ethan_haun

<p>A few posters have posted to say that I am confused. I want to address this a bit. I am NOT confused. I know exactly how most peple define the terms, which is opposite to what I was taught. My point is that not I am confused and need to be straighten out. Rather, I just disagree.</p> <p>I reckon that the word "key" as people use it in this context, refer not to the key light. Instead, it refers to the overall "feel" of the scene. The words "high" and "low" as people use them in this context, refer not to "level" of the light. Rather, they refer to the overall "mood" of the scene -- "high" as in an "upbeat mood" and "low" as in a "down mood". <em><strong>I knew that and I said that exactly in the OP</strong></em> -- that most people use the terms to refer to the mood of the scene.</p> <p>This is all good. I am <strong>NOT</strong> advocating anyone to change their beloved jargon they have been using. I just think that this maybe an interesting discussion, that's all. In any discipline and trade, there are terms that beg the question, "Why do they call it blah balh, it doesn't make sense." To me the "high key", "low key" terms are one of those terms. You may disagree, but that's cool too.</p> <p>At the end of the day, in the real world, it really doesn't matter. As long as you are able to achieve the lighting effect you've envisioned and set out to achieve, what difference does it made what it is called, right? :)</p>

<p>If the edge numbers and letters are thin, then, more likely than not, it is under-development. In old films, you'd see a lot of base fogging. Seems to me that the lab has messed up. It's one thing that a lab makes a mistake (even the best labs do occasionally). But it's another thing that they either don't know or don't admit the mistake. I won't use them again.</p>

<p>@Mike Dixon. Very interesting discussion you linked to. Reading through it. Thank you for sharing.</p>

<p>Just for the sake of discussion, I do think the definition I learned (be it "right" or "wrong") makes more sense for two reasons:</p> <p>1) We usually use the term "low key" to describe something that is non-dramatic, mellow, inconspicuous. This is exactly the opposite of the dramatic scene "low-key lighting" is producing.</p> <p>2) Isn't it more natural and straight forward to directly refer to the key-to-fill ratio? High-key for high key-to-fill ratio and low-key for low key-to-fill ratio. It seems backward to say that high-key means low key-to-fill ratio and vice versa.</p> <p>The 2 points above were what I was taught at college more than 20 years ago,</p>

<p>Well then, maybe there were 2 different ways of defining the terms back then and one way eventually won. IDK. I know that was the definition I was taught at school ... but then again, my teachers could have been wrong. But as mentioned, I remember years ago, I read the very same discussion in another forum and the conclusion in the thread was that the definition changed over the years.<br> No biggy, it's a not a serious topic ... I was reading another thread regarding "high-key" lighting and it reminded me of this question I've had for years. That's all.</p>

Listen man, are you serious? Are you suggesting that I make this up just so I can have an argument on a Internet forum? Don't know how old you are but I am talking about 20 some years ago. There were no Internet back then. I don't have my text books or recording of the classes when I went to college. So I can't prove it nor would I spend the time to try to search for it. You just have to take my words for it. I understand that things change over time. It's cool. Again, it is not a serious topic, I just find it interesting how it changed. That's all.

@Michael, I think my writing is not confusing. But I guess it is a matter of opinion. And, I am not confused. I KNOW the definition being used in the past 10 or so years and it is exactly as you say. What I am saying though, if you read my post, is that back 20 years or so ago, the terms were actually defined in the exactly opposite way. BACK THEN, high key was short for high key-to-fill ratio and low key was short for low key-to-fill ratio. This is of course opposite to how they are today but to me the old way makes a whole lot more sense. This is not a serious topic. I am just chatting. No need to get all passionate about it.

<p>@Michael, you should read my post again ... seems to me you have missed quite a bit of what I said in the post.</p>

<p>When I first learned photography and lighting back in the 70's the two techniques were defined by the Key-to-Fill Ratio. A high Key-to-Fill Ratio is called (naturally) as "High Key Lighting" vs. a low Key-to-Fill Ratio is called (obviously) "Low Key Lighting". This makes sense to me. <br> Over the decades, I don't know when, the 2 terms have switched places. What photographers these days call an overall soft, evenly lit, shadowless shot a "High Key" shot even though to achieve this look, you actually need to keep the Key-to-Fill Ratio low. Vice versa for the "Low Key" shot. This doesn't make sense to me.<br> I remember may be 10, 15 years ago, I saw a forum discussion on this very same subject. The conclusion there was that the terms "High key", "Low Key" no longer refer to the Key-to-Fill Ratio anymore. Instead, they refer to the "mood" generally associated with the lighting effect. A high Key-to-Fill Ratio shot, as in Film Noir, produces that "moody" look; hence "Low Key". Whereas, a low Key-to-Fill Ratio shot produces that "upbeat" look; hence, "High Key".<br> What do you guys think? </p>

<p>I see the value for a BIG event photography type companies. Those operation shoot up to thousands of photos during a big event. That can be a valuable tool for them. Beyond that, I don't think it's all that desirable. It'll work if you market it to the right audience. Good luck with your business endeavor ... we need more independent entrepreneurs.</p>

<p>Thank you guys. Very good info here. I'll definitely try the tips given here for both methods. It'll be a while b4 I have the time to rig 1 of my enlargers into a proper and decent copy apparatus for the camera method. But I will report back my experience. </p>

<p>@Les Sarile, I don't have a "position" and I am NOT advocating one method over another. I am certainly not debating b/c I have a preference for a particular method.</p> <p>As mentioned, I have always been a "film guy". I have scanned quite a lot of film before, using both dedicated film scanner and flatbed with TMA. Not a master, but I have also mentioned I rate myself as having mid-level skill in term of scanning. I have not done any digital camera copy before, although I have quite a bit of experence with the analogue copy- and inter-negatives process.</p> <p>My goal here in this thread is to get as much information as I can before I start my digitizing project. Personally, I only care what gives me the best result within my own limitations and priorities. Other than that, I don't care.</p>

<p>@ Les Sarile, I am truly sorry if I have given you the wrong impression. I am familiar with ICE and other dust-scratch removal algorithm and what they do; how they do it and the effect thereof on the image. As I mentioned b4, this is the reason I don't count having dust-scratch removal algorithm built-in an advantage for me as I do the removal post-scan.</p> <p>I understand every person has his/her own priority. For me? I just can't stand soft image. It's a major beef for me. Sure, I know I can sharpen post-scan, but it is not the same and I'd rather to have an image as sharp as it can be to begin with and apply as little sharpening as I can avoid it. Your priority may be different but that's cool.</p> <p>Actually, your examples are pretty consistent with other examples I have seen online, which is that camera copy does seem to produce sharper image than with using flatbed TMA or even dedicated film scanner. Do you concur?</p>

<p>@Les Sarile, I am unsure of what you want to show me by the examples you posted (and I am NOT being sarcastic).</p> <p>If your point is that ICE does a good job removing dust and scratch, I agree, it does, but I already know that and are not debating it at all.</p> <p>If your point is that ICE removes dust and scratches without softening the scan, then, I have to strongly disagree. To my eyes at least, in each example, the camera copy version is quite noticeably sharper than the Coolscan versions, even the Coolscan without ICE. The scans with ICE on "Fine" are worse in term of sharpness among the bunch.</p>

<p>How about wet-mounting? Does wet-mounting (for dust-scratch removal) soften the scan?</p>