| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/02/2004 01:58:54 PM · #1 |
Greetings...
I just did a critique club comment on a photo that was in the nude 2 challenge that took a similar approach to my own photo in that challenge. Both were high key, minimal images with some grain. I was quite surprised to see the comments on these photos. It seems that a majority of voters who commented simply do not like the concept at all.
I realize that the idea is purely subjective in appeal, but I believe that everyone should attempt to absorb an image for what it is. I have been around here for a long time and this issue doesn't really bother me, but it bores me. I also understand that new photographers are probably looking for styles that they are 'used' to seeing... magazine ads... product photography... studio portraits... the general run of the mill technically 'advanced' imagery.
In my personal 'growth' in photography, one of the concepts that has helped me along my way is that I always assume that what I see is intentional, whether it acutally is or not. By taking this approach, I get the benefit of learning why a photographer chose a particular style or method for the photo. If I always assumed that some visual characteristic of a photo is a mistake rather than a choice, I would never have developed any taste for images that go beyond the standard 'stock' type photos.
The three elements I bring to the table here are high key, minimalism, and grain. Each of these elements can be used independently or together to create an entirely different mood in a photograph. High key and grain, to me, seem to work very well together. The grain adds texture back to the image where it is lost in the exposure. High key exposures tend to create 'tension' in a photo rather than some somber or relaxed feeling.
Anyway... as you look at images that don't follow your preconceived notion of 'great photography', take a moment to look at it and ask yourself 'why' the photographer chose do present what you see. You may find that your own ideas and views of photographic art will expand.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2004 02:08:28 PM · #2 |
| Oooohhh I loved the egg one!!! I gave it a ten. Brilliant to make her belly look like an eggshell! Shape, color and grain all worked together in that one. |
|
|
|
09/02/2004 02:25:22 PM · #3 |
You see, my problem with that image is that it's 'high key' has just been done with photoshop. Not through clever lighting or by using high key subjects. To me it looks like the background of a magazine etc - where one would place text over the top.
I like high key - but this isn't really a high key 'photograph' to me so I wouldn't go so far as to say "The people on DPC do not like high key photography"
High key should look natural. |
|
|
|
09/02/2004 02:25:41 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
09/02/2004 02:37:28 PM · #5 |
| I gave this a "7" but I'm one of the losers that left a comment that I thought it was too bright - I have not heard the term "high key" except in the last couple of weeks and I don't really know what makes a good "high key" photo - but high key or not, I would think it would be a better, or at least I would like it better, if the dark areas were darker - if everything is bright it just looks faded... to me anyway. |
|
|
|
09/02/2004 02:43:22 PM · #6 |
i think high key doesn't have to mean no contrast.
One of my 'high key' shots.
 |
|
|
|
09/02/2004 02:50:43 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Greetings...
I just did a critique club comment on a photo that was in the nude 2 challenge that took a similar approach to my own photo in that challenge. Both were high key, minimal images with some grain. I was quite surprised to see the comments on these photos. It seems that a majority of voters who commented simply do not like the concept at all.
I realize that the idea is purely subjective in appeal, but I believe that everyone should attempt to absorb an image for what it is. I have been around here for a long time and this issue doesn't really bother me, but it bores me. I also understand that new photographers are probably looking for styles that they are 'used' to seeing... magazine ads... product photography... studio portraits... the general run of the mill technically 'advanced' imagery.
In my personal 'growth' in photography, one of the concepts that has helped me along my way is that I always assume that what I see is intentional, whether it acutally is or not. By taking this approach, I get the benefit of learning why a photographer chose a particular style or method for the photo. If I always assumed that some visual characteristic of a photo is a mistake rather than a choice, I would never have developed any taste for images that go beyond the standard 'stock' type photos.
The three elements I bring to the table here are high key, minimalism, and grain. Each of these elements can be used independently or together to create an entirely different mood in a photograph. High key and grain, to me, seem to work very well together. The grain adds texture back to the image where it is lost in the exposure. High key exposures tend to create 'tension' in a photo rather than some somber or relaxed feeling.
Anyway... as you look at images that don't follow your preconceived notion of 'great photography', take a moment to look at it and ask yourself 'why' the photographer chose do present what you see. You may find that your own ideas and views of photographic art will expand. |
right on John you the man, by the way I really like your website. Have learned much from it.
Message edited by author 2004-09-02 14:51:42. |
|
|
|
09/02/2004 02:56:22 PM · #8 |
| Left comment on the image |
|
|
|
09/02/2004 02:59:31 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
i think high key doesn't have to mean no contrast.
One of my 'high key' shots.
|
Very interested in your opinion about this Jon, as I was under that impression when I submitted this to the "portrait challenge some months ago. I was then informed that it was similar to a style called "Fashion blowout" and to be "high key" there should be minimal contrast ?
|
|
|
|
09/02/2004 03:03:07 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
You see, my problem with that image is that it's 'high key' has just been done with photoshop. Not through clever lighting or by using high key subjects. To me it looks like the background of a magazine etc - where one would place text over the top.
I like high key - but this isn't really a high key 'photograph' to me so I wouldn't go so far as to say "The people on DPC do not like high key photography"
High key should look natural. |
I also don't get wrapped up in how something was done. Whether it was done in camera or in photoshop.. doesn't make much difference to me. The result is what I see. That's the wonderful thing about digital photography. We have the latitude to create after the fact. If I was more interested in what can be produced only in camera, I would still be shooting 35mm slide film. I love digital.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2004 03:15:11 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by jonpink:
You see, my problem with that image is that it's 'high key' has just been done with photoshop. Not through clever lighting or by using high key subjects. To me it looks like the background of a magazine etc - where one would place text over the top.
I like high key - but this isn't really a high key 'photograph' to me so I wouldn't go so far as to say "The people on DPC do not like high key photography"
High key should look natural. |
I also don't get wrapped up in how something was done. Whether it was done in camera or in photoshop.. doesn't make much difference to me. The result is what I see. That's the wonderful thing about digital photography. We have the latitude to create after the fact. If I was more interested in what can be produced only in camera, I would still be shooting 35mm slide film. I love digital. |
Your missing my point here. I couldn't care less if someone used photoshop to make a sunrise or got up at 4:00 am and waited like a pro.
All that matters to me is the results pretty much.
My point was that you labeled it a high-key shots and went on to say that high key doesn't go down well at DPC.
My argument is that I feel it isn't what I would class as a high key shot - rather a normal shot that has been brightened.
Now if you would have said "People on DPC seem not to like it when you turn the brightness up so much that your photo disappears" well then that's OK :D
As for definition of high key - I have no idea, but within all the books and galleries I have been to - I have never seen a overly bright image being called high key.
Usually it's obtained by lighting, and / or by selection of subjects in natural environments.
If you know what your looking at then the difference is huge. It's not about how it was created.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2004 03:19:21 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by geewhy:
Very interested in your opinion about this Jon, as I was under that impression when I submitted thisto the "portrait challenge some months ago. I was then informed that it was similar to a style called "Fashion blowout" and to be "high key" there should be minimal contrast ? |
I wouldn't go so far as to say minimal contrast, but generally they tend to have little contrast. However there are exceptions to the rule of course. I have a very large print by the photographer John Freeman here at home - part of his High Key session, and that is of a girl dressed in a large white coat with a fur lined hood against a white background. Her makeup is light to accentuate the high key effect.
Yet everything is contrasted as usual with no excessive blowouts or brightening.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2004 03:44:34 PM · #13 |
Yep, I`m getting the idea now..the trouble is that there appears to be many differing opinions on what makes a high key shot.
I really should start reading up on photography.
Thanks for that Jon.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2004 03:46:39 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by geewhy:
I was then informed that it was similar to a style called "Fashion blowout" and to be "high key" there should be minimal contrast ? |
It doesn't have to have minimal contrast. For a photo to be "high key", it needs to 1) have the majority of the tones above middle gray, including the shadows, and 2) maintain detail in the brightest regions (except for specular highlights, of course). By this definition, it means it is OK to have small areas that are below middle gray (such as pupils in the eye, for example).
Shifting the levels of a photo so that there are "pure white" areas in the subject does not make it "high key" photo... it makes it look "blown out", which is not high key...
Message edited by author 2004-09-02 15:47:38. |
|
|
|
09/02/2004 04:02:34 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by geewhy:
I was then informed that it was similar to a style called "Fashion blowout" and to be "high key" there should be minimal contrast ? |
It doesn't have to have minimal contrast. For a photo to be "high key", it needs to 1) have the majority of the tones above middle gray, including the shadows, and 2) maintain detail in the brightest regions (except for specular highlights, of course). By this definition, it means it is OK to have small areas that are below middle gray (such as pupils in the eye, for example).
Shifting the levels of a photo so that there are "pure white" areas in the subject does not make it "high key" photo... it makes it look "blown out", which is not high key... |
Yes..nice and clear on that now...thanks for the input Eddy.
Message edited by author 2004-09-02 16:03:19.
|
|
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: 10/16/2025 03:03:29 PM EDT.
