forest.

[Shadowman]

Doesn't matter what others think, if it pleases you then why not. A very plausible rendition. To take editing, capturing concerns a bit further; I was doing some night shooting and found myself exposing to bring out mid tones in clothing, in reality we'd only see those mid tones under favorable lighting, for instance if a figure walked in front of a well lit store or a car's headlights. Yet, to make a more pleasing capture I was editing to bring out more detail, is it wrong to do so; will viewers see the image as being heavily altered to fit a specific profile? Will it matter; perhaps for some viewers it will matter for others they'll just see a pleasing capture.

[CaolIla]

Doesn't matter what others think, if it pleases you then why not. A very plausible rendition.

I know thats a free choice, if I like it or not, but I was interested in the general opinion.

[Shadowman]

I know thats a free choice, if I like it or not, but I was interested in the general opinion.

So if others dislike it; will that make you stop doing it?

[CaolIla]

No, if I like a picture that way I will make it that way. And, to be honest I like the looks of this one.
But, since the effect had a peak a rather long time ago I was wondering how the effect is looked upon in general today. Pure curiosity in other words.

[Shadowman]

No, if I like a picture that way I will make it that way. And, to be honest I like the looks of this one.
But, since the effect had a peak a rather long time ago I was wondering how the effect is looked upon in general today. Pure curiosity in other words.

I think some critics claim it as a cliché, then post examples of the style just so they can practice and present their efforts.

[LePetomane]

Mats, I like the look of it for the reason that there is only one part of it (Iris) that is selected for colorization.

[mknittle]

And then there are photographers that get so hung up on the image being technically perfect that all their images look like really nice snapshots. How often do you see an image that is technically awful but artistically it works.
"What is art?-Art is something you went to look at".

By the way Mats, It works for me.

[madcrow]

I like and it's different. Thats not always a bad thing, if you like doing it keep it going.

[delacroix]

I like the way it turned out. Leaving the color in the eye certainly leads the viewers eye to that spot in the photo.

Just an opinion, but my own photography is more about capturing a certain feel rather than a 100% accurate recording of a subject.
That sometimes leads to adjusting colors or exposure a bit in post processing that make the photo more pleasing to my eye...in other words, a bit of artistic license. I don't believe that's a lot different than what you've done with this photo. Personally, I don't worry about being a bit cliché if I like the way it turns out.

[CaolIla]

Thanks all for giving your opinion.
English isn't my native so maybe I'm wrong sensing a bit of hostility from some direction but, hey, everyone can have a bad day.

(This is the only forum I know of connecting this many nationalities. Think thats great.)

[billtils]

Mats, no, I read no hostility in the replies, certainly not to you! There is a consistent response of liking your image, encouragement to continue to develop images that you like, and not to be constrained by what is and is not in fashion.

If there is any slight suggestion of negativity, it is to the fashion slaves

[bnnrcn]

IMO selective colorisation suits this image very well, nice image Mats

[NorthernFocus]

Definitely not allowed on wildlife. For shame...

[proseak]

I like this pic, and the selective colourisation.

I've never managed to get a good print from my attempts though - it soes need the B&W to be clean, with no cast and mine always look muddy.

[Shadowman]

I like this pic, and the selective colourisation.

I've never managed to get a good print from my attempts though - it soes need the B&W to be clean, with no cast and mine always look muddy.

What type of paper did you use?

[proseak]

Canon Pixma, and a few different glossy papers; greyscale turned to mud

[Craigie]

Mats, no, I read no hostility in the replies, certainly not to you! There is a consistent response of liking your image, encouragement to continue to develop images that you like, and not to be constrained by what is and is not in fashion.

If there is any slight suggestion of negativity, it is to the fashion slaves

I am in total agreement with Bill.
Also I do like the image.

[Shadowman]

Canon Pixma, and a few different glossy papers; greyscale turned to mud

I wonder if a different medium could handle the effect better, perhaps Matte but then again did your mono pass muster for black/white points. I try to get a mono conversion that covers the zone system but sometimes eyeballing the composition works better.

[JohnRostron]

Definitely not allowed on wildlife. For shame...

I have to agree with Dan on this. I commented on another thread recently that I liked a couple of shots showing a smidgen of colour in an otherwise (naturally) monochrome image. This does not appeal to me at all.

However, Mats, keep it up. Clearly a lot of people do like It!

John