GPirnat wrote:
High key, yes? (Thanks for indulging me and the feedback.)
Still not "high key" - too many dark tones in the hair and sweater - and the obvious problem of blown out highlights. If you re-crop this image to essentially only the face, a small bit of hair, etc, keeping the dominant tones in the very light areas it could work well as a high
key. Look at the image histogram - it should be strongly pressed to the right (high tones). Also take a close look at the overall tonality of BrittMcT's image of his son (on the first page of this thread).
tonyfield wrote:
If you re-crop this image to essentially only the face, a small bit of hair, etc, keeping the dominant tones in the very light areas it could work well as a high
key.
Wow, so I think this is kinda confusing for some people. High key just means that the majority of the areas of an image are really lit. Doesn´t mean that black doesn´t exist in high key photos. That´s just silly. It means the photo depends on lots of information rather than less information. It´s harder to get more details right and normally requires 2 or more lights to do it well. That´s why it´s revered by some.
You see black people can be in high key too. I think it works actually better with darker skin because of the fact that you can use stronger, harsher lights with one soft light and get amazing results. I´d say 90% of the ads shot of people of color have high key light or something verging on high key. Look at nike ads. Most of that stuff is really high key light and is used on darker skin athletes all the time.
caleb condit wrote:
Wow, so I think this is kinda confusing for some people. High key just means that the majority of the areas of an image are really lit.
You see black people can be in high key too..
Your concept of "really lit" is far from the truth of photographic "high key" - it follows more along concepts used for tv and film. Please read the definitions I provided near the beginning of this thread.
Neither of the images are what should be called "high key". The first image of the man is IMO a strongly cross-lit person on a hot white background. The second images is very similar - a hot white background (aside from the added graphics) with a close to normal rendition of the face.
A hot white background does NOT mean the picture is a high key picture.
As Brian Lingle stated earlier in this thread:
"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."
Yup: Like that!. Lovely shot of the pussy! I certainly think this image follows the style of high key. With that in mind, as a subjective observation, I think this image could be curve-adjusted to retain the quality of (or even darken) the eyes but make the white cat hair much lighter. Possibly a large radius USM would add to the local contrast as well. These would reduce the muddiness in the fir and have a lighter more airy feel to the overall presentation.
Your concept of "really lit" is far from the truth of photographic "high key" - it follows more along concepts used for tv and film. Please read the definitions I provided near the beginning of this thread.
ok, so the first had only two lights, but had a white wall close in front acting as a big reflector, but the third was a traditional 3 light setup. Sure, I left some contrast. But high key is more about a setup that requires not to be changed every few seconds than being overlit...
Oh and I would care less about what you label my work, I just think you´re wrong. Not taking it personal...
Low key images need to have highlights, just not many. High key images need to have blacks, just not many.
High key implies that the preponderance of the histogram will be to the extreme right without any clipping other than specular highlights.
Low key implies that the preponderance of the histogram will be to the extreme left without any clipping other than detail-less shadow.
For my eye, high key and low key evoke a mode in the image. Decomposing the image for high-keyness or low-keyness may be something I do but it is after I respond to the image as a statement from the photographer.
caleb condit wrote:
ok, so the first had only two lights, but had a white wall close in front acting as a big reflector, but the third was a traditional 3 light setup. Sure, I left some contrast. But high key is more about a setup that requires not to be changed every few seconds than being overlit...
Oh and I would care less about what you label my work, I just think you´re wrong. Not taking it personal...
Your getting high key film confused with high key portrait terminology.
what´s the point? to overdefine terminology for a lighting technique? My point is that one or 3 person´s interpretation of a style-technique shouldn´t control what is considered fact (in their opinion i might add). The history of the technique, use and concept can´t be left out. And by calling me confused about high key film and photo is wrong.
Anyhow, call it what you like, but I´ve seen like 2 good photos in the whole thread. In the end, use all the terms you want, but unless it makes you a better photographer what´s the point. End of story.
I´ve seen plenty of people going on in the portrait forum that spout all kinds of technical knowledge only to apply it really poorly. I guess that´s what really is getting me about this thread. I´m not trying to condescend or call anyone´s work crap, but unless you have some great shots to back up what you´re trying to teach someone, I have a hard time with that. I mean, we should be trying to make people better photographers, and by showing subpar application of supposedly flawless terminology is just pointless. The point is to make better photographs. The point isn´t to show people how they too can be mediocre. ok, so I´m going off here, but sometimes this stuff needs to be said. Forums are about learning and discussion, right. Sorry if anyone takes any of this personally, it´s not directed to be personal.
The point of the thread is to dicuss high-key photography and to show different examples. There's no need to row and get all hot and bothered. It's only terminology after-all. If people disagree, that's fine, but it doesn't mean anyone should lose their temper.
What is apparent from this thread is that most people think high-key means 'white background'. This is not the case. Though a high key shot can have a white background, a shot with a white background isn't necessarily high key. Nor is it exclusively a lighting technique, as has been mentioned earlier a polar bear taking a walk in the arctic can be high-key.
High key is simply a shot where the dominant tones are light. Think of John Lennon's "Imagine" video - white room, white piano, white clothes...
The image does not need to have a full range of tones but shouldn't be achieved through excessively overexposing the shot. There are a number of techniques that can help achieve the look; art direction, lighting and post-processing are the most obvious.
I personally find high key shots interesting but rather dated looking, so why anyone would actually bother making one is another question
I´m not too hot and bothered, and you´re right, high key doesn´t necessarily mean a white background should be used. You just echoed what I was trying to get across. That we should discuss this, but I get frustrated when people talk like what they´re saying is the end all. Nothing is more frustrating to me than an over technical, but low quality photographer trying to tell people what they should do. And about the dominant tones being light was what I was trying to illustrate, hence the histogram in my example that was stated as being not high key.
the histogram doesn´t lie. The majority of the information is in the utmost right quarter of the histogram. Period.
I can get the same histogram with a clipped out product photo on a white background. Period.
If you cropped out most of that background the histogram is going to change quite a bit.
There are defined rules for lo-key and hi-key that have been in place before I was born. Complain to those that made them up in the first place.
This discussion is to educate others in what exactly is hi-key and lo-key, which have well defined rules. If your unhappy about your shots technically not being either, then find another discussion. The shots are good, just not TECHNICALLY hi-key.
You say your not taking things personally, but your replies say otherwise...
caleb condit wrote:
oh and going by the definitions of highkey on the first page by tony field, both images I posted have those type values.
Here´s a screenshot showing what I mean...
the histogram doesn´t lie. The majority of the information is in the utmost right quarter of the histogram. Period.
The histogram does not lie - however you do have to know how to interpret it :-) The reason that the histogram is "to the right" is that you have a large white background with a relatively small medium key subject. Since you have a large white background, the histogram counts of the light tones is very high forcing the view to the right and shows in proportion few mid tones. If you crop (as Brent suggests) the image and show essentially only the face, it becomes obvious visually and on the histogram that this is simply a medium key subject.
As many have suggested, simply a hot white background does not mean that the picture is high key.
? 