High Key----or just washed out?

[Kris V]

Cropped from a snapshot and edited in Nik Silver FX

[rachel]

I like the effect, for me it's not too washed out.

[Shadowman]

Recognizable yet perhaps too much lighting. Does it work, I would say yes.

[Manfred M]

A high key image will be an image that predominately has light tones but also contains a full tonal range. One common misconception is that a high key image is an underexposed image; this is incorrect.

The tonal range is crammed to the right, even though the image appears to have areas of black (shadows and eye lashes), these are showing up as grays. This image is not properly exposed.

In my books, this is an overexposed image, not a properly exposed high key image.

[Wandjina]

A high key image will be an image that predominately has light tones but also contains a full tonal range. One common misconception is that a high key image is an underexposed image; this is incorrect.

The tonal range is crammed to the right, even though the image appears to have areas of black (shadows and eye lashes), these are showing up as grays. This image is not properly exposed.

In my books, this is an overexposed image, not a properly exposed high key image.

+1 from me

[IzzieK]

Unfortunately Kim...I agree with Manfred. I have been trying High Key/Low Key in Nik recently as an effect from the beauty shoot I did in the "turning over of her crown" series at Madison County, Illinois and my shots still need a lot of work...it was my first shoots of beautiful women...including a future-DIL.

[Mike Buckley]

I like the pensive mood of the child!

There is so much contradictory information about the definition of a high-key image that I honestly have no idea how anybody knows what it is; there seems to be no widely accepted standard. So, for me, I would forget about labeling the image as this or that and instead determine if you like its characteristics.

I've seen images similar to this style that include true blacks and some that don't include them. I haven't developed a strong conviction of when I like to see true blacks and when I prefer not to see them in images made in this style, so I won't offer an opinion about that aspect of the image.

The one characteristic that I immediately noticed, probably because I make a point of looking for it, is that there are so many areas where there is insufficient separation between the background and the subject. I also think I would like the image better if there was a bit more negative space on the right side; the girl's lovely face seems a little cramped for space.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Kris,

If this was shot RAW, I think it could be processed to achieve a 'more acceptable to the masses' "high key" image. Although it does depend whether you are starting from an over-exposed capture, if so, then the processing may be less successful.

While doing that, canvas could be added to the right hand side to address Mike's valid point about the composition/crop.

One other point; when viewed at 100%, it is quite noisy, something that to my mind, doesn't fit too well with the subject or the fine detail in her hair.

HTH, Dave

[Kris V]

Hi Kris,

If this was shot RAW, I think it could be processed to achieve a 'more acceptable to the masses' "high key" image. Although it does depend whether you are starting from an over-exposed capture, if so, then the processing may be less successful.

While doing that, canvas could be added to the right hand side to address Mike's valid point about the composition/crop.

One other point; when viewed at 100%, it is quite noisy, something that to my mind, doesn't fit too well with the subject or the fine detail in her hair.

HTH, Dave

Thanks all for your input.
Dave, it was shot in RAW, her mom borrowed my camera and turned it to full automatic.. A 2 year old doesn't give you a lot of time to fiddle with settings.
Anyway, I'm not at my best when it comes to portraits, but in this snapshot I really liked the look at her face - she was debating whether or not she was going to touch the worm her aunt was holding. (she did!).
I didn't like the cropped version of the original, so I started playing ------ and I will probably play some more later tonight!

[bnnrcn]

I like the shot Kris, I agree with Mike about some more space on the RHS. It is a nice image for me even if it is high key or not

[John 2]

A high key image will be an image that predominately has light tones but also contains a full tonal range. One common misconception is that a high key image is an underexposed image; this is incorrect.

The tonal range is crammed to the right, even though the image appears to have areas of black (shadows and eye lashes), these are showing up as grays. This image is not properly exposed.

In my books, this is an overexposed image, not a properly exposed high key image.

I agree but easily put right by adjusting the black level (using the levels tool if you have PS).

[rpcrowe]

Generally, I like a few dark points in a high key image. That separates a true high key image from a washed out or over exposded image.

However, the shot is still lovely!

[jcuknz]

I think as shown it is a mess but repairable ....I looked at a curves adjustment layer and organised the control line to loosely match the burnt out image which darkened everything so by brushing over most of the image, several times, with a low density black brush , working on the AL I largely removed tone from everywhere except the eyes and mouth.
It may or may not be high-key but considerably more pleasing to my eye

[Kris V]

I think as shown it is a mess but repairable ....I looked at a curves adjustment layer and organised the control line to loosely match the burnt out image which darkened everything so by brushing over most of the image, several times, with a low density black brush , working on the AL I largely removed tone from everywhere except the eyes and mouth.
It may or may not be high-key but considerably more pleasing to my eye

Sorry, can't agree - on my computer it overall shows too grainy. But thanks for the edit and comment.

[jcuknz]

Sorry Kris but the reason I said it was a mess was because of the grain/noise and I can only assume that it was created in PP. As I said mine may not be the nebulous 'High Key' but as a shot is more acceptable to most people with my rework.
I never bother about noise and have not used a noise 'filter' in years but here it was so obvious when I looked at the face, and in view of the subject not acceptable.

[rachel]

I still really like it, if she were my daughter/niece/grandaughter I'd love it blown up and on the wall.

Maybe it's down to the monitor but John's version looks way more grainy to me too, I prefer the original

[mugge]

I like it. I do not care if it is washed out, under exposed or otherwise. That is only my opinion.
Cheers Ole

[Rob Ekins]

I really like it.

Bugger the technicalities

I will agree with Mike on comp though, having a bit more space for her to look into if you have it might be nice.

[Kris V]

Well, her mom has already printed it out and framed it, and it got quite a few likes on Facebook (from family members I admit).
I'm still looking as to the best way of expanding the RH side. I agree that's a little tight.

[Mike Buckley]

Kris,

The only thing that matters is that the subject's mother likes the image so much that she is displaying it.

This particular photo will be relatively easy to expand on the right side (easier than a lot of images). Use a program that allows you to increase the "canvas." Then fill the newly created canvas area with the tones already on the right side. The best way will probably be to copy areas from the former right side to the new right side and to use one or two blending techniques to ensure that the transition between the two areas is so smooth that the viewer would never know the canvas was expanded.