Another Swan - High Key Attempt

[Brownbear]

When photographing this swan I did my best to blow the background without blowing the highlights trying for a high key image. It was a foggy morning so I had to use isos of 800-2000, and exposure bias of +.67... A tripod used but my tripod is not very stable and perhaps that accounts for the beak that is just not quite in focus or the large apertures.
[B]
Manual Apertures SS 180 Aperture 7 ISO 2000 Exposure Bias +.67

Processed in Lightroom from raw, just the basics.




I would appreciate feedback on the composition (perhaps a little strange straight on?), and any tips on how I can try to do a better job photographing a high key swan in outdoor light (to avoid a light grey background), and selections when I try things like this.

And all C&C is always appreciated. Thank you.

[ScoutR]

Hi Christina: Can't help much with in camera, as you have done exactly what I would have done by increasing exposure to the point where I wasn't blowing any highlights.

In Lightroom though try turning down the blue saturation to zero. You can do it with this shot because there is nothing else in the shot that will suffer. Also toning down the orange luminance kind of helps (optical illusion wise) to make the beak seem more in focus. Think you needed quite a bit smaller aperature than f7 to get it all in focus in camera. Not much room there though shutter speed and ISO wise.

I like the head on shot. It's different - have you tried a square crop? seems like too much wasted space on either side. Then try a Lightroom white feathered OR paint overlay vignette.

Just some thoughts. BTW I hope you keep working on the love birds. I'm sure you can get pretty close to the example that was posted for you just using lightroom, and then a bit of tweaking in Elements. Try using a graduated filter starting in the middle of the shot - play around with it - I think you might have to flip it so the dark part is at the bottom - see what you think.

Anyway, just some random suggestions. I like what you are doing, but can't spend much time right now. Keep up the good work

Wendy

[Shadowman]

I like the composition also and any form of cropping would probably work just as well.

[Colin Southern]

When photographing this swan I did my best to blow the background without blowing the highlights trying for a high key image.

Hi Christina,

What you've created isn't high-key. High-key WILL have blown subject highlights; having a white background doesn't make it high-key - it just makes it "normal key" with a white background.

A couple of examples ...

[Brownbear]

Hi Wendy,

Thank you so much for your reply and advice. I will try this tomorrow, and repost. Yes, I always seem to have wasted space so a good thing to reinforce.

I will keep working on my love birds... I just put them aside for a little rest so I can view them again when I'm fresh.

Thank you.

Hi Christina: Can't help much with in camera, as you have done exactly what I would have done by increasing exposure to the point where I wasn't blowing any highlights.

In Lightroom though try turning down the blue saturation to zero. You can do it with this shot because there is nothing else in the shot that will suffer. Also toning down the orange luminance kind of helps (optical illusion wise) to make the beak seem more in focus. Think you needed quite a bit smaller aperature than f7 to get it all in focus in camera. Not much room there though shutter speed and ISO wise.

I like the head on shot. It's different - have you tried a square crop? seems like too much wasted space on either side. Then try a Lightroom white feathered OR paint overlay vignette.

Just some thoughts. BTW I hope you keep working on the love birds. I'm sure you can get pretty close to the example that was posted for you just using lightroom, and then a bit of tweaking in Elements. Try using a graduated filter starting in the middle of the shot - play around with it - I think you might have to flip it so the dark part is at the bottom - see what you think.

Anyway, just some random suggestions. I like what you are doing, but can't spend much time right now. Keep up the good work

Wendy

[Brownbear]

Hi Colin,

Thank you for advising and sharing... Yes, I remember reading a thread along the same lines where you helped that person, and shared these gorgeous images..

I was pretty sure it was high key because the histogram is at the far right, only... But I didn't want to blow the highlights on a white bird... But I love this look...

How can I do this on a white swan in outdoor lighting? Just keep increasing the exposure to the point of? ie; how many highlights should I blow?

And yet your example of the little girl has beautiful dark eyes, like a swan... And the water has dark ripples with a blown background? How do you manage both? I would like to be able to do this with a swan. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi Christina,

What you've created isn't high-key. High-key WILL have blown subject highlights; having a white background doesn't make it high-key - it just makes it "normal key" with a white background.

A couple of examples ...

[Mike Buckley]

Different people have different definitions of high-key photos. I remember posting that the epitome of a high-key photo is one in which the dynamic range is roughly mid tones to the bright tones. Someone immediately responded that lots of high-key photos have deep, rich blacks to contrast with the other tones. I still think the epitome of a high-key photo is exemplified by the photos that Colin posted, though I understand that there is a larger range of styles that can justifiably be considered high-key because the concept is more subjective than objective.

Christina,

I was pretty sure it was high key because the histogram is at the far right, only

The bold font is used by me to bring your attention to the word, "only." The histogram shown below is of your photo.



Moreover, you have developed your skills enough to know that the dark tones of your image couldn't possibly be displayed on the far right side of the histogram unless you don't understand the data that is indicated by the histogram. You might refer to my recent post that you liked that explains the Curve tool. The details of the horizontal and vertical axis that pertain to the Curves tool also pertain to the histogram.

[Brownbear]

Thank you for the added explanation of high key photos.

Yes, only is the wrong term. I should've stated mostly... Thank you for pointing that out.

When I look at the histogram in LR I don't see as much of the line on the bottom of the graph, hence my description.



Thanks Mike... Truly appreciated.

Different people have different definitions of high-key photos. I remember posting that the epitome of a high-key photo is one in which the dynamic range is roughly mid tones to the bright tones. Someone immediately responded that lots of high-key photos have deep, rich blacks to contrast with the other tones. I still think the epitome of a high-key photo is exemplified by the photos that Colin posted, though I understand that there is a larger range of styles that can justifiably be considered high-key because the concept is more subjective than objective.

Christina,



The bold font is used by me to bring your attention to the word, "only." The histogram shown below is of your photo.



Moreover, you have developed your skills enough to know that the dark tones of your image couldn't possibly be displayed on the far right side of the histogram unless you don't understand the data that is indicated by the histogram. You might refer to my recent post that you liked that explains the Curve tool. The details of the horizontal and vertical axis that pertain to the Curves tool also pertain to the histogram.

[Brownbear]

PS You are also a great teacher... Thank you for all of your help.

Different people have different definitions of high-key photos. I remember posting that the epitome of a high-key photo is one in which the dynamic range is roughly mid tones to the bright tones. Someone immediately responded that lots of high-key photos have deep, rich blacks to contrast with the other tones. I still think the epitome of a high-key photo is exemplified by the photos that Colin posted, though I understand that there is a larger range of styles that can justifiably be considered high-key because the concept is more subjective than objective.

Christina,



The bold font is used by me to bring your attention to the word, "only." The histogram shown below is of your photo.



Moreover, you have developed your skills enough to know that the dark tones of your image couldn't possibly be displayed on the far right side of the histogram unless you don't understand the data that is indicated by the histogram. You might refer to my recent post that you liked that explains the Curve tool. The details of the horizontal and vertical axis that pertain to the Curves tool also pertain to the histogram.

[Bobobird]

The important thing is that whatever you did turned into a fine image.

[Colin Southern]

Different people have different definitions of high-key photos. I remember posting that the epitome of a high-key photo is one in which the dynamic range is roughly mid tones to the bright tones.

Hi Mike,

Personally, I define it a little differently to be an image where the normally occurring tones are up-shifted somewhat (so most will probably end up in the top 1/2 of the histogram anyway). The "problem" with the swan is that even with a correct & normal exposure a white/blown background is always going to be at the top of the histogram - as is any tone that naturally occurs above a middle gray (ie all of the birds feathers) (so together, most of the image).

So by my personal (right or wrong) definition this isn't high-key because nothing is up-shifted from where it naturally occurs; it's just an "everyday normal exposure".

What I like to see in a high-key image is an up-shift of the midtones to highlights - highlights -> blown, but with a shadow to (at most) midtones "anchor" to stop the entire image looking too flat & washed out (if one doesn't do that then the result isn't so much "high-key" as it is just plain over-exposure).

Just my thoughts anyway

[Mike Buckley]

When I look at the histogram in LR I don't see as much of the line on the bottom of the graph

The small histogram is another important deficiency of LR. It's really a shame that Adobe hasn't designed the app so the histogram can at least be optionally displayed in a larger size.

[Colin Southern]

The small histogram is another important deficiency of LR. It's really a shame that Adobe hasn't designed the app so the histogram can at least be optionally displayed in a larger size.

... although personally, so long as I can alt-click the blacks / exposure to set my clipping points visually, I really don't care about the rest of the histogram because "it is what it is" - can't do anything to change it (or perhaps more accurate to say "whatever I do to the image changes the histogram, but I really don't care what it changes the histogram to -- so long as the image is looking how I want it".

Personally, I only ever use a histogram to quantify any degree of under-exposure.

[Mike Buckley]

Please remind me never to try to define the criteria of a high-key photograph. I just now saw an Internet piece (everything on the Internet is accurate, right?) that displays a photo of a Nikon D300, which of course is black, being held in an outstretched palm. The piece explains that it is a good example of a high-key photo because it was lit so brightly that there are no shadows. Sheesh!

[Mike Buckley]

"whatever I do to the image changes the histogram, but I really don't care what it changes the histogram to -- so long as the image is looking how I want it".

Keep in mind that when people are first starting out, they don't yet have a firm idea of how they want the photo to look. In that situation, they can use the histogram as a guide of how to post-process the image so the tones are mapped to a reasonably desirable dynamic range. They can then, as an example, see how a photo looks when the histogram displays tones across the entire horizontal axis. Once they associate that histogram with a particular look in the image, they can then say to themselves, "Yes, that's how I want this photo to look."

I realize that it would be ideal if everyone knows how they want the photo to look before they release the shutter. However, that's not realistic for a forum such as CiC that thankfully attracts such a wide range of experience and inexperience among its participants.

[Colin Southern]

Please remind me never to try to define the criteria of a high-key photograph. I just now saw an Internet piece (everything on the Internet is accurate, right?) that displays a photo of a Nikon D300, which of course is black, being held in an outstretched palm. The piece explains that it is a good example of a high-key photo because it was lit so brightly that there are no shadows. Sheesh!

I can confirm that if it's read on the internet, or in a womens magazine, then it's absolute gospel!

[Colin Southern]

Keep in mind that when people are first starting out, they don't yet have a firm idea of how they want the photo to look. In that situation, they can use the histogram as a guide of how to post-process the image so the tones are mapped to a reasonably desirable dynamic range. They can then, as an example, see how a photo looks when the histogram displays tones across the entire horizontal axis. Once they associate that histogram with a particular look in the image, they can then say to themselves, "Yes, that's how I want this photo to look."

I realize that it would be ideal if everyone knows how they want the photo to look before they release the shutter. However, that's not realistic for a forum such as CiC that thankfully attracts such a wide range of experience and inexperience among its participants.

I tend to approach an image from the other direction; I'll just move the sliders until the image looks how I want it to -- and at that point the histogram is just the result of that. I don't adjust the sliders to achieve a certain looking histogram (with the exception of clipping points). Far easier to look at an image and see if the tones are right than to try and make the same call looking at the histogram, IMO.

[Mike Buckley]

I have the same approach as you, Colin. That wasn't true when I first began digital post-processing and was clueless.

[Dusty]

Christina here is something that might help you.
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/bl...photoshop-4903

[Kaye Leggett]

Wow - that's some discussion. Christina - its a great photo...... will that do as a response ???

PS I would try it with a the square crop too.