I'm Bad at Color...

[Seraj]

So if anyone has taken a loot at the shots I've posted, whether film or digital, it comes down to this weird thing where I think I am just bad at color. It's not that The shots I take with the intention don't look good in color, I think they just look better in monochrome most of the time. Every now and then something will pop and Ill keep it colorful, but I don't produce things that are really vibrant and wonderful that I MUST keep in color ever really.

I am wondering if this has to do with my lack of post skills when it comes to digital? I am not sure. Are there any tips one might have for this? Anyone else feel the same way?

[magicianhisoka]

You might be beating yourself too hard over nothing. I have friends that ooh and aah over anything that is over saturated.

Might want to ask yourself why do you want to shoot in color in the first place. If you see the world in monochrome, just enjoy it Personally I'm a fan of B&W but dabble in color when the time calls for it.

[Vics]

I think your only hope lies in a Leica Monochrom. Buy one and call me in the morning.

Seriously, I'm like that too. I keep trying to get good at color so that people will look at my pics and NOT say "Oooh! I love black and white!" Maybe we both need to stop worrying about what others think and just try to please ourselves.

[Damaso]

If you feel your color skills are lacking why not spend some time and just shoot color for a while? You're only going to get better at it by applying yourself (said the photo instructor). that said perhaps you are more naturally inclined towards b&w. But I am certain that with time and effort you could improve...

[gb hill]

Your color shots on flickr look fine. I esp. like the bicyclist shot.

[John Bragg]

I think it is a matter of will sometimes. I have a second hand camera (Olympus Mju-V) loaded with colour and ready to go. The intention was to use colour roll as a function test but I really can't bring myself to shoot it. I have spent the last quarter of a century shooting mono and I find it is the way I see the world now. I think I will just remove the colour roll and install some Tri-X or Delta 400 and shoot away to my hearts content. It may also be that I don't trust others to process my precious film. That is my job. !!

[charjohncarter]

Originally Posted by gb hill

Your color shots on flickr look fine. I esp. like the bicyclist shot.

I think digital has made color more difficult. With film you sent it to the lab and got the prints: no choice. Now you play with it forever, and ruin it more with each step. I use PSE6 and use autocolor, if I don't like that I kill it and use color variation, or color cast removal. Killing each new image before trying the next step. I'm still having a bad time with color but I have say, I think I'm getting better. Like everything else in photography you have to work at it. Just keep trying. One hint; if you are using digital is to shoot in RAW if it is available; RAW converters are all different and interpret differently. There are many free ones on the net give them a try, you may find that you like one over others.

[Seraj]

Originally Posted by gb hill

Your color shots on flickr look fine. I esp. like the bicyclist shot.

Any of what I do in color though tends to be subdued, a little more mellow, as if you could just see it shift to black and white with a half step away from RGB if that makes sense.

[giellaleafapmu]

Color is what people buy, I understand that unless you are " just" in art photography eventually knowing how to shot well color might help paying bills.

You don't post pictures so it is not easy to give any opinion but I got a lot better in taking photographs, especially color pictures, once I gave up the old school dogma of shooting always and only in natural light. Sometimes available light in color looks just crap (fluorescent light which is what you get in most public places once the sun goes down is a good example of this). Once I started to use strobes (and filter the light they produce and put different filters on the lens and correct everything I get in post production and finally learn how to use layers in Photoshop and...) things started to change.

Now, if you don't want to sell you pictures and you get great b/w pictures and you really hate to bring lights and heavy equipment with you all the exercise might be a bit futile, but that type of skills really helped me a lot and I guess they will help me more and more as far as I will master them better and better...

Another way is really looking for the right time for a picture. A landscape which is great at 5:30 a.m. just before the sun rise might be just plain and boring already by 9:00 a.m., again white balance might help a bit in this (just as a stupid examples, a sky just before the sunset with white balance on tungsten might look quite a bit more colorful than with everything on A-mode), the nice thing being that unless you mix different type of lights and don't need to balance this you might try your hands at this while processing your .raw file. The bad thing: in my experience many things look nicer early in the morning which means getting up early...not something I do very easily.

GLF

[Trius]

I think the subjects and environments you work with tend to lend themselves to black & white; I think you just gravitate toward that. I agree that if you shot in colour a lot, you would improve. However, it may be that you "see" in b&w. If you don't need to work in colour for sales, personal accomplishment, etc., then it might make sense to work on your strengths. Just a thought.

[Seraj]

Example;


Fall is Beautiful by Seraj Farabi Photography, on Flickr

I always feel like something is missing.

[Seraj]

Originally Posted by giellaleafapmu

Color is what people buy, I understand that unless you are " just" in art photography eventually knowing how to shot well color might help paying bills.

You don't post pictures so it is not easy to give any opinion but I got a lot better in taking photographs, especially color pictures, once I gave up the old school dogma of shooting always and only in natural light. Sometimes available light in color looks just crap (fluorescent light which is what you get in most public places once the sun goes down is a good example of this). Once I started to use strobes (and filter the light they produce and put different filters on the lens and correct everything I get in post production and finally learn how to use layers in Photoshop and...) things started to change.

Now, if you don't want to sell you pictures and you get great b/w pictures and you really hate to bring lights and heavy equipment with you all the exercise might be a bit futile, but that type of skills really helped me a lot and I guess they will help me more and more as far as I will master them better and better...

Another way is really looking for the right time for a picture. A landscape which is great at 5:30 a.m. just before the sun rise might be just plain and boring already by 9:00 a.m., again white balance might help a bit in this (just as a stupid examples, a sky just before the sunset with white balance on tungsten might look quite a bit more colorful than with everything on A-mode), the nice thing being that unless you mix different type of lights and don't need to balance this you might try your hands at this while processing your .raw file. The bad thing: in my experience many things look nicer early in the morning which means getting up early...not something I do very easily.

GLF

This! This is my issue. I indeed want my livelihood to be based upon my photographic work.

Sometimes I wonder if there is an issue in my UV Filter or my glass, but I know its probably a mix of lack of experience and lack of technique.

Also I am somewhat acquainted with magic hour!

[peterm1]

Colour is difficult to do well as excessive colour can detract from the artistry in an image and just turn it into a "pretty picture." Fine if thats what you want. But if you want art, then its usually not to be found there.. Oddly after years of shooting mono I moved back to shooting colour not quite but almost exclusively - but I have tried to develop a bit of my own style. Later I discovered Saul Leiter and found my muse. His early colour work is sublime. Its not so much that I set out to copy him or even model myself on him (I did not know of him till long after I started shooting colour seriously) but more that I learned from and became inspired by him. I think people can learn this stuff if they are interested enough to work at it. And maybe even become good.

Check out this and look at how he uses colour. He uses it very selectively and it makes his images quite impressionistic. I love it.

http://www.retronaut.co/2011/09/new-...-leiter-1950s/

[dreilly]

My recommendations: Smoke some hashish. Or travel to Turkey. Do not mix both pieces of advice!

Hashish just might make colors sparkle for you for a few years...blues especially. I am serious about the effect but not really about the advice. That would be irresponsible. Oh wait, I wouldn't feel apprehensive telling you to go chill out with a beer, would I? Anyway, for centuries people have used mind-altering drugs to change their perception and the role of such substances in art is pretty well accepted. Think Van Gogh. Then remember the ear thing. Though I think he had underlying problems. You can still think about Van Gogh. Anyway, however you do it, the point is that you might need to learn to see differently.

The safer way of changing your vision is to travel to a place like Turkey (and distinctly not smoking anything illegal there!). I lived in Slovakia for a few years where I saw most things in black and white. This has changed...as if to prove a point people in the former eastern bloc have gone nuts with bright pastelish and primary exterior paint in more recent years. But anyway, I came to Turkey with my perception tuned to black and white, and a bag full of color slide film. I was in heaven. I barely had to look through my viewfinder to get a nice photograph with popping colors. The quality of light was really different than eastern europe, and the northeast US where I am from. I tried to actually pare down the color...there was too much. Concentrated on looking for monochrome scenes with a single color focal point. It was very instructive.

When I returned to Slovakia everything was gray again, except my eyes had been tuned to color a bit more, and I began to see it. I found certain times of day and weather worked best for color. The hour after sunset. Anytime during rain or immediately after rain, when colors are naturally more saturated.

In my opinion I think color photography is harder than black and white. With black and white the primary concern is spatial and sometimes (if you're good) tonal. You can't really reposition your camera to change a scene's color, however. I feel like the greater effort in color photography is looking in the first place.

And maybe accepting that a good color image is a rare thing. Most of them are humdrum. Flickr is instructional here. I agree with the above poster that digital has ruined color in some ways, though I think it's the mere glut of color images more than people ruining stuff in post.

Another piece of advice...shoot some slide film and dig a projector out of the basement or from a dumpster and take a look. Nothing like projected slides, another way to help you see what works in color or not.

So multiple approaches, some not legal, to changing perception and therefore changing your art. Good luck!

[furcafe]

Kudos for putting yourself out there w/an honest question.

I think the reason why you feel this shot is missing something is that you're relying on the color (pretty autumn leaves) to carry all the weight in your photo. Take away the color & what do you have (hint: I don't think it's a great shot in B&W, either)? I've also seen way too many mediocre B&W shots (not talking about you in particular, BTW) that rely on the inherent abstraction of B&W to make them "artistic."

IMHO, shooting color well is indeed harder than B&W (@ least for me & I think for many others) because you have to go beyond having "only" good composition/graphic elements & textures in the frame. But it's just a tool. Not every shot looks better in color. Some will be better in B&W. Some might work in either. If you're coming from a B&W-centric perspective, you have to learn to look @ a scene & decide whether color can add some value (the opposite goes if you're coming from a color-centric perspective).

I would agree w/others who have suggested shooting only in color for a while until you get the hang of it.

Originally Posted by Seraj

Example;


Fall is Beautiful by Seraj Farabi Photography, on Flickr

I always feel like something is missing.

[nighstar]

lots of good advice and comments in this thread already, so i don't really have much to add. i just want to say that i too find color more difficult to work with than b&w. i take color photos just as often as b&w photos but it seems that i invariably end up working color photos for a lot longer in Lightroom/Photoshop to get them looking the way i want them to. as other have said, b&w lends itself to different subject matter and composition than color photos, so for me Step 1 of the photo-taking process is envisioning how i want the final photo to look before i even touch the shutter button. to me, that helps a lot.

[icebear]

Hi Seraj,

as others mentioned already, courageous to put you out there to get your work evaluated and ask strangers for opinions.

Someone posted a quote from HCB : "...your first 10.000 pictures are the worst"
I don't earn any money with my photography it just costs me, so a totally unprofessional opinion here ...

The only two shots that have something special (for me) :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/serajph...in/photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/serajph...in/photostream

All others are "nice snapshots", that has nothing to do with color or black and white. Try every opportunity to get opinions on your work. It will be damn tough but from honest feedback you'll learn the most. Happy shooting.

[willie_901]

The example you show could have one technical flaw. The color temperature seems to warm to me. Color temperature is difficult to judge because of monitor calibration and how some browsers treat color.

The sun light has the soft glow of sunset or sunrise which can impart a lovely yellow/red Light. one of the strengths of the image is the leaf color and the sun light colors are harmonious. But the fence on the right might not have had that yellow cast in real life. Also, the shadows on the home fronts in the left background have yellow cast. Shadows are not yellow. They typically have a blue cast. The tree trunks also seem warm.

From seeing this one example, I would speculate your issue with color has to do with inexperience in post processing. I know that many of us embrace shooting jpegs, for color work I personally find shooting in raw to be valuable.

One thing you could try is using a gray card. This will help you set the right color balance for that region of the scene.

One challenge with color work is the color temperature is often heterogeneous throughout the scene. This means localized color balance is sometimes required. For instance, I often have to make shadows with a blue cast gray using the selective adjustment brush in Lightroom.

Finally, monitor calibration and color space management is important throughout the entire process. I always use a competent lab for printing. It costs a bit more, but they handle the print side of color management.

[charjohncarter]

Originally Posted by peterm1

Colour is difficult to do well as excessive colour can detract from the artistry in an image and just turn it into a "pretty picture." Fine if thats what you want. But if you want art, then its usually not to be found there.. Oddly after years of shooting mono I moved back to shooting colour not quite but almost exclusively - but I have tried to develop a bit of my own style. Later I discovered Saul Leiter and found my muse. His early colour work is sublime. Its not so much that I set out to copy him or even model myself on him (I did not know of him till long after I started shooting colour seriously) but more that I learned from and became inspired by him. I think people can learn this stuff if they are interested enough to work at it. And maybe even become good.

Check out this and look at how he uses colour. He uses it very selectively and it makes his images quite impressionistic. I love it.

http://www.retronaut.co/2011/09/new-...-leiter-1950s/

I'm with you, push the saturation slider in the opposite direction of most people. Not quite that easy, but a start. It seems even film manufacturers are getting away from VC film.

[giellaleafapmu]

Originally Posted by furcafe

I would agree w/others who have suggested shooting only in color for a while until you get the hang of it.

I would add one suggestion that made miracles to me: shot as if you were always on assignment. Many of us go out with a camera and take pictures when they feel there is something magic about what they have in front of them. Now just try to do what pros are asked to do: go there, take a picture of this guy, he has just raised a billion in charity, do this in 10' because he is a very busy man and he just gave us an appointment at the airport (with the crappy light and security guys who don't let you put a background) before he goes to Hong-Kong, the picture should hint to what he did, don't get just a head shot! Then aim to get an average picture if you cannot get a good one, think just that you don't want to have nothing to show, you need a picture. I got this advice from a real pro (just in case I am not one) and since I started practicing this I really started to think in a different way, having actually someone who plays the part of the guy who gave you the assignment (especially if he is that real pro who gave you the suggestion in the first place and knows the magnitude of the task you got) can be of some help too. You can do this every time you go out. I go to a restaurant, I get pictures which ideally should go with a review of that restaurant in a magazine, I go to a park I get pictures about sedentarianism and its correlation to overweight, I am home bored I get a picture of my own mug of coffee for a stock agency, no need of a lot of time or even any special equipment.

GLF

[pftact]

The terms black and white and color made sense when there was black and white and color films. With digital color is the normal output. World is also in color. Digital b&w is very easy and therefore like everything that is easy, its no good. B&W film also looks cliched because the very b&w look has become a tired cliched that tries to relive the past glory of B&W photography in a different age. Normal or color with digital is the singular photography medium today.

[redisburning]

Im a reductive photographer (ie I identify a wide scene and then subtract elements until I'm satisfied) and I think color adds something.

When I look at my color work that I think is ok, I clearly took something else out to make room for the color. Also, looking for scenes with balanced colors is hard because it's much rarer than scenes with balanced values, IMO. More colors = more combinations = less chance to find something you like.

[Ranchu]

It looks to me like your lens has a green cast, like most. Your D800 has too much contrast for the scene, too much contrast=too much saturation=color casts are much harder to eradicate, with digital some are impossible. Like when the fence is blown. For good color, sell the digital before it falls in value too much, get a scanner, and clear not green or red lenses. They will tend to be softer, in general. Or use digital, but use flash on everything as above. Or use digital and only shoot low contrast scenes. I didn't see the point of any of that, but I'm not trying to get paid.

[Gabriel M.A.]

I think it boils down to personal taste and sensitivities. Quickly perusing through your flickr stream I can see you are more drawn into forms and light/shadow play and "color" may really break that for you visually, in the sense that playing a tune on a piano would be obviously a tune, but when somebody comes up and plays a key in there that doesn't belong in the tune doesn't mean that the piano is broken, but merely that you were not ready for that note. But that's an admittedly bad analogy, but I'm simply trying to illustrate what I think is your dissatisfaction with your own color shots.

I think that the suggestion above about shooting nothing but color for a while may help you "tune" your visual mind.

Color is far more difficult to master for you (general "you" not you you) if you want it to be in harmony with the compositional vision you acquired in B&W. You'll notice that many photographers who don't do B&W do not have a compositional sensibility and find B&W pointless. There are also B&W photographers who find color pointless. Whenever you get stuck in one thing you find everything else either pointless, "a fad" or "horrible". You posing this question for yourself and asking around is a great sign you're not one of those.

[Photo_Smith]

I would like to echo the post above about Art and displaying on monitors and add the following:
Colour or mono is a personal thing, colour is a physiological experience, one that is not always needed, for form and shadow sometimes a lack of colour really helps, my personal take is that if colour doesn't enhance the subject then mono may be better.
Would colour help me here?


With your Autumn leaves shot I found it unpleasantly green and over saturated, the green may have come from the light through the leaves, but with subjects the eye expects to have warmth green and cyan work against that, even if it reflects the scene as you saw it.
It's easy to overstep the mark with colour but if you're going too make it in a direction the observer expects:


Good luck!