I THINK I GOT LOW KEY!!!

[JeffieLove]

These shots are underexposed. Make sure you check your histogram.

I'm not too good at using the histogram.. Would it work to just meter it?

I am going to be trying these again shortly after I get my kids settled in the playroom upstairs... I also need to find a candle from out in my garage to use

 

[Gaerek]

These shots are underexposed. Make sure you check your histogram.

I'm not sure the histogram is going to help much on these shots, honestly. Just due to the nature of lowkey, it's going to be mainly bunched up to the left. Having said that, I agree that the lit portions (that should be properly exposed) might be a tad bit underexposed, but that could very well be my uncalibrated work monitor also.

 

[JeffieLove]

since it has been mentioned, I can kind of see it too... But like I said, I am going to attempt these shortly... I'm going to try my hand at doing them during the day... I'm a bit uncomfortable with it, but need to get over it and just do it Much like a lot of other things I am a tad bit afraid of (like ISO)... lol

 

[JeffieLove]

Reshoot

I did these during the day and I am not sure if I totally got it yet, but it seems like improvement to me

This is where it started and I don't think this looks good, but thought I would post it just in case I'm wrong?

I had one light on camera right (same clamp light with the daylight rated CFL in it) level with the subject and in this picture I believe it was about a foot away... In the last one, the light is only about 4 inches away

I want you all to be honest with me (which I know the majority of the time, you all are) and if the first one is crap, tell me it's crap so I know I was right in thinking it looks like crap

 

[JeffieLove]

anyone?

 

[KmH]

Neither image is anywhere near compelling, which you already know.

Low key images still have enough light the subject is easily recognisable.

Low-key has a lot to do with the background.

Both of these images would best be called abstracts.

 

[JeffieLove]

oh jeebus! lol

I want to say I give up on low key lol... but I won't say it!

Are you saying the subject is not recognizable? It's pretty obvious to me (just by looking at the pic... not even that I know what it was...) that it's some sort of lamp...

What do I need to change on the background? Isn't it just supposed to be black?

 

[FattyMcJ]

On the reshoot, #1 is just flat too dark. #2 is better, but I think it's your light source. If it's only 4" away and it's still that dark you're either 1) Underexposing or 2) Going to need an off camera flash to create the light since the lamp isn't bright enough.

I'd try playing with the exposure a bit more.

 

[JeffieLove]

yeah - no chance in crap of me getting an off camera flash right now... I'm flat broke, laid off, and getting ready to go to school full time...

So, I did play with settings when I was doing these... It was suggested to leave the ISO as low as I could... So I did that and left it alone...

It was suggested that I use an aperture between f/8 and f/11...

If I made the shutter speed any slower, it would have been even more underexposed...

When I tried spot metering, it wouldn't say it was "properly" exposed until the whole lamp was lit up instead of just the one side of it...

I had to have the shutter speed where it was or else the entire subject was lit... The whole idea is for it to only be a portion of the subject lit up, right?

I'm trying to understand... I'm not trying to sound defensive (although I'm sure I do at this point because when I get frustrated, I get defensive ... not on purpose...) but I'm apparently just not getting it

grr.

 

[Aggressor]

Low key doesn't necessarily mean underexposed. These images are underexposed. To pull off low key successfully, you need to sculpt the light to cover just the parts of your subject you wish to light and expose correctly for those parts. The key idea here is that the light has to be directional. This can be done 2 ways:

1. Dark room (as in no light at all) with continuous light (flashlight, lamp, candle, whatever...)
- Point the light at your subject
- Mold the light with things such as black cards (subtractive fill) or white cards (additive fill)
- Expose for the lit area
- If you want more light on your subject, back off the shutter speed

2. "Typical indoor lighting" (ie. black frame when shooting at 1/200 or 1/250 depending on camera) using strobes with light modifiers
- Go to your max sync speed (1/200 or 1/250 for most cameras) to 'kill the ambient'
- Start at f/8 or f/11 if you're using speedlights to save juice
- Setup your strobe(s) to light the subject
- Sculpt the light (barndoors/snoots/gobos/your buddy/whatever)
- Fire away... If the parts you want lit are too dark, open up your aperture or move your strobes closer; do the reverse if its too light.

One other thing about low key is subject to background distance. If your background is still showing up in your shots, that means your light is spilling into there. Easiest thing to do is to move either your subject or background farther.

 

[FattyMcJ]

yeah - no chance in crap of me getting an off camera flash right now... I'm flat broke, laid off, and getting ready to go to school full time...

So, I did play with settings when I was doing these... It was suggested to leave the ISO as low as I could... So I did that and left it alone...

It was suggested that I use an aperture between f/8 and f/11...

If I made the shutter speed any slower, it would have been even more underexposed...

When I tried spot metering, it wouldn't say it was "properly" exposed until the whole lamp was lit up instead of just the one side of it...

I had to have the shutter speed where it was or else the entire subject was lit... The whole idea is for it to only be a portion of the subject lit up, right?

I'm trying to understand... I'm not trying to sound defensive (although I'm sure I do at this point because when I get frustrated, I get defensive ... not on purpose...) but I'm apparently just not getting it

grr.

First...

Camera Maker: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XSi
Image Date: 2010:03:11 12:13:52
Focal Length: 44.0mm
Aperture: f/8.0
Exposure Time: 0.020 s (1/50)
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Spot
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual
White Balance: Manual
Flash Fired: No
Color Space: sRGB

Second...

If I made the shutter speed any slower, it would have been even more underexposed...

I'm not sure if you got your term backwards or truly believe this. Slower shutter speeds don't "under" expose, they allow more light IN, thus lead to "OVER" exposures. Which...is the direction you want to go with this reshoot IMO (purely talking technical, not about the subject matter).

You're using a tripod, so slower shutter speeds are a non-issue. Forget the meter for this. You need to trust your eye a bit more. Using the EXIF data you have above, you have a starting point. Now, keep the f/stop the same, the ISO the same and drop the shutter speed in 1/3 stop increments until you get the desired effect. Or to even further simplify it, just go down in 1/10th increments. Try 1/40sec, then 1/30sec, etc.

The "Correct Exposure" isn't always the "Creatively Correct Exposure" as Bryan Peterson says.

Also, try B&W.

 

[FattyMcJ]

Just playing around in PS. It's better, but not as good as it could be if done right in camera. Maybe this gives you a better idea, dunno.

 

[JeffieLove]

i got it backwards because I was typing faster than I was thinking I know a slower shutter speed means more light

I actually had considered converting to BW... but didn't want to do that until I know I had the "exposure" and "lighting" working right

 

[JeffieLove]

With this reshoot do you all think it would be better if I reflected the light? I can't afford an off camera flash right now or strobes or anything for that matter. I dint think dominantly would have given us this assignment if we couldn't do it with the supplies he listed in the thread when he started the school

 

[bazooka]

On my monitor, I could not identify the subject in the first shot. The second shot I could see something, but still couldn't identify it until I read what it was.

Take a look at this shot... http://www.howitookit.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/low_key1.jpg It is properly exposed. If you looked at the histogram, you would see that the highlights are nicely stacked near the right edge, but not clipping. The shadows will be clipped, but that's intended for these types of shots.

I suggest doing a google search for low-key light images and seeing how theirs differs from yours. Yours are simply underexposed. If you properly exposed, it looks like you might have non-lit parts of the subject showing up which is not what you want. So I'm thinking you may need a bigger light. Walmart has 500w halogen floor lights for about $20... This effort is very much about light control.