OP, you may well have thought of this but here goes. B&W prints often look better if only parts are coloured. The flower is an example. Doing it this way is quicker and you are less likely to run out of patience, make mistakes etc. One of the best examples I have seen is a red double decker London bus going over Westminster Bridge. Only the bus was coloured
Unfortunately due to the proliferation of selectively colorized digital images (and my general hatred for the undiscriminating practice of desaturating digital images in the first place), I don't think I could stomach selectively colorizing one of my prints.
Many years ago, when color films were not so prevalent, portrait studios made black and white photos, and colored them with Marshall's oils. I worked in that medium for a studio in 1952, and achieved some nice results. It usually helped if the prints were sepia toned before coloring. Used a lot of cotton swabs doing it, and also wound the cotton on larger, pointed sticks. I still have a portrait of me that my parents had made when I was a small child at age 18 months. The color still holds up after 74 years as it was back then.
So, give that kit a try. If you goof, the oils can be removed before drying using the medium in the kit.
We are off on taste here, but that's okay. Selective toning or coloring can become a real cliche. I do like portraits or figure photos in b&w with just the skin areas toned. It looks almost natural. It is also usual to have little visual clutter with edge bleed of the selective toning. Imagine photos of a dancer in leotard in the studio. Various poses against studio psyche, with only skin toned. It looked really good.
Originally Posted by BetterSense