low key... - DPChallenge Forums

02/28/2007 07:33:04 AM · #1

I'm not sure this is cooth, but first off I'm not ranting b/c my challenge entry isn't doing good or anything like that. I just wanted to post something in the forum based on a comment someone left on my image.

This was left as a comment on my challenge entry, and to put it frankly....it's not correct for the world of photography.

I understand that this wikipedia says low key lighting is what it is, but what I think has been overlooked here is that this says "a style of lighting for film or television" so it is correct. Digital photography has different rules for low key. if we were all shooting film it would be true that it's suppose to be an 8:1 ratio...but were not. In digital photography a low key lighting ratio is a 5:1. this is because the digital camera doesn't have as dinamic of a range as film or cinematography does. In the digital sense your trying to avoid a black that drops bellow a 15, or in other words a black with no detail. Not because it looks bad on the moniter but it looks bad on a final print. A black with no detail on a final print will just be a build up of ink on the paper that is much thicker then the rest of the ink on the paper. no amount of finishing in post print production can make it look good.

again, I'm not thinking I'm better then anyone else, and this is not b/c my picture is doing poorly.

Trinity_12_12

Canon EF 35-135mm f/4-5.6 USM

02/28/2007 07:47:18 AM · #2

I agree whole heartedly with

gi_joe05. We have to understand the differences between digital vs film vs television, etc., and not be so rigid and limited in our views of what constitutes low key. It seems to me that many voters seem to think that if the background in your image is not 'blacked out' then your image is not low key and unfortunately I think many fantastic entries will suffer because of this.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/28/2007 07:59:34 AM · #3

Originally posted by Trinity_12_12:

I agree whole heartedly with gi_joe05. We have to understand the differences between digital vs film vs television, etc., and not be so rigid and limited in our views of what constitutes low key. It seems to me that many voters seem to think that if the background in your image is not 'blacked out' then your image is not low key and unfortunately I think many fantastic entries will suffer because of this.

It's not even about my image being fantastic or not, I'm not trying to come across upset, bitter, angry ect. I thought about not saying anything until the end of the challenge but I just felt that voters need to know.

danielv

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

02/28/2007 08:42:59 AM · #4

alternatively go and edit the low key definition in wikipedia. that's the principle of it no?

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

02/28/2007 10:00:04 AM · #5

I think you need to be cognizant of both your audience and your medium. You aren't shooting for prints here, you are shooting for display on a (wide array of poorly calibrated) monitors. If your goal is to score well, you cater to those restraints. If your goal is to produce something you like and want to hang on your wall, that might take you in a different direction.

02/28/2007 09:52:44 PM · #6

Originally posted by mouten:

alternatively go and edit the low key definition in wikipedia. that's the principle of it no?

\

I'm sorry if I offended you man, maybe it just came across wrong when I read it but you sound very cross.

02/28/2007 09:54:49 PM · #7

Originally posted by routerguy666:

ohh, I agree whole heartedly but I just was kind of teaching a guess. I don't think I'm out to change how people vote on the challenge I'm just saying it to be said. That way if someone was to go out to a professional photographer and talk about low key (for some reason or another) they know the information on it. A huge part of the dpc experence for me is learning and this was just a topic I could give back on.

danielv

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/01/2007 04:14:34 AM · #8

Originally posted by gi_joe05:

I'm sorry if I offended you man, maybe it just came across wrong when I read it but you sound very cross.

sorry my post must have come out wrong (probably my english, I'm not a native english speaker) - I'm not crossed at all, that was a genuine suggestion. If you think wikipedia is misleading, the beauty of it is that you can edit it?

Message edited by author 2007-03-01 04:17:36.