_Rob_S_ wrote:
This is a very interesting thread, thanks for starting it Todd. Portraiture is not my primary interest though I did attend a portrait class last year. This was a shot from that session with a model. Does this qualify as high-key? Disclaimer: A bit of PP in LR, but that's it, again, not my specialty.
This is certainly close to high key - but, IMO, just misses the mark because of relatively large amount of "dark" red hair.
This is certainly close to high key - but, IMO, just misses the mark because of relatively large amount of "dark" red hair.
So by your definition only a pasty Santa Claus in his white dressing gown wearing white boots and making a snow angel in the midst of North Pole would be considered a high key image
There is something about the examples used here that is bothering me a bit.
Seems this is a "White skin with blond hair" oriented "style."
I was surprised the red headed woman did not qualify as a "high Key."
When I look at the last two images (girl, boy) I am struck by how the hair on the boy seems very light. I mean, doesn't he really have brown hair Britt? And the eyes, would not the eyes (with eyelashes too) seem the same "bleached out" look too?
Or is this just the technique of using photoshop to keep the eyes dark (with dark eyelashes) and then to desaturate and lighten everything else but the eyes?
In other words, I am getting a sense that Photoshop techniques are changing the look of "high key" into something like this: "Step one, duplicate layers, desaturate the image, in photoshop lighten it until almost white, then use the history brush to put the eyes and eyelashes back into the picture."
I also have the sense that "high key" seems to be limited to people with blond hair (fake or real or wannabe blond) and extremely white skin (real or post-processed to look like it). (Please show me examples that prove otherwise.)
Something about this just "sticks in my craw" (Southern saying or idiom meaning roughly: "It doesn't go down well" or doesn't fit) that only people who have blond hair and very white skin "qualify."
And then, to take a person with brown hair and then make them appear blond. Hmmmm.
In the end, I do think this is a matter of opinion and like anything else, I don't expect two people to fully agree on this.
But I write this because I find these examples and the "yes it is, no it isn't" amusing, and sometimes...I just don't agree.
Am I the only person here on the forum that feels this way?
Lest anyone mistake my intention on writing this, I am amused and in a good sense of humor. I write it with a friendly tone of voice too.
Part of the problem replicating the effect is the limited dynamic range (especially in the highlights) of digital capture.
Traditionally, the high key effect was created in part by lighting and art-direction but also by the way the film was developed and printed. Film was developed in diluted developer thus creating a 'thin' negative with blacks that were more gray, but leaving more tonality in the highlights. Printing on low-contrast paper further emphasised the effect as did 'shading' and vignetting (white of course).
Replicating these darkroom processes in photoshop is not impossible, but is pretty tough and if you factor in the point I made earlier about the lack of dynamic range in the highlights with digital capture, you've got a double wammy for the purist in regard to high key.
There's no rule that says you have to follow any given procedure in order to create a high key image, those capture and processing techniques are simply all that was available at the time. When all said and done a high-key image is simply an image where the dominant tonality is light. How you get there is up to you.
I must say that Tony has made some excellent points about high key in this thread and I wholeheartedly agree with him in regard to "Hot White" (I'd never heard that term before either!) but I don't think you have to be white and blonde to feature in a high key shot.
From "The Photographer's Handbook" (1977):
"The terms high or low key refer to the dominant prevailing tones - light or dark - used in a picture. A high key photograph consists mostly of white with light tones and some middle tones..."
This thread has taken an interesting turn. Although he didn't originate the thread Tony has decided to anoint himself as arbiter of what qualifies as "high-key" based on his personal interpretation, which as with all threads which have ever discussed the subject turns it into the definition of a silly set of rules about what qualifies as "high-key" which have little practical application.
A more practical approach is to first think about what your goal for the photograph is. What do you want the viewer to be attracted to most strongly? Where do you want their eye to go next? Where do you want the "center of gravity" of the image, the spot where the eye comes to rest to be? What emotional reaction do you wish to evoke in the mind of the viewer?
Once you have a clear goal in mind for what you want a photo to say the important thing is to understand what strategies will deliver that intended message clearly. The most compelling strategy for using a white background is to make anything darker easy to find because it will contrast. The more it contrasts the more attention it will get. Simple cause and effect.
When an image with a normal tonal range from black-to-white is ghosted overall by flat lighting and overexposure in the camera or by post-processing the attractive effect is actually lessened. For example if you were to take a B&W portrait and ghost it, making the pupils of the eyes light gray instead of black, the compelling contrast of the dark pupils on the white background will be decreased and so will be effectiveness of the eye contract they create. But if you where to take a photo with a normal tonal range, leave the eyes dark, but ghost everything else in varying amounts the eye contact with the image would be strong and magnetic.
Which is the purer form of "high-key"? Who cares? Go with whatever strategy is most effective at guiding the viewer of your photo to what you want them to see by controlling the relative contrast of things in the photo with tone, color, and relative sharpness and just call it EFFECTIVE.
Thanks for contributing to this thread as you have.
Don't mistake my tone or attitude.
I am just having a good day and an occasional laugh.
Nathan, good for you that the image was captured by camera work. Nice portrait too.
And...a good discussion like this one always needs an "in the know" (knowledgeable) questioner (or a "shill") to keep the dialog/fun going.
Liam, what's a darkroom?
No offense taken Steady Hand I like a lively discussion too, and really nice to see such a discussion here without it turning into a "I am right you are wrong" kinda thing...
I particurlay liked mr Gardner's last comment... as I used to say in my old home of the UK, "there is more than one way to skin a cat"
mmm darkroom.... I have one in my studio... been a while though.. mmm I can almost smell those lovely chemicals... mmm
BrittMcT wrote:
My sons hair is actually a dirty blond but regardless I did bring up the blacks to give them more of a frosty look.
And that's exactly what would have happened using the traditional technique.
BTW, a darkroom is where I use to go to get away from the wife, now it's the internet...
I suspect this thread will get a couple thousand views and very few images posted.
I suspect that is because everyone that thinks they have been shooting "high key" (and you know who you are... ) will be afraid to post an image as it won't "qualify."
Thanks to Nathan67 and BrittMcT for posting excellent examples of high key images. These clearly illustrate the tonality associated with High Key and shows that careful choice of subject makes the tone range creation much easier.
Nathan67 also clearly illustrates that high key is largely done in-camera and minimal postprocessing is needed.
Liamh points out the film processing strategy that was used in ancient history to make the high key image printing easier. The general reason for using a diluted developer was to ensure the developer would exhaust itself when processing highlights and continue active development in shadows - thus reducing the contrast of the image.
It is instructive to visually compare these shots with those provided by Rob_S and tutumon.
Edited by tonyfield on May 12, 2008 at 01:02 PM GMT
liamh wrote:
I must say that Tony has made some excellent points about high key in this thread and I wholeheartedly agree with him in regard to "Hot White" (I'd never heard that term before either!)
The term "hot white" came about from the New York fashion world in the 1960s and 1970s when shooting fashion images on a white background became the rage. I first heard of this in mid 1970s when assisting a fashion photographer from NY while he was shooting some western fashion images at the Calgary Stampede.
but I don't think you have to be white and blonde to feature in a high key shot.
Certainly not - however shooting a black skinned person with black hair and generating a pleasing high key is IMO very difficult. I tried to do this and had very limited limited success. I have seen a small number of good dark skinned high key images in ancient photography annuals - but very few compared to light skin, light hair people.
tonyfield wrote:
There is only one high key image. The high key image of the lady is a virtually perfectly exposed HP4 image printed for a high key rendition..
Horsepucky.
There is no detail in the skin tones on the entire left side. High-key happens in exposing the image, not in the printing. Think not? Shoot transparencies.
This is an interesting thread and I am trying to sort my way through it. At times I just don't know what really is high key. This thread is helpful in clearing up this question, but I doubt that I will ever achieve a true high picture because the definition ultimately seems to depend on the viewer's point of view.
There is some lovely work here and excellent discussion. I am not skillful or confident enough to chime in, especially when compared to the talent on this forum. However, I keep trying and learning and growing. What more can we do?
PS - I post this picture as a poor attempt at humor. I am not implying in anyway that this is a high key picture.
