| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/07/2007 11:59:18 AM · #1 |
I'm sorry, bu the challenge description is not a description of low key. It's just wrong. I hope that if there is a Low Key III that the description will be fixed. Ther is really no point in doing technical challenges if the descriptions are misleading and in this case WRONG.
Low Key is a lighting style that attempts to create chiaroscuro (a bold contrast between light and dark), showing the contours of an object by throwing areas into light or shadow.
Fill light may be used to provide partial illumination in the shadow areas to prevent a distracting contrast between bright and dark.
AND BTW, while it is an awesome image and certainly meets the challenge description (which is wrong) Moonlight (the blue ribbon) is NOT low key.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 12:00:30 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 12:03:53 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Are you new here ? |
Nope, I complained about Low Key 1, now two and will complain about low key III if it is presented incorrectly too.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 12:07:09 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Are you new here ? |
Nope, I complained about Low Key 1, now two and will complain about low key III if it is presented incorrectly too. |
Very few of the technical challenges have descriptions that match the title.
Same with the artistic challenges (minimalism is a recent example).
Until or unless the challenge writers start thinking that having a description that matches the subject is important, I doubt it is going to change. Nobody seems to have wanted to fix it badly enough for about 5 years now.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 12:11:26 PM · #5 |
how about this it seems people have misconceptions about types of photography, me being one of them, why not provide a tutorial for every type of photography or examples and how they were done. this way when a challenge related to those comes everyone will know how to do it.
1)this will provide better learning experience for beginners like myself.
2) will help minimize the number of dmnc's and make the challenge more interesting. |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 12:18:02 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by zaflabout:
why not provide a tutorial for every type of photography or examples and how they were done. this way when a challenge related to those comes everyone will know how to do it.
1)this will provide better learning experience for beginners like myself.
2) will help minimize the number of dmnc's and make the challenge more interesting. |
That would be great, but that is quite a large request.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 12:20:33 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by zaflabout:
why not provide a tutorial for every type of photography or examples and how they were done. this way when a challenge related to those comes everyone will know how to do it.
1)this will provide better learning experience for beginners like myself.
2) will help minimize the number of dmnc's and make the challenge more interesting. |
That would be great, but that is quite a large request. |
i see what you mean, but persay, you are good a low key, you can post a tutorial, x is good at street photo they can post a tutorial, and so on,
when the challenge comes langdon can refer people to the tutorial.
i 'll be more than happy to put an infra red,landscape(editing), or portrait tips i am using(athough i still have a long way to go to learn all the tricks) |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 12:21:21 PM · #8 |
Just to get a handle on what you consider low key fotomann can you post some examples that you think are low key? I'm just curious. Also could you post examples of high key for comparison?
*ETA* I actually stopped voting after a few because I didn't feel I had a strong enough grasp of what low key really meant.
Message edited by author 2007-03-07 12:22:15.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 12:22:17 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
Just to get a handle on what you consider low key fotomann can you post some examples that you think are low key? I'm just curious. Also could you post examples of high key for comparison? |
i am interestedin seing high key actually. |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 12:25:17 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I'm sorry, bu the challenge description is not a description of low key. It's just wrong. I hope that if there is a Low Key III that the description will be fixed. Ther is really no point in doing technical challenges if the descriptions are misleading and in this case WRONG.
Low Key is a lighting style that attempts to create chiaroscuro (a bold contrast between light and dark), showing the contours of an object by throwing areas into light or shadow.
Fill light may be used to provide partial illumination in the shadow areas to prevent a distracting contrast between bright and dark.
AND BTW, while it is an awesome image and certainly meets the challenge description (which is wrong) Moonlight (the blue ribbon) is NOT low key. |
Could you explain to those of us NOT in-the-know a proper definition, and how to achieve it ? Or at least some examples. Please.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 12:33:20 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by kashi:
Could you explain to those of us NOT in-the-know a proper definition, and how to achieve it ? Or at least some examples. Please. |
It really can't be that easily done. There is no agreed-upon definition of "low key" beyond the fact that everyone agrees it should be predominately dark, pretty much. A quick google of "define: low key" produces this:
Definitions of low key on the Web:
* Consistent use of dark values within a given area or surface.
//www.ackland.org/tours/classes/glossary.html
* Describes an image that mainly consists of midtones and shadows.
//www.rockprint.com/dictionary.shtml
* A dark image that is intentionally lacking in highlight detail.
//www.vistek.ca/glossary/default.asp
* Describes a mostly dark image, with few highlights.
photographytips.com/page.cfm/2038
* Term describing a photograph in which the tones are mostly dark and there are few highlights. (see High key) Lumen Measurement of "candle power" or light output, a unit of light falling on a surface. Lux (see Lumen)
//www.peterashbyhayter.co.uk/glossaryG-L.html
* As applied to an image, it refers to one with overall dark tones. A good low key image nevertheless shows detail and contrast.
//www.startphoto.com/learn/glossary/glossary_li-lz.htm
* A style of lighting emphasizing diffused shadows and atmospheric pools of light. Often used in mysteries, thrillers, and films noir. See high key.
pages.slc.edu/~sersauli/filmcourse/Liste%20e%20informazioni/Glossario%20film.htm
* Describes an image whose average brightness is significantly less than 50%. For example, a black cat sitting on the hood of a black car. Such an image often has no meaningful highlight point.
//www.curvemeister.com/support/curvemeister2/help/Glossary.htm
* The dark end of the tonal scale. In a lowkey image the picture is dominated by shadows. Low-key images are best suited for gravure work (cf. high key).
www2.uiah.fi/~teofilus/gravyyri/glossary.html
To photographers with a classic background, "low key" usually means a "film noir" type of effect, very atmospheric lighting with diffused, dense shadow lighting.
R.
Message edited by author 2007-03-07 12:33:31.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 12:38:09 PM · #12 |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 12:44:45 PM · #13 |
So, I'm confused. Is Leroy's limited definition correct and also exclusive, making all the definitions presented by Robert - many of which agree with the challenge description - incorrect, or is Leroy's definition correct but not exclusive, which means that the other definitions may be correct? This leads us to the inevitable possibility that Leroy's definition might even be incorrect.
That said, perhaps Leroy is right with his definition but wrong that it is the only one. The one presented for the challenge, even though not in agreement with Leroy's, is still correct. This means that, for the challenge, Leroy's definition is possibly entirely wrong but at best incomplete. Thus, using Leroy's definition of low key photography to vote for this challenge would actually be wrong.
Therefore, since the definition as presented by the challenge description is not incorrect and since voters are requested to consider the challenge description when they vote, if an image meets the challenge description but does not meet Leroy's definition, it should be voted higher than an image which meets Leroy's defintion but not the challenge description. If an image meets both definitions, the question should be asked as to whether it meets the challenge description, and if so, it should be voted on with regard to that answer. Whether it meets Leroy's definition should have no influence on how it is voted.
Burden of proof that the challenge description is actually wrong is placed upon Leroy. Providing an alternative definition of a term is not sufficient.
:) :) :)
In other words, I don't really agree, but I'm not a very good photographer or a student of the art, and Leroy and Bear both know a LOT more about this than I do. |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 12:47:38 PM · #14 |
LOL, are you a lawyer? :-)
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 12:51:14 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
LOL, are you a lawyer? :-) |
No, just a loser on lunch break :) |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 12:56:56 PM · #16 |
To me, it looks like the examples presented by Leroy support the challenge description quite well. The challenge description, for reasons of conciseness, cannot delve into the detail of *why* one would present an image that's "mostly dark tones, with a few highlights." It's up to the user to do some research if they want to present the best possible low-key image. Therein lies the challenge.
In short, the challenge description is a basic, functional description of low-key, not a complete dissertation on how to make low-key shots work. |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 01:00:54 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
To me, it looks like the examples presented by Leroy support the challenge description quite well. |
I did chose some high scoring entries, so obviously they do support the challenge description. But, there were quite a few I passed over that don't fit my "correct" description of low key, including the blue ribbon.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 01:01:15 PM · #18 |
I've never been 100% clear on what low key is but I assume this would fit the bill?
Regardless of this Challenge or the Blue the winner I do wish the topics matched the actual definiton(s) as best as they possibly can. Between those discrepencies and voters not knowing which end is up the results can fry your brain.
Since there are less and less of these threads, compared to when I started here at DPC I assume things have improved quite a bit in that regard.
Message edited by author 2007-03-07 13:02:46. |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 01:16:50 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by kirbic:
To me, it looks like the examples presented by Leroy support the challenge description quite well. |
I did chose some high scoring entries, so obviously they do support the challenge description. But, there were quite a few I passed over that don't fit my "correct" description of low key, including the blue ribbon. |
My personal view of "low key" is a little broader than the "chiaroscuro" definition you propose. your definition is surely correct, but I would submit that it is a subset of "Low key." I think that Heida's shot in fact does qualify as low key, though I recognize the point is perhaps debatable; it does not meet all commonly-printed definitions.
Message edited by author 2007-03-07 13:16:56. |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 01:18:49 PM · #20 |
| Alternate suggestion: when a challenge is a re-run of a past topic with the same description, can we use the results of the last challenge(s) as a guide for what the VOTERS think meets the challenge rather than complaining about not meeting some other definition? Anyone who has a better idea for a challenge is welcome to suggest it. |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 01:23:43 PM · #21 |
| Another thread about picking the fly poop out of the pepper? |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 01:24:42 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Alternate suggestion: when a challenge is a re-run of a past topic with the same description, can we use the results of the last challenge(s) as a guide for what the VOTERS think meets the challenge rather than complaining about not meeting some other definition? Anyone who has a better idea for a challenge is welcome to suggest it. |
But, if the challenge description was wrong, voters were mislead to believe that the topic was something other than it really is. Hence the results of previous challenges further increase the ignorance of the subject.
I'm not complaining about my score or that Heida ribboned with that image (it does fit the challenge description and is well done). I'm just not a big fan of seeing people (especially newbies) perpetually misguided.
BTW, I chewed on this all week, as I didn't want to start a discussion that could be seen as an attempt to steer voters. I'd prefer it be seen as an honest attempt to set the next challenge right.
Message edited by author 2007-03-07 13:27:11.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 01:30:42 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
if the challenge description was wrong, voters were mislead to believe that the topic was something other than it really is. |
Then propose a new challenge with YOUR definition. Challenge topics and descriptions are proposed by the general public and often run as-suggested. Changing this one now would make the results potentially "incompatible" with past challenges run under the same name. |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 01:32:59 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
if the challenge description was wrong, voters were mislead to believe that the topic was something other than it really is. |
Then propose a new challenge with YOUR definition. Challenge topics and descriptions are proposed by the general public and often run as-suggested. Changing this one now would make the results potentially "incompatible" with past challenges run under the same name. |
I put it in the challenge suggestions. :-) But, I really wouldn't know what to call it other than Low Key, I guess Film Noir would work, but would be a little misleading in itself.
Message edited by author 2007-03-07 13:33:44.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 01:36:20 PM · #25 |
Leroy, you continue to maintain that the challenge description was somehow wrong. It's just not that, well, black and white. The challenge description is correct, as far as it goes. Your description is correct, as far as it goes. While the challenge description is a broad, functional description without detailed discussion of technique, your definition is only a discussion of a specific technique, and is too narrow to encompass all of what is commonly considered low-key.
By example, any shot that fits your definition will fall within the challenge description, but not all shots that fit the challenge description fall within your definition. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 08:03:44 AM EDT.
