c&c please, low key portrait,

[heavanslilangel]

Just looking for feedback really,
I ve recently been experimenting with off camera flash and took this in my living room in daylight. I underexposed for ambient light and lit his face from the side using wireless flash.
Im comming towards the end of my ncfe level 2 photography course and need to start preparing images for my final portfolio and was wondering if should add this one,Theres just something about it that i really like,
The genre im studying is portraiture.

 

[tirediron]

I have no idea of the standards for this course/certificate you're taking, but looking at the exposure, his cheek seems just a tad hot, not much, maybe 1/3 stop? Enough however that I don't see the level of detail in the skin I would expect. Based on that and his rather dis-interested expression, I would question it's value as a portfolio image.

 

[heavanslilangel]

How would you propose i fix the issue with his skin, I turned the flash power down as low as it would go, ............................maybe move the flash back a little?, keeping in mind that i dont want any light to spill into the background.
Also although my genre is portraiture, we have to base it sort of around a theme, so the idea is to capture moods/expressions within my portraits, be it sad,happy,angry,bored,thoughtful etc using diffrent types of light, i.e natural light, studio light, flash etc.
here is another that i took, the expression in the second image is supose to portray thoughtfulness/daydreaming

 

[Derrel]

I think the first shot, the skin on the highlight side is too "hot", and on the shadowed side, the light drops off very rapidly into total blackness. The image seems quite somber for such a young person. You're right--moving the flash back farther would very likely lower the intensity of the fall-off; moving a light source farther away lowers both the intensity of the light AND it also lowers the rate of fall-off. When a flash is placed very,very close to a person and aimed in at a steep angle as was done in Shot #1, like say 3 feet distant, the light is extremely "hot" on the close side of the face, and fairly "dark" on areas just a few inches farther away. The easiest suggestion would been to have used a large reflector to bounce a little fill-in light on to the shadowed side of his face. Re-processing the, using a more-gentle tone curve would possibly help.

The second shot, the profile, has a lovely rim light effect all around the face! Nifty. But the background's strong geometric diagonals...oh, those are so,so distracting and compete very strongly for attention. I like the lighting pattern on the boy's face more than I liked the lighting on the first shot. I think the thoughtfulness or daydreaming emotion the assignment called for portraying comes through in his expression. Perhaps you could smudge the background's geometric lines and create a better background.

 

[KenC]

It's not really "low key" because a lot of it is in the highlight range. It's really a high-contrast portrait.

The second is definitely worth some more processing effort.

 

[tirediron]

It's not really "low key" because a lot of it is in the highlight range. It's really a high-contrast portrait.

The second is definitely worth some more processing effort.

What'chew' talkin' 'bout Willis???? :scratch: That is absolutely a low key shot; black background, deep shadows.... most good low key shots are high contrast.

 

[KenC]

It's not really "low key" because a lot of it is in the highlight range. It's really a high-contrast portrait.

The second is definitely worth some more processing effort.

What'chew' talkin' 'bout Willis???? :scratch: That is absolutely a low key shot; black background, deep shadows.... most good low key shots are high contrast.

Something like this (low-key photograph definition of low-key photograph in the Free Online Encyclopedia.) is the definition I was taught, where low-key means having mostly dark tones and few light areas. This would be an image whose histogram is mostly to the left, with very little on the right, which does not describe the image in question. However, it appears that there are different definitions of this, and that some people approach this using a different one than I do, so in the future I probably should just go with however anyone characterizes an image.

 

[Derrel]

I think KenC's definition is the one most classically-trained artists were taught...but the definition KenC is working under has been...."modified" by common (mis-)usage. Same with all the white-background shots that people today mistakenly define as "high-key" shots...even though frequently what they are shooting is often a woman in dark clothes,with dark hair, wearing dark sunglasses, but shot against a blown-out-white backdrop that reads 255...they call it "high-key", but it's actually just "white backdrop"...

 

[heavanslilangel]

oh god,i ve started something now,hahahaha,
Right thankyou guys for all the positive critique, AND the tips on how to fix it, its really appreciated and taken on board.
Quick question though, how would i smudge/blur the diagonals in the second image, i have limited knowledge with photoshop. this may sound daft but would i add a blur and then bring back the subject,
For record i would call the first image low key, but you guys already know that, ;-)

 

[tirediron]

Something like this (low-key photograph definition of low-key photograph in the Free Online Encyclopedia.) is the definition I was taught, where low-key means having mostly dark tones and few light areas. This would be an image whose histogram is mostly to the left, with very little on the right, which does not describe the image in question. However, it appears that there are different definitions of this, and that some people approach this using a different one than I do, so in the future I probably should just go with however anyone characterizes an image.

Sorry Ken; I don't see it. I agree that the image-right side of the face is a bit hot, but I would still say that this fits that definition of a low-key shot.

I think KenC's definition is the one most classically-trained artists were taught...but the definition KenC is working under has been...."modified" by common (mis-)usage. Same with all the white-background shots that people today mistakenly define as "high-key" shots...even though frequently what they are shooting is often a woman in dark clothes,with dark hair, wearing dark sunglasses, but shot against a blown-out-white backdrop that reads 255...they call it "high-key", but it's actually just "white backdrop"...

Very true; agreed!