High Key Portraits - Tips? Books?

[bvy]

I'm looking for advice and examples of high key portraits on film -- specifically tips for lighting, developing and printing.To give you an idea of the look I'm trying to achieve, I found this blogger who does some nice medium format work on XP2. Unfortunately, she is showing us scans and not prints...
http://camajtv.blogspot.com/2012/08/xp2-portraits.html

I'd especially be interested in book recommendations. A lot of what I'm seeing here and elsewhere on the web is interesting, but mostly anecdotal and not backed up with examples or by people claiming to have a regular workflow.

Thanks.

 

[smieglitz]

High Key portraits involve light subject matter. You should not have to adapt exposure or development. The only change to lighting you might want to make is to independently light a white background and adjust the background lights to overexpose it two stops relative to the main subject exposure to make the background blank white, if that is indeed the tone you wish to have there.

Otherwise, everything technical should be just done normally. Normal exposure. Normal development. You want normal accent dark tones (e.g., like the iris of the eyes) in limited area to be present.

Think of it this way. If you want to photograph a chessboard that has 32 white squares and 32 black squares and you use a normal exposure and development, you will get normal reproduction of white and black squares (assuming you have calibrated your process to give you "normal"). The reflectance of the squares is going to average out to be a middle gray meter reading, and though not technically "middle key" as there are no actual middle gray tones present, for argument sake you'd get the same reading off a gray card which would be a middle key subject. For the discussion though, assume you use an incident meter at the subject position with identical light falling on the subject in the three examples. Following the incident meter reading (or a reflected gray card reading) you will get the proper tonality of white and black squares reproduced if you expose and develop normally.

Now, if you only had 1 black square and 63 whites squares in the same light and gave the same exposure and development as before (and the incident meter reading was the same although a reflected meter reading would be vastly different), you would again get proper tonal reproduction and would have a high key picture because of the predominance of light tones in the subject. The white squares would be white and the black square would be black. But the picture would be high key.

Similarly, if there was only 1 white square and 63 black squares and you gave the same normal exposure and development as in the first two instances, you'd get proper tonal reproduction and end up with a low key picture, again due to the subject matter.

Middle, low & high key portrait examples of the same person:

 

[gone]

Even if you're viewing prints on a computer monitor, you're viewing scanned prints. It's probably more informative to view the scanned negs, as that's your raw data right there. Your prints are gonna be all over the place, depending on how they were processed, what type of paper and filtration was used, etc. What you see on any image, and what I see, depend on our monitors, and they're all a little different. Some are a lot different. So all we're looking for is a basic idea. I use a Sony Trinitron CRT monitor, my wife has one of those new fangled flat screen thingies. The same images look very different on them.

Those images you linked to should be easy to duplicate if you use decent lighting and similar film and subjects. Who knows what they look like in real life anyway? I'm not crazy about two of the portraits above (because there's no accounting for personal taste) but really like the middle image, even though that's not what you're after. I do a lot of portraits, and one thing that's for real is it's all about your subject. The other stuff is important, but secondary. Give me an old fuzzy grab shot of Sophia Loren over a professional studio shot of Phylis Diller any day. Don't take my comment personally smieglitz, I don't like 99% of my own work.

Want to have some fun? Take a sitter, put them in the same place in the same light, and shoot them w/ the same film and lens by moving around them as you shoot at different angles and slightly different distances. Use at least 2 rolls of film (3 or 4 is ideal), then process them exactly the same way. Every single image will be different, and some won't necessarily even look like the same person! Why? Reality is not fixed, it's ever changing moment by moment, and unless we stop the flow of time w/ a shutter, our eyes and brain are so accustomed to these subtle changes that we tune them out. Right now my CRT monitor is flickering like crazy but I don't see it unless I turn my head to the side. That's the wonderful thing about art. We find out very quickly that once we get us out of the way, and just observe what's in front of us, that none of what we see is really there. It's not at all what it looks like, it's just what it looks like to YOU at that particular instant in time. To ME, it looks somewhat different, and it will look different tomorrow, the next day, etc. This really, really, bothers some people that like things to stay the same way. They will often get very obstructive and disagreeable. Many people on the internet are like this, to one degree or another. It's how differences in perceptions lead to arguments. Our state of mind and memories can greatly alter our perception of visual realty as well.

 

[bvy]

Interesting discussion. Thoughts on high key portraiture seem to range from "bring in a blonde dressed in white, overexpose the background, and do everything normally" to "one big light on camera axis, under/over expose, push/pull develop, print at grade 4 or 5." Last night (after I posted) I found an article online from a very old issue of Popular Photography. The photographer demonstrated his ability to make a high key print from any negative (within reason). His technique entailed a lot of dodging of the background, and pulling the print from the developer and continuing developing locally (in the eyes mainly) with cotton and developer.

Smieglitz, I like your third example. How did you light it?

 

[Jim Jones]

Generous film exposure facilitates high key printing. Desired shadow detail should be above the toe of the film response curve.

 

[kintatsu]

A couple thoughts, more than anything.

You don't have to be limited to a white cloth background. Light backgrounds, even outside, when overexposed work nicely. Sometimes, that means using a higher speed flash for good exposure on the subject to balance it all out.

Don't be afraid to overexpose your background, the trick is the balance.

I may not have expressed it well, but those thoughts have helped me when I've shot high key.

http://archive.org has some good photography books on there that should help you get what you want.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

You can get a look such as those examples by shooting on the shadow side of a building, using open sky to light it. I've got a few examples of this look in my Rodeo gallery on my site. This is how Avedon shot his "In the American West" series, and most of his portraits outside of the studio.

Definitely bump up the exposure a 1/2 stop and give extra development. What you want to do is take the flat light and expand it into a greater range of tones. Have fun.

 

[cliveh]

As the OP mentioned XP2, I would comment that it is an advantage for high key, as grain is more noticeable in the highlights and if you don't want grain XP2 doesn't have any.

 

[jeztastic]

I have got a similar effect using HP5+. I put a flash behind a white paper backdrop. Then I split grade printed, testing the grade 0 exposure till it showed the faintest of faint exposure on the background. Then test strip grade 5 till the blacks look right. I suspect there are other ways to do this without split grade printing. The key to success was in the lighting exposure, as one would expect.

I developed the HP5 at box speed, which helped too.

 

[smieglitz]

Smieglitz, I like your third example. How did you light it?

I bounced a photoflood into the ceiling. There was some ambient light coming from a small window about 10' away from the subject, but the main illumination was the bounced light from the ceiling.

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

Kodak publication O-4 from the early 1960s.

 

[doughowk]

Thanks, Christopher, for the suggestion. I ordered a copy of the 0-4 publication.
For the occasional high-key image that I want, I do as suggested earlier - white background lit at 2 stops above the subject.

 

[removed account4]

Generous film exposure facilitates high key printing. Desired shadow detail should be above the toe of the film response curve.

i can't respond to the film curve comments ( because i am clueless )
but ... for high key i tend to
over expose a little bit and over develop a little bit
it gives a nice high key effect.

 

[cowanw]

Fred Archer writes
High key is not obtained by making an overexposed and underdeveloped flat, dense negative. Or by over printing and under developing the print in a diluted developer...
The key of the picture is governed by the subject matter and brought out by lighting... a subject with values that are predominantly light... The difference in value between our highlight and shadow should be very close-1 stop to 1/2 stop and our lighting should throw no dark shadows... read the highlight side of the face and place the reading on the C position.(this would be as if reading Zone 6, I think) normal development

 

[cliveh]

Fred Archer writes
High key is not obtained by making an overexposed and underdeveloped flat, dense negative. Or by over printing and under developing the print in a diluted developer...
The key of the picture is governed by the subject matter and brought out by lighting... a subject with values that are predominantly light... The difference in value between our highlight and shadow should be very close-1 stop to 1/2 stop and our lighting should throw no dark shadows... read the highlight side of the face and place the reading on the C position.(this would be as if reading Zone 6, I think) normal development

How about under printing and normal development? Although I understand lighting is the main effect.

 

[smieglitz]

How about under printing and normal development? Although I understand lighting is the main effect.

If there woould be any deviation from normal exposure and development with a high key subject, I would think the second-best strategy would be to very slightly underexpose the film and overdevelop it to boost the contrast. Under printing, overexposure of the film, underdevelopment of the film without overdeveloping, etc., will only lead to lower contrast and grayer prints. Low values will only be dark gray with underprinting and I don't think that will result in the desired effect in most cases. The little bit of accent black tone in high key adds to the sparkle.

 

[M Carter]

I guess I've always thought of "high key" as being much more about the subject, styling, and setting/background vs. technique-focused (beyond the obvious lighting choices of course).

That said, when I want a very bright, soft-white look, my usual technique is:

2 c-stands with 10' of conduit across them, 8' high;
Drape with diffusion, giving me a 10x8 "panel" of diffusion;
Put several heads behind this, often diffused themselves (maybe as many as 6 in a grid).

With 3 stands, I can make a "V" with the camera at the apex and the sides surrounding the talent, and I can boost lighting on one side if I want a subtle since of directionality to the light. With the 2-stand setup, it could be a wall behind camera or slanted to one side. (When I owned a decent sized studio, I just had a big conduit track on the ceiling grid).

If the hair and apparel call for it, I may use a head with a big grid from behind, or even a fresnel, etc.

Those big sizes are for full-length, fashion or catalogue type shots (and they allow a good deal of freedom of movement for the talent)… head and shoulders one could go smaller, but for soft light you still need pretty BIG light, as close as possible to the subject… a c-stand and boom with diffusion draped over the arm will still give you about a 3' wide by 8' tall "panel".

 

[cliveh]

If there woould be any deviation from normal exposure and development with a high key subject, I would think the second-best strategy would be to very slightly underexpose the film and overdevelop it to boost the contrast. Under printing, overexposure of the film, underdevelopment of the film without overdeveloping, etc., will only lead to lower contrast and grayer prints. Low values will only be dark gray with underprinting and I don't think that will result in the desired effect in most cases. The little bit of accent black tone in high key adds to the sparkle.

I beg to differ. I am not referring to film development, which could be normal as could the exposure. I am referring to print under exposure and normal print development.

 

[smieglitz]

I beg to differ. I am not referring to film development, which could be normal as could the exposure. I am referring to print under exposure and normal print development.

And I'm saying print underdevelopment will result in not achieving a maximum black accent tone anywhere. The print would then go from a dark or middle gray tone to white and not present the entire scale. That's OK in certain images but most high key images benefit from having a small amount of accent black somewhere in the scene, IMO. YMMV. But, full development is needed to produce that maximum black tone. I've done both in order to achieve what I've felt is the proper tonal distribution in a high key image.

I understand what you are saying but I don't agree with your strategy in most instances. I would not recommend your technique as SOP, only under certain circumstances. And I interpret the OP as wanting to first learn about a standard technique rather than a sometimes useful variation of that technique. You are describing one of those useful variations.

Attached is my original example of a high key image with accent blacks next to a manipulated version that would represent print underdevelopment with the same image. I much prefer the full tonal scale.

IIRC, White, Zakia and Lorenz' "The New Zone System Manual" provides some visual comparisons between subjects printed using partial as well as full print scales. Might be worth a look...

 

[cliveh]

And I'm saying print underdevelopment will result in not achieving a maximum black accent tone anywhere. The print would then go from a dark or middle gray tone to white and not present the entire scale.

I never mentioned print underdevelopment.

 

[doughowk]

In a book on David Bailey (Birth of the Cool) there are a couple of high-key portraits. He used a lighting tent - a technique borrowed from his mentor, Robert French. The maximum size I've seen is 48" cube on B&H, so I presume a scaled-up version is not commercially available. But the results from such a tent appear worth the effort to create/improvise it.

 

[smieglitz]

I never mentioned print underdevelopment.

Oops. Sorry, I misread your posts.

However, print underexposure with normal print development will still result in the absence of an accent black in the print. It will probably also remove some highlight detail at the other end as well. The result would be from dark/middle gray lowest print values to blank white and some lighter than normal threshold gray highlights, another low contrast variation. I usually prefer the normal full tonal scale in most print images whether they are high, middle or low key images. Again, YMMV.

FWIW, I have in my collection several images including my own and those of other photographers that are high key and do not exhibit the full black-to-white tonal range in the print. They are wonderful images and fit the subject matter well (including portraits, still-life, and landscape), but are not the norm in regard to high key technique.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

even soft light
overexpose
overdevelop
print light

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

High-key photos aren't a difficult science. There are just a few basic things to adjust and those are individually subject to the desired end result.

smieglitz... per your post below... no problem. I hope my reply wasn't received as negative in any way.

 

[cliveh]

Oops. Sorry, I misread your posts.

However, print underexposure with normal print development will still result in the absence of an accent black in the print. It will probably also remove some highlight detail at the other end as well. The result would be from dark/middle gray lowest print values to blank white and some lighter than normal threshold gray highlights, another low contrast variation.

No, it preserves the black, but brightens highlights and mid tones (depending of course on the extent of the under exposure, which is a critical factor).