Paul:

First of all, yes of course I’m expressing my opinion. What else could I do? Same goes for You, Paul anonymous. You have the guts to call my pictures “garbage pics” (one of them have won two prizes and is also featured in a few online galleries, so everyone doesn’t agree with You), but You lack the guts to be unanonymous and show your own fantastic art. My opinion about the three pictures of mine that you have seen means nothing to me, of course. Why would I care about what some anonymous dude on the net says? Give me a reason to take your words serious, show me your photos!

So You call your self pro? Without any kind of evidence (i.e. You not being gutless and showing your amazing pictures), I take your words as if they come from a complete noob. Besides, being pro is i no way a guarantee for either good taste or good pictures. Being pro only means that you are good at marketing yourself. I know many extremely skilled photographers, way more skilled than I am (I’ve only been photographing for about 9 years), that have tried to go pro but failed. Not because their pictures look bad, because they certainly don’t, but because they lack the courage to demand what the pictures are work, and the skill to promote themselves.

I do not call my self a pro, I do however get paid for photography from time to time. Again, obviously not everyone agree with your opinion about my skill as a photographer.

As a pro, if you really are what you claim, you should really know that an effect should not be used for the sake of the effect. It should be used when it’s called for.

About HDR: Yes, I dislike when _tone mapping_ is overused. There are _plenty_ of pictures out there that looks nothing but crap because of the extreme tone mapping effect, that would otherwise be really good pictures. But there are undoubtedly some that look really good. And that is when the effect really suits the subject, and when the tone mapping have been done with taste and carefulness by the photographer. Unfortunately, there’s a lot out there who just drag the sliders around a bit without really knowing, or caring for, what they are doing.

Also, who are YOU to judge who gets to comment stuff on the internet or not? Do you have a god-complex, or what’s your issue? That kind of argumentation techniques (“Christoffer I click on your web site and I see 3 over contrast garbage pics. You are the last person to bash or give any sort of comments at all. Unplug your internet and read a book or something.”) are usually used when people run out of arguments, or simply by people who lack the intelligence needed to have a mature argument.

Last but not least, I want to apologize to Giulia! I didn’t realize that I were commenting on your own pictures, I came to this post via StumbleUpon, and I thought it was another one of those blogs that just collect pictures from all over the internet. If I would have realized that is was your own work, I would not have been as harsh in my previous comment!

I do however stand by my point, that I think that the effect of partially coloring pictures seldom add anything. Sometimes it really does add something, and it’s _then_ it should be used. By overusing effects (doesn’t matter what kind of effect really), the really outstanding pictures drown in all the others. The effect “grow old”, becomes passé.

/Christoffer

I absolutely agree with “filmphotography”, selective color like this is nothing, i say NOTHING, but tacky! it looks cheap, and it IS cheap! It’s a cheap trick to make an uninteresting picture appealing to those who don’t truly understand photography.

The effect becomes more important than the composition and expression of the photograph. We have an expression for that in Swedish: “hötorgskonst”. “Art” that’s more or less “industrially” produced to be easy to sell. There’s no really thought from the “artist” about the composition or expression, as long as it looks good and sells.

As a photographer, partially colored black and whites is a phase you go through in the early beginning of your photography, nowadays. Then you move on and realize that it does look kind of cheap, and that the effect gets the attention from the expression. If a picture isn’t good enough in full color or b/w, it sure as hell isn’t going to get any better by splatting some color over it!

I absolutely agree with “filmphotography”, selective color like this is nothing, i say NOTHING, but tacky! it looks cheap, and it IS cheap! It’s a cheap trick to make an uninteresting picture appealing to those who don’t truly understand photography.
I absolutely agree with “filmphotography”, selective color like this is nothing, i say NOTHING, but tacky! it looks cheap, and it IS cheap! It’s a cheap trick to make an uninteresting picture appealing to those who don’t truly understand photography.
I absolutely agree with “filmphotography”, selective color like this is nothing, i say NOTHING, but tacky! it looks cheap, and it IS cheap! It’s a cheap trick to make an uninteresting picture appealing to those who don’t truly understand photography.
I absolutely agree with “filmphotography”, selective color like this is nothing, i say NOTHING, but tacky! it looks cheap, and it IS cheap! It’s a cheap trick to make an uninteresting picture appealing to those who don’t truly understand photography.
I absolutely agree with “filmphotography”, selective color like this is nothing, i say NOTHING, but tacky! it looks cheap, and it IS cheap! It’s a cheap trick to make an uninteresting picture appealing to those who don’t truly understand photography.

I absolutely agree with “filmphotography”, selective color like this is nothing, i say NOTHING, but tacky! it looks cheap, and it IS cheap! It’s a cheap trick to make an uninteresting picture appealing to those who don’t truly understand photography.

The effect becomes more important than the composition and expression of the photograph. We have an expression for that in Swedish: “hötorgskonst”. “Art” that’s more or less “industrially” produced to be easy to sell. There’s no rea

I absolutely agree with “filmphotography”, selective color like this is nothing, i say NOTHING, but tacky! it looks cheap, and it IS cheap! It’s a cheap trick to make an uninteresting picture appealing to those who don’t truly understand photography.

The effect becomes more important than the composition and expression of the photograph. We have an expression for that in Swedish: “hötorgskonst”.

I absolutely agree with “filmphotography”, selective color like this is nothing, i say NOTHING, but tacky! it looks cheap, and it IS cheap! It’s a cheap trick to make an uninteresting picture appealing to those who don’t truly understand photography.

I absolutely agree with “filmphotography”, selective color like this is nothing, i say NOTHING, but tacky! it looks cheap, and it IS cheap! It’s a cheap trick to make an uninteresting picture appealing to those who don’t truly understand photography.

Test