Low key or just underexposed

[Reschsmooth]

I had in mind to take some very, very low key shots of a couple of objects, presented below.

With the knife, I wanted to focus on the edge and underexpose the rest.

C&C appreciated - did they work?

Wedding Bouquet


Knife

[chrisk]

#1: Perfect, flawless, wonderful.
#2: If you wanted to focus on the edge then you metered perfectly and its not underexposed at all. I just dont much like the shot.

[Matt. K]

I have always liked dark and moody but it is difficult to create something that stands out using this technique. I think the knife shot would be a better image if it had a lot more DOF. I'd like to see the texture of the blade. To focus on a specular highlight (the cutting edge), really gives us nothing to look at because highlights by definition are usually overexposed and have no detail.

[surenj]

#1 is nicely done but I can't identify the subject easily even after you tell me what it is. You could bump the contrast a very small amount.

#2 I am little puzzled how you lit this? how many lights?? I quite like it but perhaps a bit more DOF as Matt suggested.

Perhaps a if you want low key, you could use cross lighting(to highlight form) with a ring/softbox fill (from above). I guess by low key, I understand that it's correctly exposed for the lit areas (by the key light, not fill) but has a overall darker tones.

Very interesting study Patrick.

[biggerry]

Patrick, the reason the second image does not look quite right, imo, is the composition and positioning of the knife - maybe try with the knife handle towards the bottom of the frame, more so it looks like the viewer is gonna pick it up. At the moment it just looks like a picture of a knife, no story, no emotion, nothing to connect to the viewer.

The shown composition would work if there was a hand on teh handle also!

hth.

[Reschsmooth]

Appreciate the feedback, gentlemen.

Regarding the knife, the composition is designed to give a sense of danger by pointing the knife at the viewer and keeping the handle in the shadows where someone could be lurking. Perhaps a bit of a stretch...

I agree, greater depth of field would have aided the image.


Suren, to answer your questions:

1. Image 1 is of an old wedding bouquet that has succumbed to age. Lit with a strip light held above and to the front.
2. Image 2 was lit with a strip light held behind the knife (so effectively facing back to the camera) and angled to try to create the specular highlights on the edge of the blade.

[surenj]

Perhaps a bit of a stretch...

Perhaps, although I would definitely favour a hand somewhere.. You could also do a silhoutte of a person in the distant background to add some context I guess. Maybe a little bit of blood....

Thanks for the lighting info Patrick. Objects with high specularity baffle me quite often...

[malificentmuse]

I quite like these low keys pictures, for me, low key lighting seem like more of a way to accentuate on the abstract nature of the subject which has been accomplished quite well here.

[Reschsmooth]

Perhaps a bit of a stretch...

Perhaps, although I would definitely favour a hand somewhere.. You could also do a silhoutte of a person in the distant background to add some context I guess. Maybe a little bit of blood....

You're probably right, but I wanted more ambiguity. To me, what is unknown is more 'dangerous' than the known. What's more dangerous, the murderer lurking in the dark, where you don't know he is there or how many, or the one you can see in bright light? Know what I mean?