Trilogy

[Colin Southern]

Hey folks,

I'm humbled by so many kind words -- thank you all so very much.

@ Sharon; lets dedicate this to the memory of your Dad (thank you Nancy for the suggestion).

How did I make it?

The lighting turned out to be a bit of a surprise actually; I wanted a white background, but didn't have any seamless source big enough. so I thought I'd just pop one of my portable softboxes (with a couple of 600EX-RTs in it) behind it. Metered it with the light meter @ F18, so set the camera for F16 - background sorted.

I grabbed another softbox and another couple of 600EX-RTs and got my daughter and boyfriend to hold it in the usual 45/45 position, BUT IT DIDN'T WORK; the light was just too soft to put any kind of meaningful shadows over the flower, so in the end, the image you see was the 2nd test shot, shot with only backlight; it's a light source so huge in comparison to the size of the flower (and so close) that it has a very wrapping quality about it - it also permeated the plant - and additionally produced some diffuse glare - all wrapped into one.

The bit that took the time was the processing; it wasn't hard per se, but I wanted perfection, so I marched through the image at 100% to blat any imperfections, then spent a long time tweaking blacks / shadows / contrast / highlights / whites etc. I did want it to be high-key so I've deliberately not clamped the blacks to leave a "light and airy" feel. Sharpening was also unusual for me; did the normal capture sharpening (300 @ 0.3), but my common creative/content sharpening of 40 @ 4px didn't seem enough, so I tried 60 - then 100 - and it kept looking better, so I thought I'd "go ridiculous" and work back, so bumped it up to an unheard of 200 @ 4px and it looked better still - so that's what I ran with. I've got an unsharpened layer tucked away, so I can always revisit that (that part has a huge impact on the image and can easily give it a different feel) (no right or wrong here -- one just has to make SOME decision).

Happy to answer any questions.

[Mike Buckley]

I would be willing to bet that the unusual amount of sharpening was required because the subject is mostly translucent and that it was lit only by back lighting. I experienced the same sort of thing awhile back in a very similar situation.

It's good to know that someone with your studio experience can light something only to realize that it isn't effective. That's probably unusual for you but the fact that it can happen even rarely is consoling for others of us.

[Colin Southern]

I would be willing to bet that the unusual amount of sharpening was required because the subject is mostly translucent and that it was lit only by back lighting. I experienced the same sort of thing awhile back in a very similar situation.

Maybe. To be honest, the difference between "normal" sharpening and what I applied here wasn't so much good or bad as it was different. Eg here's a qick and dirty Orton effect to simulate what different sharpening may have made it look like:

It's good to know that someone with your studio experience can light something only to realize that it isn't effective. That's probably unusual for you but the fact that it can happen even rarely is consoling for others of us.

Like they say, there's 3 ways to do anything in life; The right way, the wrong way, and the Colin way. Many equate Colin's way as being the same as the wrong way - and they'd be right, but doing it my way we get the wrong result much faster!

[MajaMolly]

Maybe. To be honest, the difference between "normal" sharpening and what I applied here wasn't so much good or bad as it was different. Eg here's a qick and dirty Orton effect to simulate what different sharpening may have made it look like:





Like they say, there's 3 ways to do anything in life; The right way, the wrong way, and the Colin way. Many equate Colin's way as being the same as the wrong way - and they'd be right, but doing it my way we get the wrong result much faster!

Colin, this is really beautiful. Both versions are, but the second version has a soft, ethereal, dreamy, wistful feel to it. You should do more like this. It's really beautiful.

[Colin Southern]

And on that subject do you have any high-key images of flowers to share? And if you wanted to create a black background instead of a white background for this very same image how would you do that?

Hi Christina,

My apologies - I missed this comment before (had just got up and eyes weren't focusing) (that's my excuse anyway!). As this one was totally backlit it would be difficult to do on a black background (although probably not impossible); easy to do in Photoshop with a select though.

I haven't shot a lot of flowers in the past 0 although this one might be more along the lines of what you're thinking?



A black background is pretty easy normally; either choose a shutterspeed & aperture that cuts out the ambient - then keep the flash away from a black backdrop, or wait until night and just "shoot into the black of the night", with flashes in the more conventional position. Oh - and as I've learned from last night, having light that's toooooo soft may not work in your favour.

[Colin Southern]

You mentioned that your eyes are sensitive to light this time of year. I wonder if you're aware that Steve McCurry of Afghan Girl fame has the same issue. He makes a point of shooting from within the shadows or inside during much of the daylight hours.

Hi Mike,

To be honest, for me, it's more of an issue looking at my RC Helicopter in the sky, but I have a special set of glasses coming that should be ready any day now

In terms of shooting during the day, it's "OK", but of course not usually a great time of day to shoot anyway, so it's not usually a problem.

I know Steve McCurry's photo well (but didn't know he was a fellow "photophobic") - I've actually got a DVD covering the reshoot of the game girl (Sharbat Gula) many years later.

[Brownbear]

Hi Colin,

Yes, this is what I meant. Thank you for sharing. I don't have any flashes but it is good to know for future.

There is something about high key images that I love (especially your images) but there is also something I am not understanding about high key.

A little while ago I thought you advised me that a true high key image would have a true black point and blown highlights. I don't see a true black point in your flower image (true = jet black) and I don't see any blown highlights, ie; I see all the amazing detail in the petals.

I was just curious about the black background but high key is something I would like to try one day, so I am trying to understand the concept but missing something. ie; I should've been able to view your flower image with the white background and know that it was high key, and all I knew was that I loved this image. Thank you.



I did want it to be high-key so I've deliberately not clamped the blacks to leave a "light and airy" feel.

Hi Christina,

My apologies - I missed this comment before (had just got up and eyes weren't focusing) (that's my excuse anyway!). As this one was totally backlit it would be difficult to do on a black background (although probably not impossible); easy to do in Photoshop with a select though.

I haven't shot a lot of flowers in the past 0 although this one might be more along the lines of what you're thinking?



A black background is pretty easy normally; either choose a shutterspeed & aperture that cuts out the ambient - then keep the flash away from a black backdrop, or wait until night and just "shoot into the black of the night", with flashes in the more conventional position. Oh - and as I've learned from last night, having light that's toooooo soft may not work in your favour.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Colin,

Yes, this is what I meant. Thank you for sharing.

You're very welcome!

I don't have any flashes but it is good to know for future.

There is something about high key images that I love (especially your images) but there is also something I am not understanding about high key.

A little while ago I thought you advised me that a true high key image would have a true black point and blown highlights. I don't see a true black point in your flower image (true = jet black) and I don't see any blown highlights, ie; I see all the amazing detail in the petals.

Seems to be a lot of confusion about high-key. What's it's NOT is any photo with a white background. What it IS is tones up-shifted from where they'd normally sit - but - if that were the literal definition then any grossly over-exposed image would be high-key as well, which I don't consider to be the case. So I consider an essential part of a high-key image to be some lower tones to "anchor" the image. I don't think they necessarily need to be clipped as such, just whatever it takes to make the image work; In this case some areas are probably fairly close to black, but when I clamped them down too hard it didn't look right.

In terms of the highlights, there's not a lot of clipping, but a fair bit of diffuse glare; if you could compare my image to the real thing you'd see quite a difference. High-key is really about stuffing most of the tones above middle gray and treating them carefully. Think of it as more of a strong tone curve than an overall exposure shift.

[Brownbear]

Thank you. I understand your explanation!

Truly appreciated!

You're very welcome!







Seems to be a lot of confusion about high-key. What's it's NOT is any photo with a white background. What it IS is tones up-shifted from where they'd normally sit - but - if that were the literal definition then any grossly over-exposed image would be high-key as well, which I don't consider to be the case. So I consider an essential part of a high-key image to be some lower tones to "anchor" the image. I don't think they necessarily need to be clipped as such, just whatever it takes to make the image work; In this case some areas are probably fairly close to black, but when I clamped them down too hard it didn't look right.

In terms of the highlights, there's not a lot of clipping, but a fair bit of diffuse glare; if you could compare my image to the real thing you'd see quite a difference. High-key is really about stuffing most of the tones above middle gray and treating them carefully. Think of it as more of a strong tone curve than an overall exposure shift.

[NorthernFocus]

A lovely image, Colin. It has an interesting backlit effect but not really. Nicely presented.

[Colin Southern]

A lovely image, Colin. It has an interesting backlit effect but not really. Nicely presented.

Thanks Dan!

[JBW]

yup I have a lot to learn and a lot to practice.