I'd be thrilled if you (or somebody else) can prove me wrong . But thus far I find myself struggling with high key even with all my 8 studio lights, so I am kinda doubtful that indoor ambient light can cut it...
I'd be thrilled if you (or somebody else) can prove me wrong . But thus far I find myself struggling with high key even with all my 8 studio lights, so I am kinda doubtful that indoor ambient light can cut it...
Oh Nik is very right! Using lights I have to work my __ off to get high key sometimes. Using nothing but natural light~~We can see the result. But that makes this a good challenge! I liked doing my post just to make the effort. The mornings sky here was too diffuse with cloud cover. If it had been the usual morning, I might have pulled it off. But lets look again...what I did was beyond the simple, because I chose to include a background that would be blown out if I exposed for the model. So I really put it on myself here~
Tatiana,
the #1 requirement for the classic high key image is a - naturally - washed out background. Which means, bh should be lit 2..3 stops higher than your subject. That's why I suggested shooting towards the sun and only then deal with the back-lit (contre-a jour) subject by using some sort of relfector.
In this sense your first image (the house) is closer to the highkey scenario than the second one, since it has a uniform and "almost" blown out bg (sky).
No not really :-(
BG should be unifrom and naturally washed out, while the subject should be "amost" properly lit (a bit of overexposure may be necessary) and do not display any dark shadows. This one is "almost" good for the "sun behind the leaves" class:-).
Well, I pulled my hair with this one but certainly learned at lot. Would anyone have experience shooting diamond ring? Any suggestions?
Cheers,
Jean-Yves (Ifocus)
This is definitely high-key:-) The question is: is it all natural light? What's your setup here?
Tatiana,
the #1 requirement for the classic high key image is a - naturally - washed out background. Which means, bh should be lit 2..3 stops higher than your subject. That's why I suggested shooting towards the sun and only then deal with the back-lit (contre-a jour) subject by using some sort of relfector.
In this sense your first image (the house) is closer to the highkey scenario than the second one, since it has a uniform and "almost" blown out bg (sky).
Oh,... yes I see it now - the next one will be good, I promise
This is definitely high-key:-) The question is: is it all natural light? What's your setup here?
Oooops, I missed the natural light part, sorry . Let me try again with a recent shot. Anyway, shot under a light tent with 2 cool fluorescent and white reflectors.
OK, here's to not completely understanding the concept of High Key, which I think I understand better now, having the benefit of reading a number of posts on it.
These are what I took today prior to reading the articles. (It might be pointless to post those which I know aren't completely matching theme, but I thought it might be useful somehow anyway to get any feedback people wanted to give.)
The exposure was pumped a little in iPhoto to try to get it to what it should have been had I gotten it right in-camera (was just guessing at how much to tell the meter to overexpose by). First image cropped a bit to 8x10 ratio, 2nd cropped a bit to improve the composition a bit.
Course, now that I understand the theme a little better, I'll have to get creative with our current lack of snow and lack of good lighting. Maybe we'll get more snow and it'll be easier!
ISO 100, f4.2, 1/80th. Normal program +2EV. iPhoto adjustment: knock 2% of the top of the levels.
ISO 100, f14, 1/13th, Shutter Priority, +0EV comp. iPhoto: bumped exposure by 0.44.
{BTW: thanks to BaldMountain for the sig concept: it's something I've expressed in my local photo group often enough, but thought it made sense to include it here, too)
If responding to a picture I've posted: please, provide constructive criticism. Destructive criticism can go take a flying leap.
If we don't know what could be improved or could have been done differently, we'll never know how to get better at what we're doing.
OK, here's to not completely understanding the concept of High Key, which I think I understand better now, having the benefit of reading a number of posts on it.
These are what I took today prior to reading the articles. (It might be pointless to post those which I know aren't completely matching theme, but I thought it might be useful somehow anyway to get any feedback people wanted to give.)
The exposure was pumped a little in iPhoto to try to get it to what it should have been had I gotten it right in-camera (was just guessing at how much to tell the meter to overexpose by). First image cropped a bit to 8x10 ratio, 2nd cropped a bit to improve the composition a bit.
Course, now that I understand the theme a little better, I'll have to get creative with our current lack of snow and lack of good lighting. Maybe we'll get more snow and it'll be easier!
ISO 100, f4.2, 1/80th. Normal program +2EV. iPhoto adjustment: knock 2% of the top of the levels.
ISO 100, f14, 1/13th, Shutter Priority, +0EV comp. iPhoto: bumped exposure by 0.44.
Nate,
thank you for your entries!
First one is actually very close to what was expected, I only wish you actualy had the subject filling a bit more than 0.000001% of the frame :-)
But other than that sutting in a blizzard is helluva way to get proper natural light only highkey :-)
BTW: thanks to BaldMountain for the sig concept: it's something I've expressed in my local photo group often enough, but thought it made sense to include it here, too)
You're welcome. I just want to make sure people know they can be critical of my pictures without hurting my feelings. I post to learn, not to have my ego stroked.
Nate,
thank you for your entries!
First one is actually very close to what was expected, I only wish you actualy had the subject filling a bit more than 0.000001% of the frame :-)
But other than that sutting in a blizzard is helluva way to get proper natural light only highkey :-)
Thanks! That's better than I thought. So, then, does it matter that the boat (sledish thingy, I dunno) and the people are somewhat dark? Today was the foggiest I've had a chance to get out and shoot in for a while, so I made a go of it. I have a few where the subjects are less clouded by fog (not sure why some came out that way and not others, didn't notice too much cloud movement), but I figured after reading the posts that this one might be a better fit.
Also: I tried cropping more, but there just isn't enough zoom in the original. I should have shot this closer to 200mm than 46mm... It may not work in the end, but part of the idea (in taking the image) was to transmit the idea of a wide expanse of nothing with only a few small items of interest out there.
(and now I'm glad I posted that which I figured was not up to par. )
If responding to a picture I've posted: please, provide constructive criticism. Destructive criticism can go take a flying leap.
If we don't know what could be improved or could have been done differently, we'll never know how to get better at what we're doing.
Thanks! That's better than I thought. So, then, does it matter that the boat (sledish thingy, I dunno) and the people are somewhat dark? Today was the foggiest I've had a chance to get out and shoot in for a while, so I made a go of it. I have a few where the subjects are less clouded by fog (not sure why some came out that way and not others, didn't notice too much cloud movement), but I figured after reading the posts that this one might be a better fit.
Also: I tried cropping more, but there just isn't enough zoom in the original. I should have shot this closer to 200mm than 46mm... It may not work in the end, but part of the idea (in taking the image) was to transmit the idea of a wide expanse of nothing with only a few small items of interest out there.
(and now I'm glad I posted that which I figured was not up to par. )
Cropping will only get you so far. Remember the old mantra: "zoom with your feet" :-)
It is perfectly OK to have *some* shadows, after all we don't want a pure white rectangle. The trick is to ensure a few things:
1) have the backfround unifrom and possible pure white (aka "blown out", "washed out", etc.)
2) have most of you subject proprely exposed (*some* overexposure is also OK in this case)
3) make sure there are no dark shadows in the picture. The histogram is a great help with that. If there is pretty much nothing in the lower quarter - you're in:-)
HTH
We all know (or heard) and seen numerous high key images. Web is full of them, fashion and "lifestyle" magazines are full of them... Technically, high key scenario defines the image as a properly exposed (not blown out!) one, but with no dark shadows (more here...).
Typically the "lack of shadows" part is reached by using very light (preferably white) background and lots and lots of studio lighting.
However this time our task to try to get one without selling your first-born.
Think about it for a second: where would you get a naturally bright background and a lot of light? Yeah, right, in the middle of the winter...
So, this time, my dear Dave, you shall have no excuse about not being in SoCal: snowy fields should give you perfect natural high key background, while the sun should provide all the power in the world to eliminate the last of dark shadows.
The last tricky part is to find a natural fill/main light to avoid the shadows in front of the subject (if you have it facing you and not the sun). Here the power of reflection comes to help. Steep South-looking snow-covered hill can play a perfect reflector role. And of course poster of foam boards can work as well in case you dont have a "real" reflector.
For those few unlucky souls who, like yours truly, live in the areas where The White Christmas is only mentioned in carols and movies - get creative. Sand or large body of water can play a role of a white seamless better than you may suspect.
So let's get all natural (No flash!). High-key (no dark shadows). One entry per person. Multiple entries are OK if they a drastically different.
Let's get some natural high keys!
Is this what you mean by high-key? I admit it is an image I shot some time ago, and I used a flash and a homemade light box, but I'd just like to understand if it meets the definition and then I'll try to shoot something new if it is.
Is this what you mean by high-key? I admit it is an image I shot some time ago, and I used a flash and a homemade light box, but I'd just like to understand if it meets the definition and then I'll try to shoot something new if it is.
I know I promise, but now I'm not sure...
Is this a little better?
As we all learned by now, one of the important aspect of the highkey scenario is a low contrast on the subject (and I don't mean PS) . I don't think it applies to your image:-)
As we all learned by now, one of the important aspect of the highkey scenario is a low contrast on the subject (and I don't mean PS) . I don't think it applies to your image:-)
Oh... ufff... what is PS-sorry? :cry
Never mind - PS stands for Photoshop
But wait... the one above is high contrast too... how's that?
Oh... ufff... what is PS-sorry? :cry
Never mind - PS stands for Photoshop
But wait... the one above is high contrast too... how's that?
Yes, but it's better than its prior version...
Thus far only The Ring is what can be generally considered a good quality high key image, but, unfortunately, it's not admissible due to the extra lights used. Another image that is very close to the high key concept technically is the lake shot by NateW, but its lack of primary subject and the non-even background still keeps it from scoring 100%.
As I said several times, this is a tough task.
Yes, but it's better than its prior version...
Thus far only The Ring is what can be generally considered a good quality high key image, but, unfortunately, it's not admissible due to the extra lights used. Another image that is very close to the high key concept technically is the lake shot by NateW, but its lack of primary subject and the non-even background still keeps it from scoring 100%.
As I said several times, this is a tough task.
That's why I had to PS it, because the snow was not even.
Anyway, I think I'll get back to this next winter, cause in few days we leave for Mexico,
and I'm way behind my work.
Comments
TravelwaysPhotos.com ...... Facebook
VegasGreatAttractions.com
Travelways.com
TravelwaysPhotos.com ...... Facebook
VegasGreatAttractions.com
Travelways.com
Well, I pulled my hair with this one but certainly learned at lot. Would anyone have experience shooting diamond ring? Any suggestions?
Cheers,
Jean-Yves (Ifocus)
Oh Nik is very right! Using lights I have to work my __ off to get high key sometimes. Using nothing but natural light~~We can see the result. But that makes this a good challenge! I liked doing my post just to make the effort. The mornings sky here was too diffuse with cloud cover. If it had been the usual morning, I might have pulled it off. But lets look again...what I did was beyond the simple, because I chose to include a background that would be blown out if I exposed for the model. So I really put it on myself here~
I may try another entry, if allowed~
cheers, tom...and thanx for the feedback!
the #1 requirement for the classic high key image is a - naturally - washed out background. Which means, bh should be lit 2..3 stops higher than your subject. That's why I suggested shooting towards the sun and only then deal with the back-lit (contre-a jour) subject by using some sort of relfector.
In this sense your first image (the house) is closer to the highkey scenario than the second one, since it has a uniform and "almost" blown out bg (sky).
BG should be unifrom and naturally washed out, while the subject should be "amost" properly lit (a bit of overexposure may be necessary) and do not display any dark shadows. This one is "almost" good for the "sun behind the leaves" class:-).
Oh,... yes I see it now - the next one will be good, I promise
TravelwaysPhotos.com ...... Facebook
VegasGreatAttractions.com
Travelways.com
Oooops, I missed the natural light part, sorry
JY
These are what I took today prior to reading the articles. (It might be pointless to post those which I know aren't completely matching theme, but I thought it might be useful somehow anyway to get any feedback people wanted to give.)
The exposure was pumped a little in iPhoto to try to get it to what it should have been had I gotten it right in-camera (was just guessing at how much to tell the meter to overexpose by). First image cropped a bit to 8x10 ratio, 2nd cropped a bit to improve the composition a bit.
Course, now that I understand the theme a little better, I'll have to get creative with our current lack of snow and lack of good lighting. Maybe we'll get more snow and it'll be easier!
ISO 100, f4.2, 1/80th. Normal program +2EV. iPhoto adjustment: knock 2% of the top of the levels.
ISO 100, f14, 1/13th, Shutter Priority, +0EV comp. iPhoto: bumped exposure by 0.44.
{BTW: thanks to BaldMountain for the sig concept: it's something I've expressed in my local photo group often enough, but thought it made sense to include it here, too)
NTWPhotos.com
Member, Livingston County Photographers Group (http://livcophotographers.com)
If responding to a picture I've posted: please, provide constructive criticism. Destructive criticism can go take a flying leap.
If we don't know what could be improved or could have been done differently, we'll never know how to get better at what we're doing.
thank you for your entries!
First one is actually very close to what was expected, I only wish you actualy had the subject filling a bit more than 0.000001% of the frame :-)
But other than that sutting in a blizzard is helluva way to get proper natural light only highkey :-)
You're welcome. I just want to make sure people know they can be critical of my pictures without hurting my feelings. I post to learn, not to have my ego stroked.
Thanks! That's better than I thought.
Also: I tried cropping more, but there just isn't enough zoom in the original. I should have shot this closer to 200mm than 46mm... It may not work in the end, but part of the idea (in taking the image) was to transmit the idea of a wide expanse of nothing with only a few small items of interest out there.
(and now I'm glad I posted that which I figured was not up to par.
NTWPhotos.com
Member, Livingston County Photographers Group (http://livcophotographers.com)
If responding to a picture I've posted: please, provide constructive criticism. Destructive criticism can go take a flying leap.
If we don't know what could be improved or could have been done differently, we'll never know how to get better at what we're doing.
Cropping will only get you so far. Remember the old mantra: "zoom with your feet" :-)
It is perfectly OK to have *some* shadows, after all we don't want a pure white rectangle. The trick is to ensure a few things:
1) have the backfround unifrom and possible pure white (aka "blown out", "washed out", etc.)
2) have most of you subject proprely exposed (*some* overexposure is also OK in this case)
3) make sure there are no dark shadows in the picture. The histogram is a great help with that. If there is pretty much nothing in the lower quarter - you're in:-)
HTH
I dont see any harsh shadows... its good in my books!
Is this a little better?
http://www.diyphotography.net/lighting-high-key-and-low-key
TravelwaysPhotos.com ...... Facebook
VegasGreatAttractions.com
Travelways.com
Oh... ufff... what is PS-sorry? :cry
Never mind - PS stands for Photoshop
But wait... the one above is high contrast too... how's that?
TravelwaysPhotos.com ...... Facebook
VegasGreatAttractions.com
Travelways.com
Thus far only The Ring is what can be generally considered a good quality high key image, but, unfortunately, it's not admissible due to the extra lights used. Another image that is very close to the high key concept technically is the lake shot by NateW, but its lack of primary subject and the non-even background still keeps it from scoring 100%.
As I said several times, this is a tough task.
That's why I had to PS it, because the snow was not even.
Anyway, I think I'll get back to this next winter, cause in few days we leave for Mexico,
and I'm way behind my work.
TravelwaysPhotos.com ...... Facebook
VegasGreatAttractions.com
Travelways.com
However I had to even a little the snow... does it look better?
TravelwaysPhotos.com ...... Facebook
VegasGreatAttractions.com
Travelways.com