4
\$\begingroup\$

Christophe Caudroy Hong Kong

I was wondering if anybody could tell me how this photo effect was achieved? Or is it an effect or filter that is applied after the photo has been taken?

It looks almost negative, but it isn't.

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ which effect are you talking about? \$\endgroup\$
    – ths
    Dec 14, 2014 at 21:38
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ everything is more fluorescent than usual, and I'm sure this was taken at night? but the sky is not dark.. the picture looks almost like its in negative, except if it was then the lights would be black... does this make sense? haha \$\endgroup\$
    – Celeste
    Dec 14, 2014 at 23:13
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ i would assume this was simply taken in the early morning, with a relatively long exposure. \$\endgroup\$
    – ths
    Dec 14, 2014 at 23:39

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
1
\$\begingroup\$

My guess is that this is a composite of two or more pictures. One was taken at night when the lights were on. This is where the artificial lights in the picture come from. Another exposure was taken when there was more daylight. This is where the light sky and illumination of large flat areas that weren't bathed in artificial light came from.

I disagree this is from a single long exposure at night. Such a single exposure does not account for the fact that many large and flat surfaces are evenly illuminated, which they almost certainly are not from the night-time artifical lights. For examples, see the concrete wall of the building in the lower left corner, or the one facing towards us and to the right of the building at the bottom and little left of center. These are way to bright and too evenly lit for artifical lights to be the illumination source. There also seems to be no plausible source for aritifical lights onto those surfaces.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ not at night, but in the morning (so the lights are still on), on an overcast day. \$\endgroup\$
    – ths
    Dec 15, 2014 at 18:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ths: The relative brightnesses of the lights and unlit areas seem wrong for this. At that ratio, people wouldn't have the lights on. Also, if you try to do this at twilight, evening would be a better time than morning since more artificial lights will be on then. \$\endgroup\$
    – Olin Lathrop
    Dec 15, 2014 at 18:52
0
\$\begingroup\$

I'd say it's just the light pollution hitting the fog and smoke in the air. Exagerated by the long exposure needed to get the buildings that bright.

But you might want to ask the artist himself: http://caudroy.fr/gallery-category/projects/#hong-kong

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
-1
\$\begingroup\$

This isn't 'high-key'. That term applies to photographs containing mostly things that are light-colored, such as snow, not the overall lightness or darkness of the photograph itself. An overexposed photo of a coal yard is still low-key, and an underexposed photo of a snow-covered field is still high key, even if the photos have a similar brightness. In summary: 'low key' refers to dark objects or surfaces, and 'high key' refers to light objects or surfaces, regardless of the exposure. A black cat in a coal yard is a low-key photo, no matter how you expose it.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ This might be ok as a comment to the question, but doesn't answer it. The question is how to achieve the effect. If you want to answer the following question, it asks the definition of high key and I suspect you'll disagree with the answers, so you can give an alternative one if you choose: photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10232/… \$\endgroup\$
    – MikeW ♦
    Jan 14, 2015 at 19:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.