With no formal training in photography beyond reading boards, I'm not so good with knowing the rules and definitions, but here's one of mine that I think fits the definition...
Typically high-key still has detail in the skin, keeps the majority of the tonal range on the white side, but still has the complete range of tones from white to black.
It's a fairly easy definition, but many are getting confused by poor examples they've seen by others.
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.
Hummmm.... possibly your monitor is not adjusted properly. The image contains rgb values of 249 to 253 on the image left side and 240 to 250 on image right.. My monitor shows smooth tonality in these areas. Additionally, remember that this is shot on HP4 developed for lower than normal contrast which has it's own characteristics that bear no similarity to shooting transparencies. Additionally, the lady is 18 years old with very nice smooth skin.
tonyfield wrote:
Hummmm.... possibly your monitor is not adjusted properly.
Hmmm.... you know you could be right there. For sure I see NO detail on the left side. If you see it on your monitor, it certainly could be my monitor. Further, if that detail is there, then absolutely it's high-key.
Someone else said that a properly exposed subject against a white background is not high-key. That can be correct. High-key is a properly exposed light subject against a light background. Very light. But highlights don't get blown. That is what make true high-key work so spectacular.
What makes high-key high-key is the subject and background, not manipulating the exposure to make it appear light. That is why using the histogram doesn't really mean anything - it's affected by exposure. People have been taking high-key images long before there was digital photography. As I said before, if you really want a challenge, and want to get really good at high-key, shoot transparencies. Transparencies are VERY unforgiving. There is NO post production to save you.
Geo31 said, "...That is what make true high-key work so spectacular."
My impression is that the concept of "high key" has been given an aura of respect and high value in the photography world and that a lot of photographers that don't fully understand the techincal meaning of the term want to do this cool thing called high key, too. CGardner's assertion that people are getting caught up in the concept and missing the point, is a reasonable reaction.
TonyField is providing a dispassionate definition of the terms, well grounded in their use in the industry, and providing examples. The definition is clear. There is no reason to be troubled by the probability that you can't make a high key portrait of a black cat.
There is no reason to be troubled over the fact that a portrait with a hot white background and medium key subject is not a high key photo, unless you're overly attached to the connotation conveyed by the term, high key.
cgardner wrote:
A true high-key photo which has a very limited range of tones does a very poor job of leading the viewer to what is most important in the photo. The most effective photos on white backgrounds (i.e. a photo with a high-key background) will be those were the most important center of interests contrast strongly in color and dark tones.
This is contradiction in terms and therefor very misleading to the reader. In fact, high key and low keys images are specifically done to strongly lead the eye through the image by simple use of tonal contrast. There are obviously many strategies to "lead the viewer" through the image - high and low key are only two of the many possible image styles.
The "true high-key photo" has a full tone range with the very dominant light tones and has clear dark tones. This is as I described in the definition. As I described, it does a very GOOD job of leading the viewer to what is the visual attraction or centre of interest .
The general visual effect of the light tones is to present an emotional response - for example, one of delicate textures, light airy feelings, etc. This is the important artistic attribute of the image. The obvious visual attraction in the high key image is the darker tones which represent the contrast of the image. These become the visual centre of interest. This is clearly illustrated in my photograph of the young lady as well as the images presented by Nathan67 and BrittMcT.
The complimentary effect is achieved with low key - the light portions of the images attract the viewer's eye.
The tonality of the images and how the eye responds to the dark/light contrast is, I assumed, the obvious attributes of high and low key images.
No contradiction in terms, I just happen to disagree with your the definition of high key. I wouldn't consider a photo with ANY tone in it with a value over 128 middle gray to fit the strict definition of "high-key", while you seem to thing that a photo with a full-range of tone from 0 black to 255 white would qualify as "high-key" provided there were more light values that dark. That being the case you should be able to quantify on a percentage area basis for each tonal value what constitutes a "high-key" per your definition. Since you have anointed yourself judge and jury tell me if for example, of 1 % of the surface area of the photo are dark 0 - 50 RGB tonal values is the photo still a high key in your view? How about when 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% of the area of the photo are areas of dark detail where do you draw a quantifiable line where too much dark area disqualifies a photo as a "high" key?
My point however is that I don't get hung-up on"key" labels. We both seem to agree that contrast is what leads the eye and where the eye is lead on a white background is towards the things which contrast the most with the white background. In addition to tone color is a very strong attractive force on white which explains why flat lighting scenarios which create deep saturated skin-tones are quite effective for color shots on white backgrounds.
Possibly, Chuck, you did not read my post. The statement was:
"The subject principle colours are very light and white (RGB values that approach 255 and virtually all tones above 128 for the three colours) tones. There are some detail shadows and mid tones."
It seems to me that my examples, and those good high-key images posted by Nathan67 and BrittMcT, have all tones from black to white withe a strong preponderance of "very light and white" tones. The histograms in my and Nathan67's image clearly show this as well. There is obviously no specific numbers in terms of percentages - I don't know why you would suggest such a thing.
You are the one who seems hung up on "key" labels. Yes, I certainly feel that people should understand common terminology. My only intent is to illustrate the nature of these terms and provide a reasonable and consistent definitions.
I do agree that you did not contradict yourself. However you stated that "A true high-key photo which has a very limited range of tones" is certainy incorrect for the most part, in particular it is at odds with my definition. Although it is reasonable to have a high key image with a restricted tone range however that is not a normal approach. In the same way, a low key portrait rarely will have a restricted tone range - look at the work of Yosuf Karsh.
As my description of the term indicates, there is usually a full tone range the the PREPONDERNACE of tones in the light to almost white range however some mid to dark tones to provide the visual focus.
Possibly you could provide the definition for "high key" and "low key" with examples to show why your definition is correct since part of the original intent of the thread to to come to grips with the meaning of "high key". It would also be interesting to show where my definition is inappropriate.
tonyfield wrote:
I do agree that you did not contradict yourself. However you stated that "A true high-key photo which has a very limited range of tones" is certainy incorrect for the most part, in particular it is at odds with my definition.
You keep saying I'm incorrect, based on the fact that I disagree with your definition. We simply have a disagreement over what would be considered I high key in a way which could be measured quantitatively. My criteria, no tone at all over 128 is quite simple to quantify and measure, which in part is why I think it is a better definition.
tonyfield wrote:
Although it is reasonable to have a high key image with a restricted tone range however that is not a normal approach. In the same way, a low key portrait rarely will have a restricted tone range - look at the work of Yosuf Karsh.
Exactly my point... The photographs people call high- or low-key aren't in the sense of having a limited range of tonality; e.g. polar bear sleeping in the snow or black cat sleeping in the shadows. Most photos are foreground subjects with a full range of tones on high-key-backgrounds or low-key-backgrounds.
tonyfield wrote:
As my description of the term indicates, there is usually a full tone range the the PREPONDERNACE of tones in the light to almost white range however some mid to dark tones to provide the visual focus.
Yes, but as I mentioned earlier that definition hinges on how the word "preponderance" or "predominance" is interpreted. The dictionary definition of predominance is, "the state or condition of being greater in number or amount." The words number and amount both signify something which can be quantifiably measured. Thus my unanswered request for you to quantity how much dark area a photo could have and still be considered a high-key in your view: 20%, 30%, or maybe 49% since that would still make the white background greater in amount.
tonyfield wrote:
Possibly you could provide the definition for "high key" and "low key" with examples to show why your definition is correct since part of the original intent of the thread to to come to grips with the meaning of "high key". It would also be interesting to show where my definition is inappropriate.
I did. I would consider a photo with no tone darker than 128 on a scale of 0 - 255 as being a true high-key photo overall and one with no tone lighter than 128 as being low-key.
That's somewhat of a contemporary digital, quantifiable interpretation of the view that high- and low- key photos are defined by a narrow range of tones. Not unlike the treble and bass clefs in musical notation which I suspect is where the term "key" originated. So if you where to refer to a photo in a "high-key" it would contain notes in the upper register and if you were to refer to a photo in a "low-key" it would consist of only the lower register.
As mentioned I've learned to avoid the terms because they are subject to so much debate and disagreement. Someone calls their photo "high-key" and the thread devolves into a debate over the term. That's no tiresome or confusing enough, so someone feels the need to start a thread to debate it.
Most seem to understand and agree that the contrast if dark / colorful areas is the cause and effect dynamic which make photos effective in guiding the viewer to the focal point. All I'm suggesting is that if someone feels the need to label a photo using the term "high-key" they simply add the word "background" as in, "Here's my photo on a high-key background" which is usually a more accurate of the full-scale subjects on white background which typically get posted and called high-key.
Hummm. your definitions conflict with every printed references in texts I have read over the years and differs from the common understanding of most serious knowledgeable photographers I know. For example, the Ilford Manual of Photogaphy 1958 p 252 says:
"(b) The print should show the full range of tones between black and white that is capable of being produced on the paper used. (Even in high-key and low-key photographs it is usually desirable that the print should show some white and some black, however small these areas may be)."
I can find more and detailed references if I look through my archives of various photo manuals and yearbooks.
cgardner wrote:
That's somewhat of a contemporary digital, quantifiable interpretation of the view that high- and low- key photos are defined by a narrow range of tones. Not unlike the treble and bass clefs in musical notation which I suspect is where the term "key" originated. So if you where to refer to a photo in a "high-key" it would contain notes in the upper register and if you were to refer to a photo in a "low-key" it would consist of only the lower register.
Chuck
I see the angels are still dancing on the needle.
Since I've spent time in ensembles both as an orchestral musician and as a singer, I've read plenty of scores. It would be nice and neat if we could describe "light and airy" music as music with only notes on the treble cleff and "dark and moody" music as that with notes only on the treble cleff, just as it would be nice to describe photos as high key when the histogram show nothing below, say, 128 and low key not showing readings above 128. Things aren't that tidy in either case. I've played plenty of "dark" pieces where I was in fifth or even seventh position on the E string. Conversely, I've sung many a sweet, light song where I was at the bottom of my bass range.
In the end, what "style" we call a photo is not very important. You can call it "Fred" or "Ginger" or anything else, but if it doesn't move move me or touch me or interest me, it really doesn't matter.
The speakers for my home theater arrived yesterday. I bought them internet direct. I have 30 days to decide if they suit me, since I bought them sound unheard. I turned on my left brain and threw some music at them, I listened for some very specific technical characteristics. Did the designer do a good job with baffle step compensation when designing the crossover? Since it's a WTW configuration, is lobing a problem? After an hour or so of critical listening, I gave my left brain a rest. I put on a bunch of all sorts of music and just listened. I wanted to know, did the speakers sing to me? Did I hear speakers or did I hear music? When we get deep into these kind of discussions, I feel that we run the risk of seeing the image as a collection of technical elements executed more or less successfully instead of seeing a photograph created by someone who wanted to communicate a thought, feeling, emotion or just share something of beauty. Some images defy quantization, but can be enjoyed and appreciated nonetheless.
So far, Nathan67's example is the only photo I've seen on FM that made me think high key is something special. Not that the other high key images aren't good examples of high key, they just didn't grab me enough to make me understand why people had such a big charge on the whole high key thing. I'm sure I've missed plenty of high key images posted here but, of the ones I have seen and the ardent discussions about them, I either felt like I didn't get it or I did get it but, so what? So, thank you, Nathan67, for the outstanding example. Beautiful!
Brian Lingle wrote:
So far, Nathan67's example is the only photo I've seen on FM that made me think high key is something special. Not that the other high key images aren't good examples of high key, they just didn't grab me enough to make me understand why people had such a big charge on the whole high key thing. I'm sure I've missed plenty of high key images posted here but, of the ones I have seen and the ardent discussions about them, I either felt like I didn't get it or I did get it but, so what? So, thank you, Nathan67, for the outstanding example. Beautiful!...Show more →
Thankyou for the compliment... The web image does not really do it justice.. I have a 40x60cm print in my studio window and the customer was very pleased too... (which is the most important thing for me.. and the customer doesn't have a clue what high key is...)
