My first high key shot I am willing to post

[jcdeboever]

Not sure if it's any good. I haven't studied enough on the subject in order to critique myself. I don't see anything clipped in shadow or highlight. For some reason, this whole look and process has a film feel to me, not directed towards this capture so to speak. I do not know what to ask for improvement and I am fine with someone telling me to scrap it. I would say that I worked on it for a couple hours with flash, strobe, continuous. Took some good notes on stops and flash / strobe distances (@Derrel ) so it was not a total loss. My goal was to isolate the stamen with sharpness and use the petal as the backdrop. I think I accomplished that but not sure what to focus on moving forward. I miss @Derrel because he took the time the thoroughly explain technical stuff with me on lighting and it's too late to call Astro. I can't sleep. Off to look for a good book.

Continuous light, no external flash, D3300 / Sigma 105mm
f/11, 1s, spot meter, iso100.

 

[jcdeboever]

It looks horrible on my phone.

 

[jcdeboever]

Scrap yr

 

[Gary A.]

I feel as if I am reviewing your weekly results from a photo class or chapters from a photography book. Which is a good thing ... I truly appreciate your exploration and discovery of photography. The image doesn't look 'high key' to me ... and maybe I have the wrong definition of high key. To me, your image looks natural, the image is naturally high contrast as opposed to an image of average contrast which has high contrast artificially introduced. (Artificial isn't the best word, but I think you get my meaning.)

On my monitor the image is a bit on the muddy side, lacks punch ... needs a black (somewhere) ... it may also need a white ... but start with the black and see whatcha got and where, if anyplace, you have to go. On the positive side, you are very very close to a a very very nice image showing significant skill both in the taking and the processing.

 

[SquarePeg]

I know your goal was to isolate the stamen but not sure why. I think you need more of this to be in focus. The shallow dof is a bit distracting, I can't see past that in this one. Maybe try to isolate the stamen from a different angle so that not just the very tip of it is in focus.

 

[KenC]

I like the concept, but if you're going for high key you have to push the highlights. You could do it either by making the highlights brighter by more or less the same amount and letting the higher ones go to white, or by using curves to push up the lower highlights without blowing out the top. I like to do high key sometimes and favor the former approach, but that may not be everyone's cup of tea.

 

[KenC]

An example of pushing all of the highlights (plus other manipulation):

I've since pushed it a little further.

 

[limr]

I agree with the others regarding contrast levels and whether or not this would be considered 'high key." I do like the shallow depth of field, however. For me, the stamen in sharp focus draws attention to the repeated patterns and lines in the rest of the flower. You start there because it's in focus and you see the three radiating lines. Then your eye moves past it and sees the six radiating lines of the...other bits (whatever they're called). And finally, you see the radiating shadowing and lines of the petals.

 

[jcdeboever]

I feel as if I am reviewing your weekly results from a photo class or chapters from a photography book. Which is a good thing ... I truly appreciate your exploration and discovery of photography. The image doesn't look 'high key' to me ... and maybe I have the wrong definition of high key. To me, your image looks natural, the image is naturally high contrast as opposed to an image of average contrast which has high contrast artificially introduced. (Artificial isn't the best word, but I think you get my meaning.)

On my monitor the image is a bit on the muddy side, lacks punch ... needs a black (somewhere) ... it may also need a white ... but start with the black and see whatcha got and where, if anyplace, you have to go. On the positive side, you are very very close to a a very very nice image showing significant skill both in the taking and the processing.

Thanks. I might try a re-shoot and go from there. I couldn't get it exactly the way I envisioned it in post and it was irritating me.

 

[tirediron]

I like the concept, but if you're going for high key you have to push the highlights.

As a point or order, and just to clear up some misconceptions: A high key image is one which is well exposed, shadowless, ro nearly so, and with very low dynamic range. It is essentially a well exposed, bright image; the stereotypical example is that of the bright, white background, but there are other types. There should be no pushing of the highlights, and in particular, there should be no blown highlights.

JC, I would say yours is on the way to being high-key, but it's a bit under-exposed.

Ken, yours, IMO, is just plain over-exposed.

 

[jcdeboever]

I like the concept, but if you're going for high key you have to push the highlights.

As a point or order, and just to clear up some misconceptions: A high key image is one which is well exposed, shadowless, ro nearly so, and with very low dynamic range. It is essentially a well exposed, bright image; the stereotypical example is that of the bright, white background, but there are other types. There should be no pushing of the highlights, and in particular, there should be no blown highlights.

JC, I would say yours is on the way to being high-key, but it's a bit under-exposed.

Ken, yours, IMO, is just plain over-exposed.

Thanks. I'm working on it, just haven't dialed it in as of yet. I am going to keep trying. This was the first attempt. I can't re-shoot either, the flower took a turn for the worse in a day. I must have pissed it off last night.

I should add that I picked up my first monolight, a 400w and i haven't figured it out yet, very powerful considering what I have been working with so I have work to do.