Author | Thread |
|
03/21/2006 01:16:34 PM · #76 |
I am sooooooooooo pissed I am going to miss this challenge!!! The location I wanted to shoot at was full of people on Sunday which looked like crap and then yesterday it was locked!!!
Unfortunately I have to fly to D.C. for work this afternoon and won't be able to put something together. Really sucks considering how excited I was about this challenge! :( |
|
|
03/21/2006 01:20:56 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by chili: Wow. I just found this thread, after submitting. I read all your comments, took a good look all the example photos, and now I totally started to panic. This is my first submission here and now I really don't know if my pic is low key at all? It has really dark areas, and if you look at the hystogram, you see that it is really strong in the dark area... I guess now I just have to wait for the voters opinions...
God, I never thought photography could be so stressful! :) |
Don't worry. If it does poorly, then you can start a thread ranting about how poorly it did and then you'll be a "real" member here. ;)
|
|
|
03/21/2006 05:53:57 PM · #78 |
I have just up-loaded my "low-key" image for this challenge.
I do hope voters will be pleased with this entry, not "ribbon" material, but I am very happy with it.....
Following the "2-second challenge", which was a great learning curve for me, this just happened to be another in one of the many differant images I took, so therefore entered it in this one.
All the "BEST" everyone..... |
|
|
03/21/2006 06:19:54 PM · #79 |
I'm in too! I am not too happy with my image but I am in anyway!
I know for sure that it is low key so maybe another 5 for meeting the challenge. :)
I hope for a few comments confirming what I think of my image to show that I am leaning something here at DPC.
Good Luck everyone!
|
|
|
03/22/2006 04:17:34 PM · #80 |
\
I shot this for Low Key and decided not to enter it. I'm really curious if this falls into the DNMC zone and what anyone thinks outside of that???
|
|
|
03/22/2006 04:19:25 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by pawdrix: \
I shot this for Low Key and decided not to enter it. I'm really curious if this falls into the DNMC zone and what anyone thinks outside of that??? |
I see this as low key and would have voted it highly. IMHO
|
|
|
03/22/2006 04:21:49 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by pawdrix: \
I shot this for Low Key and decided not to enter it. I'm really curious if this falls into the DNMC zone and what anyone thinks outside of that??? |
Actually quite well done. No, DNMC from me.
|
|
|
03/22/2006 04:25:38 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever: Originally posted by pawdrix: \
I shot this for Low Key and decided not to enter it. I'm really curious if this falls into the DNMC zone and what anyone thinks outside of that??? |
Actually quite well done. No, DNMC from me. |
It's great low-key shot. A lot in the challenge are just underexposed.
|
|
|
03/22/2006 04:27:48 PM · #84 |
I had read this thread before the challenge, but I am not finding many entries that fit the examples/discussion. Any thoughts or opinions? |
|
|
03/22/2006 04:30:16 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward: A lot in the challenge are just underexposed. |
AMEN!
|
|
|
03/22/2006 04:31:11 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by chaimelle: I had read this thread before the challenge, but I am not finding many entries that fit the examples/discussion. Any thoughts or opinions? |
I think it may be partly because of a challenge description that was not entirely accurate.
|
|
|
03/22/2006 04:31:34 PM · #87 |
Underexposed is fotomann's biggest pet pieve! :) |
|
|
03/22/2006 04:35:59 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo: Underexposed is fotomann's biggest pet pieve! :) |
Got that right! LOL ... always err on the side of "over-exposure" ;-)
|
|
|
03/24/2006 09:08:02 AM · #89 |
I'd agree with many of the above comments. The challenge states "Low key describes a mostly dark image, with few highlights".
Not, an underexposed shot that is evenly lit. There appears to be many shots which just miss the point somehow ... (which is sad because I actually like some of the shots - they just don't meet the challenge description) |
|
|
03/24/2006 11:25:24 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by cliff_wright: I'd agree with many of the above comments. The challenge states "Low key describes a mostly dark image, with few highlights".
Not, an underexposed shot that is evenly lit. There appears to be many shots which just miss the point somehow ... (which is sad because I actually like some of the shots - they just don't meet the challenge description) |
You might not want to jump to conclusions quickly, especially with color images. If you think an image does meet the challenge then check it's histogram before you pass judgement. You might be very surprised.
The hallmark of low key is that it has the greater part of it's tonality in the shadows and fewer or none in the highlights. That means you will see more pixels to the left of center and they are more evenly distributed, thus you see much detail in the shadows. On the highlights side you will generally see fewer pixels and they will be unevenly distributed, thus you see little or no detail in the highlights. Low-key images often have bright areas, bright line outlines on a body for example, but those bright areas in the highlights will have very few or no details in them. Low-key generally has very few areas of pure white.
Btw... fotoman_forever is 110% right on when saying underexposed is NOT low-key.
Message edited by author 2006-03-24 11:28:40.
|
|
|
03/24/2006 11:54:40 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by stdavidson: The hallmark of low key is that it has the greater part of it's tonality in the shadows and fewer or none in the highlights. That means you will see more pixels to the left of center and they are more evenly distributed, thus you see much detail in the shadows. On the highlights side you will generally see fewer pixels and they will be unevenly distributed, thus you see little or no detail in the highlights. |
Sadly that descibes 80% of my histograms when shooting anything:p |
|
|
03/24/2006 12:01:20 PM · #92 |
It's funny to see all this discussion about histograms. True, a low-key image will be skewed to the left, but low-key can't be described as a graph.
As I've stated before, low-kwy is a lighting style. Simple enough.
Good challenge idea. BAD challenge description.
|
|
|
03/24/2006 12:14:19 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by pawdrix: \
I shot this for Low Key and decided not to enter it. I'm really curious if this falls into the DNMC zone and what anyone thinks outside of that??? |
Not only does the histogram clearly show this is low-key, but black and white male portraits are a classic use of the genre. This is as low-key as it gets and just happens to be one flat out good image as well!
It is a sad commentary that the DNMC paranoia here is so rampant that photographers withhold submissions on fine images like this one because of it.
The DPC community would be better served if voters lightened up on DNMC. As normally low average scores on images proves, we are quicker to criticize than to praise.
|
|
|
03/24/2006 12:25:22 PM · #94 |
Actually, the description says, "a mostly dark image, with few highlights". Whether or not that is a good definition of low key, to me it means an image that is mostly dark (probably black, but very dark green or blue could meet that requirement) with few highlights--just enough light to hint at the subject. Underexposed does not meet this. Bright light on the entire subject does not meet this. A normal looking photo of a subject on a black background does not meet this.
I do not have to look at a histogram to know if it is a dark image with few highlights. To me, pawdrix's photo is almost too much light due to the windows in the background. Other histogram examples fall off much earlier than pawdrix's. I would not have left a DNMC comment, but it is not the best low key example IMO. |
|
|
03/24/2006 12:33:27 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Rikki: ... definitions:
Low key pictures concentrate on the darker tones, often conveying an atmosphere of tension or a powerful deep strength. This ha sometimes been use for male portraits, though more often a fuller tonal range with hard lighting is used.
A dark image that is intentionally lacking in highlight detail.
A photograph in which tones are predominantly dark and there are few highlights.
A type of lighting which when applied to a scene results in a picture having gradations from middle gray to black, with comparatively limited areas of light gray and whites |
Rikki pulled together these definitions and posted them earlier in this thread. All of them speak to the issue of tonality in the shadows and lack of it in the highlights. That is what defines low-key.
I'm less the artist and more the mathematically oriented. It appears indisbutable and very easy to see low-key in a histogram.
It seems to me that if low-key were only a lighting technique, as fotoman_forever suggests, that it would imply that landscapes and other imagery outside the direct lighting control of the photographer would not be low-key and therefore not meet the challenge.
For me, at least, the histogram seems a more reliable indicator based strictly on where tonality in the image is concentrated and a lot easier to grasp.
|
|
|
03/24/2006 12:37:59 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
It seems to me that if low-key were only a lighting technique, as fotoman_forever suggests, that it would imply that landscapes and other imagery outside the direct lighting control of the photographer would not be low-key and therefore not meet the challenge.
|
Not neccesarily. As with any good landscape, you WOULD have to wait for the right light and be in the right position to make the image truly low-key.
I don't do landscape, because I am not a patient man. But, lighting can be "controlled" in natural settings. It's just a matter of position and time.
Message edited by author 2006-03-24 12:42:43.
|
|
|
03/24/2006 12:39:08 PM · #97 |
I think lighting has a LOT to do with it. The sun/moon can be in just the right position to give the effect, but it is still an effect and a choice made by the photog.
If you were in an art gallery, you would not have a histogram to fall back on. |
|
|
03/24/2006 12:54:09 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by chaimelle: Actually, the description says, "a mostly dark image, with few highlights"...
To me, pawdrix's photo is almost too much light due to the windows in the background. Other histogram examples fall off much earlier than pawdrix's. I would not have left a DNMC comment, but it is not the best low key example IMO. |
Wow, your statement is very surprising to me.
You and I see things much differently. That is what makes DPC a great site for photographers to test their ability to create imagery that has appeal to a wide ranging audience.
To me it absolutely looks "mostly dark with few highlights". In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find a better example with an Internet search. I've voted this challenge and I'd rank Pawtrix's image in my top 20.
|
|
|
03/24/2006 01:08:46 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever: ... As with any good landscape, you WOULD have to wait for the right light and be in the right position to make the image truly low-key.
I don't do landscape, because I am not a patient man. But, lighting can be "controlled" in natural settings. It's just a matter of position and time. |
OK, Cheeseman, we will discuss this more at the challenge conclusion if my brain cells last that long! LOL ;) I still have more to say.
Please note I said it "implies" that natural settings don't meet the challenge, not that they don't. Every literalist voter at the site would likely vote an image DNMC where the photographer did not have control of the lighting if it were only a "lighting technique". You know how THEY are. LOL!!!
|
|
|
03/24/2006 01:12:49 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by stdavidson: Every literalist voter at the site would likely vote an image DNMC where the photographer did not have control of the lighting if it were only a "lighting technique". You know how THEY are. LOL!!! |
I DO know that :-) Voters here are a fickle bunch, especially in Open challenges.
|
|