High key - Low key Workshop

[Wandjina]

I attended a "high key - low key" workshop last weekend. Here are some of the results.
I welcome any comment.

The image of Montanna was taken with available beside a window while the image of Kathryn is a result of taking a very ordinary, flat image from a high key studio setup into Lightroom, then into Photoshop then into Nik - Silver Efex Pro 2 and then back into Photoshop to experiment with the blend modes.

Montanna




Kathryn

[billtils]

Like the low key one a lot but have the feeling that the other was taken a step (or two) too far ...

[Manfred M]

The first one is stronger than the second, but I find that the white balance is a bit strange and the lack of separation from the background is problematic. Had your model been a blond, you might have been able to pull it off. I find that low key (and high key) are very hard to do with natural light alone. Something I have not tried, by might help is a reflector on the camera left side.

I agree with Bill on the second one; that one was pushed too hard. In fact, I would suggest it does not fit some of the views of what high key is. High key lighting originated in the 1950s television studios as the video camera tubes had a very limited dynamic range; highlights and shadows were problematic. The solution was high key lighting. The key lighting was quite soft and the key(main) and fill lights added roughly the same amount of light to the subject. In modern use, that basic premise remains (i.e. very soft, limited shadows) but in general the subject tends to be very light coloured as well.

These high contrast areas in the image suggest that you are not using high key lighting.

I use both techniques in portraiture from time to time, here are two images out of my archives.

1. High Key - Frederique - Soft shadows are necessary otherwise the image looks flat and boring. I prefer that the model wears white or pastel colours and the jeans are a bit too dark for my personal taste. I generally light the background (two soft boxes that cross) so that it is very close to white in my work.







2. Low Key - Cristiana - My preference here is dark clothing so black jeans and an old Harley-Davidson jacket work well. I used a couple of strip-boxes for rim lighting to separate the model from the background. Blond hair works well and if I had used a model with darker hair, I would have added in a hair light for separation.

[DanK]

I like the first one. I agree that the WB seems a bit off, but not having seen the model, I don't know how much. I tried rebalancing it using the white of the subject's left eye, and that moved a bit in the direction of blue (which I anticipated) and magenta. The latter seemed to strong an adjustment. I'd suggest trying that as a starting point and then adjusting to taste. Given your intent, the lighting seems fine to me.

I don't like the second. I agree that it's overdone, and the result is frankly unpleasant.

[xpatUSA]

I attended a "high key - low key" workshop last weekend. Here are some of the results.
I welcome any comment.

The image of Montanna was taken with available beside a window while the image of Kathryn is a result of taking a very ordinary, flat image from a high key studio setup into Lightroom, then into Photoshop then into Nik - Silver Efex Pro 2 and then back into Photoshop to experiment with the blend modes.


Kathryn

With regard to Kathryn, the literature seems to favor leaving some contrast in the subject but allowing a zero-contrast background. Having some facial features at a higher contrast seems to be OK but perhaps a little too much in this case.

Some examples of wimmin here:

https://expertphotography.com/high-key-photography/
.

[rpcrowe]

There are, IMO, few types of lighting that have such poor examples throughout the Internet as high key... Additionally, many presets that are touted as being high key are pretty bad... Most of the time, the examples seem to be just overexposing and increasing the contrast of the image to wipe out any shadow areas...

1. The high key portrait should have a bright or white background
2. The high key portrait should have light filling the shadows (not just over exposing an image)
3. The high key portrait should have some dark areas (quite often the eyes) but, sometimes the hair

Conversely, a low key portrait should not simply be under exposed with a dark background...

IMO - Low and High Key imagery should be shot with those effects in mind and lit for those effects. I don't think that trying to construct a high key (or low key for that matter) image just by using PP is often successful...

[Manfred M]

With regard to Kathryn, the literature seems to favor leaving some contrast in the subject but allowing a zero-contrast background. Having some facial features at a higher contrast seems to be OK but perhaps a little too much in this case.

Some examples of wimmin here:

https://expertphotography.com/high-key-photography/

I've never done high-key stuff but my inclination initially would be to select the subject(s) and play with the histogram in Levels, then invert the selection and mess with the background to taste ...

Ted - (1) Don't believe all the experts on the internet. Different people have different ideas on what high key and low key are and use the same terminology for vastly differing images; and

(2) - Both high key and low key are lighting techniques so taking any old image and reworking it in post is not going to work.

(3) Regardless of the definition, the images need to be exposed correctly. An overexposed image is not necessarily high key and an underexposed image not necessarily low key.

[xpatUSA]

Ted - (1) Don't believe all the experts on the internet.

I don't, Manfred.

Different people have different ideas on what high key and low key are and use the same terminology for vastly differing images; and

(2) - Both high key and low key are lighting techniques so taking any old image and reworking it in post is not going to work.

Ok.

(3) Regardless of the definition, the images need to be exposed correctly. An overexposed image is not necessarily high key and an underexposed image not necessarily low key.

Ok.

[William W]

Workshops courses often take on definitions / titles made by the Instructor of that workshop and these titles seem (to me) often to be out of sync with (classic / theory / mainstream / textbook - lost for a precise word to use) teaching: neither I, nor any of my Technical College Teachers, would classify the first as "Low Key" neither the second as "High Key".

In the first instance Low Key and High Key Photography are the product of the Lighting Set.

In this case the first example better approximates Low Key, than the second as an High Key example.

The first example presents as a simple mono-lit Tight Head Portrait, which, by using one medium-broad light source, creates a reasonable sense of depth to the face ('simple' is not a derogatory term). If I were to classify this Portrait it would be as an example of Chiaroscuro, and not Low Key.

The second presents as a (digital) darkroom treatment more approximating Bas Relief, than High Key.

WW

[Manfred M]

Low Key and High Key Photography are the product of the Lighting Set

Exactly the way I was taught this subject at college and even there the instructors (who all had photographic degrees or diplomas) were not 100% aligned with the "classic" definition. I think it is telling that the subject was taught in a photographic lighting course.

The main instructor had a commercial publications (mainly catalogue) background, rather than a fine art background and concentrated on the product looking "good".

Chiaroscuro is a good example of what low key looks like.


This would be a low key product shot:

[William W]

. . . the instructors (who all had photographic degrees or diplomas) were not 100% aligned with the "classic" definition. I think it is telling that the subject was taught in a photographic lighting course. . .

I was also taught High Key and Low Key as part of the Lighting Syllabi, both for Stills and Cine.

I think there will always be debate about a classic definition - and I wasn't inclined to definitively classify either of Martin's Images, rather I was attempting to explain the general dominate style or classification of each of his examples.

I learned a valuable lesson at College, useful when one is describing or critiquing Images - and that is to generally avoid definitive classification and to offer instead, where and why the image is trending or tending to be - or, on the other hand explain why it is not trending or tending to be there.

***

Going back to my first point - Low Key and High Key are all about the Lighting Set, initially. Then we can nuance in various ways, as examples (but not limited to these only):

> for a Portrait, the choice of clothes will have an impact
> also skin colour and hair colour will have an impact on the effectiveness (or ease) of Low / High Key Portraiture
> in a controlled Set, the choice of Props and Background are almost always critical

***

Post Production (both wet and digital) is important, and the Darkroom should be used to enhance – not to form the High or Low Key.

For examples - the choice of Negative Development Time and the choice of the Grade of Printing Paper; for Digital, the (re) setting of the Levels Slider.

***

Thinking further on this topic this morning: I concluded that arguably an uncontrolled Set using Available Light is the most difficult scenario to achieve either Low Key or High Key. This was the situation Martin attacked in Image 1, and that was a difficult exercise.

Generally, I am reserved to present an example as a direct alternative, however I think this could aid.

The Subject in the scene is lit by one street light – he happened to be nearly underneath it. His jeans are dark toned -that helps; his top is dark, that helps too.

I was on Manual Mode using an EOS 5D and 135/2 and I held the exposure under the indicative (Meter was on CWA) to trap those street lights without blowing them out too much: ergo the Main Subject was held in that limbo land of the Soft Low Key Lighting.

This was not happenstance, it is a purposeful shooting technique learned during many years of making Available Light Portraiture on the hop mainly shooting Weddings with the attitude of minimal PP.

There is (purposely) no Post Production on this image, apart from a two stage Sharpening that I use on a JPEG SOOC.

I use this as one of my Workshop examples of Low Key, Available Light.

The point of this example is to bring focus on the fundamental of Low Key being it is about Lighting Set.

Obviously if this Image were to be Post Produced, the other street lights in the background and the reflection on the wet pavement would be removed as a priority of the Darkroom exercise.


Midnight Acrobat - Sydney AUS

WW

Image © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2021: WMW 1965~1996

[rpcrowe]

Would you consider this as high key?

[William W]

Would you consider this as high key? . . .

Short answer - No.

Detailed answer - I would describe the scene (lighting) as medium High Key, i.e. there are few high/hard contrasts (if any) additionally, the elements in the scene are all light toned, except the hair and lips - these elemental qualities are usual ingredients in High Key Images - hence the result I would describe as an Image tending toward High Key.

I reserve the terms "High Key" and "Low key" (as an absolute) for the images and lighting which are near or at the limit of that rendering.

WW

[William W]

Hi Richard, again -

as explanation / further clarification -

This was captured under open diffused shade on a sunny day, near midday - the cat is almost white with a slight tinge of ginger: I would term this image as (much) more toward High Key - than the (elegant) Portrait in Post #12.



WW

[xpatUSA]

Hi Richard, again -

as explanation / further clarification -

This was captured under open diffused shade on a sunny day, near midday - the cat is almost white with a slight tinge of ginger: I would term this image as (much) more toward High Key - than the (elegant) Portrait in Post #12.

I idly wondered about histograms' relevance to High or Low Key shots.

So I selected their heads and had at it:



Posted for what it's worth which may not be much ...

Note: in the GIMP, the histogram level mean, sd, median values are fractional, not 0-255 ...

[Manfred M]

Again, looking back at the way I was taught these lighting technique:

1. High key - a very specific case of classical three-point lighting where the key light and fill light deliver more or less the same amount of light to the subject (close to a 1:1 lighting ratio) and the background light may use more than a single light source and will be delivering approximately the same amount of light as with the subject. The result is what you have shown in the cat image; very flat lighting with limited, soft shadows.

2. Low key - single light may be all that is needed. If a fill light is used, likely a reflector or very low setting on an active light. The most that the fill light will do is to separate the subject from the dark background. No background light, but rim lighting used if needed. The question here is always on how dark does the background need to be? Very dark gray that is close to black.

[Manfred M]

I idly wondered about histograms' relevance to High or Low Key shots.

So I selected their heads and had at it:



Posted for what it's worth which may not be much ...

Note: in the GIMP, the histogram level mean, sd, median values are fractional, not 0-255 ...

Ted - Global histograms are not going to tell you much. In high key lighting, the histogram is going to be biased to the right, but there can be some values right through to black. In low key lighting, the histogram is going to be biased to the left with some values all the way to the right.

These are both lighting techniques, so where the light falls is important. The amount of light in specific parts of the image are also important.

[xpatUSA]

Ted - Global histograms are not going to tell you much.

Thank you, but what I posted are not global histograms, Manfred.

"So I selected their heads ..."

They are histograms of relevant selections from images posted here as being or possibly being High Key.

In high key lighting, the histogram is going to be biased to the right, but there can be some values right through to black. In low key lighting, the histogram is going to be biased to the left with some values all the way to the right.

Obviously. There should be more to it than just that, I would have thought.

[xpatUSA]

Again, looking back at the way I was taught these lighting technique:

<>

2. Low key - single light may be all that is needed. If a fill light is used, likely a reflector or very low setting on an active light. The most that the fill light will do is to separate the subject from the dark background. No background light, but rim lighting used if needed. The question here is always on how dark does the background need to be? Very dark gray that is close to black.

So a low key background is always grayscale, or is that referring somehow just to the lighting?

[Manfred M]

So a low key background is always grayscale, or is that referring somehow just to the lighting?

There is some debate here. Most low key work is shot in a studio and some people set the subject far enough away from the lights so that the background shows no data; i.e. pure black. Others (and right now this is my approach), prefer to keep the background close to black (values of 10 or lower).

I think that Bill has hit on a good way of looking at it when he suggests wording like "image trending to low key". I read an article on Karsh's work and some people suggest his work was often low key. I found and watched a movie on Karsh (strangely enought, on Amazon Prime) and one thing that struck me is that he mentioned that he purposely somewhat underexposed his negatives and he felt that they had the "right" density if one could read a newspaper through them (he shot 8" x 10" film). These would tend to print on the darker, moody side with rich blacks. His works are not classic low key in my view, but some of his work tended to be in that direction.