Another Swan - High Key Attempt

[Colin Southern]

I tried another high key edit on the heron because it seemed easier to do then the swan... (Later this week I will try both Terry's and Wendy's edit suggestion)

The original PP to have a black point, and in hindsight I think I made the heron too dark, but this is just a learning exercise for me and it has been great since I'm working on learning about post processing, and I've learned a lot about high key images.

Processed to be high key and black and white... In hindsight a different subject would likely be a better candidate for high key, and I shouldn't have overexposed the stump the heron was perched on but next time I will know better.

Just a couple of foggy thoughts that came to mind ...

(just got up and am waiting for Apple to change the website so I can buy my 5s!)

If something is too dark, just tap the dark areas a few times with the dodge tool set to shadows.

In terms of under/over exposure, don't try to do anything in-camera - just capture a normal exposure and push/pull in post production.

[chauncey]

I find myself in complete agreement with Colin...as an example, I turned this into that




.

[Colin Southern]

Working on the (loose) basis that "it takes a village to raise a child" (!), I took Chauncey's fine work - pushed the midtones even higher - packed and wrapped - and ...

... Ta Da!!

[Colin Southern]

PS: On a big canvas or printed/framed that would be - unquestionably - commercial/professional/saleable quality.

[chauncey]

FYI...native size @ 300 dpi is 14x24. Haven't tried the commercial route for anything.

[Mike Buckley]

PS: On a big canvas or printed/framed that would be - unquestionably - commercial/professional/saleable quality.

Is that true even considering the lack of separation between both swans' backs and the water? One reason I like Chauncey's version better is because he maintained the separation. I realize you were probably working very quickly and certainly with a small file, but I'm questioning only the saleability of your rendition as is.

[Colin Southern]

Is that true even considering the lack of separation between both swans' backs and the water? One reason I like Chauncey's version better is because he maintained the separation. I realize you were probably working very quickly and certainly with a small file, but I'm questioning only the saleability of your rendition as is.

Still showing adequate separation on both my main calibrated/profiled screen and on my iPhone -- looking good my end. To my eye, Chauncey's version is only slightly high-key, albeit with a reverse vignette (the rest of the tones are still relatively normal). In my versions I've deliberately pushed them to look "dreamy / surreal / heavenly" (or whatever the term is).

If you're not able to distinguish between the swans and the background then it might pay to check your monitor performance around high tones.

[Brownbear]

Thank you Colin for the extra tips, and Chauncey for sharing your beautiful example, and Colin for your edit of Chauncey's and Mike for teaching me about separation.

I like how Chauncey kept more detail in the swans (but this is something I'm struggling with as I try to learn to do this, ie; blowing part of the bird and losing detail) I prefer Colin's more white image and less obvious vignette but I prefer Chancey's detail. I can see the separation in Colin's edit.

[Brownbear]

I had another go at it, and I think I managed to improve a little bit.. If not, well I'm learning lots about post processing. Part of the problem is that I don't seem to have a vision in my head for how a high key bird should look other than Donald's swan and that white egret. And for some reason I prefer colour, except for Donald's swan.

First my rework of the swan that I posted first in this thread...

This I processed following Nancy's suggestion to de-saturated the blues which meant I did not have to select around the swan to make the grey background white... Phew! I was also quite surprised to see that decreasing the luminance of the orange seemed to make the focus of the beak stronger, not perfect but a nice thing to learn. Then I followed Terry's post processing guideline for high key, and added Nancy's reverse gradient.


Here it is, and I'm not fond of it... Prefer Terry's version or my original version as photographed.



Another swan which I think works better....



In B&W trying to make it like a drawing as suggested by Colin, but I couldn't do it.



And the one I like best is a goose that I photographed (and exposed for normally) on a foggy morning...
Likely because I was able to choose where to blow the highlights, and I was able to keep some detail even while processing.



Thank you to everyone for your help. It is obviously going to take some time for me to learn what high-key truly is, and what I like about it, and how to process such images... Colin, yes I can see that there is no point in trying to do it in-camera because one has no control over which parts of the image are light or dark, to the best of my knowledge.

Thank you also to Nancy, Terry and Mike.

[Mike Buckley]

Part of the problem is that I don't seem to have a vision in my head for how a high key bird should look

For most people, that takes experience on many levels, which comes only with time.