[mattyb]

Anyone ever do any low key photography? I tried it for the first time last night with this photography club that I'm a member of. The effect is really quite nice. Especially when the subject is a very attractive nude woman.

What really threw me was the use of manual AND the fact that you don't want it properly exposed.

I suppose thats the next step on my photography learning ladder : when to break the rules (not that I've mastered the rules yet but anyway).

I had never been that interested in it before, but I understand the appeal of studio work now. You can really 'create' a photo instead of just 'taking' a photo. Now all I need is a room where I can setup a small studio, plus an equipment budget of course.

[Thorzdad]

I think you've hit upon one aspect of photography that has been lost in the transition from film to digital. Film really did make you consider each shot, and helped develop an eye for such details or setups. With no Photoshop, you really did have to think ahead about the shot (unless, you were a touchup master, of course)

In my first job out of college, I art-directed a lot of studio photography. Mostly table-top set-ups for home goods. I learned a lot about how to manipulate light and shadow to achieve the look and feel we were after. We shot large-format 4x3, so we certainly couldn't waste film.

[andi*pandi]

I've never tried it on purpose, but it is very dramatic.

[Demonhood]

Quite dramatic. I've never played around with that particular style. At least, not intentionally.

I've started getting back into random photo projects (last week - blood!) so maybe this will be next on my agenda.

[mattyb]

A bit of post in Aperture, someone said that the forehead was a bit shiny, but I like it the way it is.



The nude ones were good as well, but if I'm honest, I like the portrait ones more.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

In my first job out of college, I art-directed a lot of studio photography. Mostly table-top set-ups for home goods. I learned a lot about how to manipulate light and shadow to achieve the look and feel we were after. We shot large-format 4x3, so we certainly couldn't waste film.

That sort of experience is (IMHO) unable to be taught.

[Demonhood]

What kind of lighting setup did you use for your shots mattyb? I'm thinking of purchasing some inexpensive grids for my Canon flash (as opposed to some expensive grids for my large strobes).

[mattyb]

Sorry to say that I have no idea what they were. Two lights, 'student budget' was what the guy that brought the equipment said. I shall try and get some decent info.

Uh, what's a grid?

[Demonhood]

It's like a honeycomb. A method for changing the width of the light from your strobe. Example: Using A Cooling Honeycomb As A DIY Gridspot | DIYPhotography.net

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Anyone ever do any low key photography? I tried it for the first time last night with this photography club that I'm a member of. The effect is really quite nice. Especially when the subject is a very attractive nude woman.

What really threw me was the use of manual AND the fact that you don't want it properly exposed.

I suppose thats the next step on my photography learning ladder : when to break the rules (not that I've mastered the rules yet but anyway).

I had never been that interested in it before, but I understand the appeal of studio work now. You can really 'create' a photo instead of just 'taking' a photo. Now all I need is a room where I can setup a small studio, plus an equipment budget of course.

Of course you expose properly: on the areas that you want to be seen. You can later darken it as much as you like.

You need to use the sensor's dynamic range if you want to get good detail. The darker an image area, the less detail you have (it's exponential growth/decrease).

This is why there is "expose to the right", where you expose as much as possible without blowing important areas of the image out to white.

PS: if the subject is a very attractive, nude woman, any key (high key, low key) would be nice, as long as it unlocks her chastity belt...

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

I think you've hit upon one aspect of photography that has been lost in the transition from film to digital. Film really did make you consider each shot, and helped develop an eye for such details or setups. With no Photoshop, you really did have to think ahead about the shot (unless, you were a touchup master, of course).

That's the paradox of physical film-it's a limited resource so you have to be careful and make each exposure count, but that in itself limits your practice with the camera. I have a couple of boxes (pretty big ones) full of negatives and prints, about 75% of which are "not really good at all" photos. The cream aren't half bad and some are really spectacular, but it was a matter of buying plenty of film and cringing when it came time to get it all processed. Which, I'm slightly embarrassed to say, I haven't actually gotten finished with...

Now if I could just find a reasonably affordable way to get thousands of negatives scanned at ultra-high resolution, I might have a chance of making use of all of that shutter time.

Here's an example of relatively low key lighting (accidental in this case; I just loved the look) with a color photo:

[Demonhood]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Now if I could just find a reasonably affordable way to get thousands of negatives scanned at ultra-high resolution, I might have a chance of making use of all of that shutter time.

I didn't have thousands (more like a couple hundred), but I took them to Costco to get scanned many years back. Comparing the quality of the scanned negatives versus the scanned prints always astounds me (it shouldn't, but it's just so striking a difference in quality).

[ghporter]

I may just have a reason to join Costco now. If the local store still does negative scanning. Dedicated photo/video houses here tend to be extremely proud of their services. And I do have lots and lots of scanning to get done.