Selective Coloring vs. Kim Anderson's Photography

[JanJan]

I’ve been reading around that fauxtographers do selective coloring, so obviously, it’s frowned upon in the industry.

But what about Kim Anderson’s photography? Her photography style is selective coloring and she has been making money off it for years. You can buy her work as a poster, book, calendar, etc. I remember back in the late 90’s, when I was in high school learning how to create web pages, I would add some of her photography on my website. I was young and dumb back then! LOL!

Examples:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5wgme9G_mYw/UPYG_rzLyJI/AAAAAAAAFto/kKMKc_oE3bE/s640/ka.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/Studio-The-First-Kiss-Poster/dp/B00ALU3S80/ref=pd_sim_hg_4

I know selective coloring on all the pictures featured on this website is atrocious and downright sloppy. Many of them don’t make  any sense. But even if the picture was clean and the edit was executed well, it seems like many experienced photographers across the board still don’t like selective coloring.

Which raises the question…if Kim Anderson first launched her signature photos in the digital age, would seasoned photographers frown upon her usage of selective coloring?

However, I am aware of the factors that makes Kim Anderson’s work popular, especially her subjects, which are children dressed up as adults, in classic clothing, and acting out dating sequences (like a little boy giving a little girl flowers, a cute little boy and girl hugging, etc.) Also, I know that her work was launched when digital wasn’t as popular. Like I mentioned before, I discovered her work in the late 90’s, but I don’t know if it was released earlier than that.

 

[Lauryn]

Selective colouring, when used right, could work well. However…
It honestly just looks sloppy most of the time, like those atrocious book covers from the 90’s. 99% of the selective colouring I see would be better as just black and white, or, if you really love the colour, coloured.
I do agree that there is a very, very small percentage of pictures that actually look good with selective colouring, though.

(Also, the first like with 4 pictures- the one on the top right makes the boy look sickly, and could’ve been coloured much more effectively.)

[cameraclicker]

There are lots of examples of selective colour on the main page here.  What sets your examples by Kim apart is that Kim has skill and pays attention to detail.  When I see her work, I think “Wow!”, when I see the stuff on the main page here, I think “Oh! Well they didn’t  mask that very well.”

[Rizzo]

i had the first kiss print in a mat frame when i was in high school, lol. ah, memories.

[Worst Case Scenario]

I had a bride to be in my studio last week who wanted a really old fashioned  looking album cover. So I dug out an old display album from the 90’s and cringed when she started looking at the images inside it. But she got to the B/W  shot of a bride and groom with the bouquet in colour and said ” Oh I really love that effect”.- horses for courses!

I think the KIm Anderson shots work because firstly they are well thought out and staged shots. And secondly they only have very muted colours, making them look like they are selectively hand coloured.

[Thom]

I agree with WCS, it is tinted to make them more “vintage” looking. Whilst the fauxtogs look like really bad spray paint and have no context as to why they would do selective coloring. It’s a pretty fine line. I think most consumers, much like the hair pulling decisions made by clients WCS mentioned, are why you do see a LOT of bad selective coloring. To me, it’s just all around bad.

[OctoberMoon]

I just plain don’t like the effect. Ever. It looks cheesy to me, like that Glamour Shots-esque foggy blur. Ugh.

[iliketag]

Somewhat off topic but kind of on…
I can’t knock Glamour Shots. I just can’t. My dad got my mom glamour shots one year of Mother’s Day (it was like, 1997 I think) and my mom is a fairly heavy set woman. She was much leaner before having kids and I think that it really affected her confidence how much weight she had gained approaching her mid-forties. When she got those photos done, there was such a renewed confidence in my mom. Now, I’m not saying my dad couldn’t have been doing more to make her feel beautiful, but getting dolled up and doted on for portraits was a way he could SHOW her.
That being said, I would never do them the way they did in the 90’s… but I do think that projects that Photographers like Kari Rae and others do with seniors and families, partnering with professional hairstylists and makeup artists and wardrobe consultants/boutique owners is an excellent way to give a client that kind of feeling. I think when you build up confidence like that, your portraits exude it!

On the topic of selective coloring – The Kim Anderson look is far different from the stuff I see in the day to day. The vintage, hand colored look is a guilty pleasure. I think one thing I don’t mind so much is when the colors are muted or antiqued instead of completely converted to grayscale and then a certain color (only one!) is more distinguished (in terms of like, a rose, the color would be more crimson than say, a candy apple color). I absolutely agree that it can be garish and that I do not use it… but when done well, it really is a moment that makes me happy. :p

[nesgran]

I would say the main difference is how it is coloured. Most of the selective colour atrocities that are on the front page are done really sloppily with a blob of colour and the rest grey. Kim Anderson however selectively colours objects rather than blobs but also importantly like someone else said has less colour for the rest making sure the rest of the photo looks muted rather then grey. If used properly it is a little bit like bokeh, it makes your eyes drawn to a certain part of the photo but if used badly it’ll ruin the shot, just like bad bokeh

[Author]

Posts