Would something like this be 'low key?'

03/19/2006 09:47:10 PM · #26

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by thehitter:
i'll bet that people will go by the challenge description, not the true definition, in voting.

Actually, history shows us the voters tend to vote on the TOPIC, not its description. So the voters will each vote according to their concept of what "low key" is. Just as well, considering the description is a very limited depiction of low key, just one potential sort of low key image.

Fotomann gave a very good synopsis of another sort of low key image.

Earlier in this thread I showed what low key means to a cinematographer.

There are many ways to skin this cat...

R.

You makin' eggrolls again bear?

crayon

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

03/19/2006 09:50:09 PM · #27

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by crayon:
enough debating.
I'm submitting a RAW capture with my lens cap on.

LMAO... crayon, that's awesome. Hey let a little light through amd call it an abstract ;-)

No need... I've got my hot pixels for that

03/19/2006 09:51:18 PM · #28

Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by crayon:
enough debating.
I'm submitting a RAW capture with my lens cap on.

LMAO... crayon, that's awesome. Hey let a little light through amd call it an abstract ;-)

No need... I've got my hot pixels for that

LMFAO... there ya go!

crayon

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

03/19/2006 09:54:23 PM · #29

and this masterpiece shall be called "star field"

LMAO!

03/19/2006 10:01:16 PM · #30

From another thread on this subject. I find these examples enticing for this challenge.

Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by zeuszen:

You seem to be pretty durn good at this sort of thing. Would you mind throwing out a bit of advice for those of us less experienced? I'd be particularly interested in the exposures of the 3rd and 4th pics on the top line. Intentionally underexposed? PS'd to get the achieved look? Thanks!

03/19/2006 10:03:59 PM · #31

Originally posted by glad2badad:

From another thread on this subject. I find these examples enticing for this challenge.

Zeuszen has a good grasp of low-key. I suspect he will score highly.

03/19/2006 10:04:53 PM · #32

Then there was this, which seems similar to the portrait posted by Brent earlier and commented on by several. This also is pulled from the other thread (sorry, but this thread here - seems more active and on topic that's why I pulled them into here.) As yanko pointed out on the portrait image, there's more dark pixels than light - well what about this example then? Same thing.

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:

What about this?

No, not really. Quite a bit too much domination of highlights.

03/19/2006 10:14:38 PM · #33

I didn't enter low key, went with hands instead .... but took this just for my own personal challenge... is this a good low key?

03/19/2006 10:19:39 PM · #34

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Brent, said himself that his image was not exactly low-key. I agree with him. It is a good example of technique though.

I can only comment that you should do your own comparison between this and Zeuszen's images. Notice the comparions between dark and light and the overal TONE of the images.

I'm not a DNMC nazi. I'm here to help.

Message edited by author 2006-03-19 22:21:02.

03/19/2006 10:32:27 PM · #35

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by glad2badad:
Then there was this, which seems similar to the portrait posted by Brent earlier and commented on by several. This also is pulled from the other thread (sorry, but this thread here - seems more active and on topic that's why I pulled them into here.) As yanko pointed out on the portrait image, there's more dark pixels than light - well what about this example then? Same thing.

Brent, said himself that his image was not exactly low-key. I agree with him. It is a good example of technique though.

I can only comment that you should do your own comparison between this and Zeuszen's images. Notice the comparions between dark and light and the overal TONE of the images.

I'm not a DNMC nazi. I'm here to help.

No problem, I know you're not a DNMC type. It just seemed like a substantial difference between other examples I had noticed versus the Brent portrait (which he "considered low-key"). Then there was follow-up suggesting that because of the image having more dark pixels than light it was low-key.

My impression of this subject is more in line with what Zeuszen had posted.

03/19/2006 10:34:31 PM · #36

Anyone?? :)

03/19/2006 10:35:19 PM · #37

Originally posted by mystopia:

I didn't enter low key, went with hands instead .... but took this just for my own personal challenge... is this a good low key?

Seems low-key to me. I would like to see more DOF and have the crown on the queen in focus also. Maybe a slight bump in lighting on the highlights? Nice idea regardless. ;^)

03/19/2006 10:36:54 PM · #38

Thank you glad2badad :)

03/19/2006 10:37:55 PM · #39

Originally posted by mystopia:

I didn't enter low key, went with hands instead .... but took this just for my own personal challenge... is this a good low key?

I'd actually like to see more highlights... especially side lighting.

03/19/2006 10:51:18 PM · #40

I was afraid of blowing out the gold on the pieces ... but I tried .. thank you for the comments and help :)

03/19/2006 11:33:48 PM · #41

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by mystopia:
I didn't enter low key, went with hands instead .... but took this just for my own personal challenge... is this a good low key?

I'd actually like to see more highlights... especially side lighting.

This shot is more underexposed than it is low-key.

03/19/2006 11:35:57 PM · #42

Glad I didn't enter then

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by mystopia:
I didn't enter low key, went with hands instead .... but took this just for my own personal challenge... is this a good low key?

I'd actually like to see more highlights... especially side lighting.

This shot is more underexposed than it is low-key.

03/19/2006 11:39:21 PM · #43

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by glad2badad:
Then there was this, which seems similar to the portrait posted by Brent earlier and commented on by several. This also is pulled from the other thread (sorry, but this thread here - seems more active and on topic that's why I pulled them into here.) As yanko pointed out on the portrait image, there's more dark pixels than light - well what about this example then? Same thing.

Brent, said himself that his image was not exactly low-key. I agree with him. It is a good example of technique though.

I can only comment that you should do your own comparison between this and Zeuszen's images. Notice the comparions between dark and light and the overal TONE of the images.

I'm not a DNMC nazi. I'm here to help.

No problem, I know you're not a DNMC type. It just seemed like a substantial difference between other examples I had noticed versus the Brent portrait (which he "considered low-key"). Then there was follow-up suggesting that because of the image having more dark pixels than light it was low-key.

My impression of this subject is more in line with what Zeuszen had posted.

Low-key is NOT underexposed. That eagle shot is a great example of what a low-key is not. It's just underexposed. The eagles should still be a true white, not gray.

Message edited by author 2006-03-19 23:39:48.

03/20/2006 12:23:01 PM · #44

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by glad2badad:
Then there was this, which seems similar to the portrait posted by Brent earlier and commented on by several. This also is pulled from the other thread (sorry, but this thread here - seems more active and on topic that's why I pulled them into here.) As yanko pointed out on the portrait image, there's more dark pixels than light - well what about this example then? Same thing.

Brent, said himself that his image was not exactly low-key. I agree with him. It is a good example of technique though.

I can only comment that you should do your own comparison between this and Zeuszen's images. Notice the comparions between dark and light and the overal TONE of the images.

I'm not a DNMC nazi. I'm here to help.

No problem, I know you're not a DNMC type. It just seemed like a substantial difference between other examples I had noticed versus the Brent portrait (which he "considered low-key"). Then there was follow-up suggesting that because of the image having more dark pixels than light it was low-key.

My impression of this subject is more in line with what Zeuszen had posted.

Low-key is NOT underexposed. That eagle shot is a great example of what a low-key is not. It's just underexposed. The eagles should still be a true white, not gray.

Looks similar to this one, and it looks like a nice Low-Key shot. There were others in the examples posted also. ;^)