photographing your work

[teocaf]

Eric, in the spirit of constructive criticism, this photo of yours would be a prime candidate for the PC (perspective control) or as someone else called it (tilt shift) lens.  it would help align the columns vertically instead of showing them "falling over".  you might be able to get the same thing with setting the camera level with the midway point between floor and ceiling.
the lighting though, looks great and nicely balanced, which i imagined took some work to do.
compositionally, it might make it more interesting if all the chairs were not lined up--perhaps the one second to last on the right was at an angle as if someone had just left sitting there.  that's of course up to personal taste, and the client's desires of course.  but i would have suggested it to give them an option for a little bit more dynamic look.
I would have also preferred a higher angle to see the bar top but then of course you're dealing with shooting straight on into a mirror so that presents its own problems.  one possible solution would be for the client to place a prop or something non-reflective at the base of the mirror--something interesting that looks like it would belong there.

 

[Paul G]

There is a lot of good information here… and that may be problematic for someone (

 

[es07Eric]

Yes, I also captured this using a 17mm TSE however, it was simply, for the lack of better terms flat and almost sterile and looked amateur (which to me is counterintuitive [huh] as it takes 5 minutes just to align a tilt shift lens). 

This whole room however, was captured using the 17mm TSE as the difference in depths created an almost random distribution of column angles (I hope that conveys and is understandable) as the columns furthest away had a different angle than the columns closer to me.

The lighting was three Elinchrom strobes.  If you look really closely, and pay attention to the shadows, their location will reveal themselves  [tongue]  The bar was flanked using two Rotalux gridded soft boxes and the fill was dead center behind me using a hooded octal box. 

I do agree with you on the chairs, and you're right it is a matter of personal taste.  I do enjoy capturing an engaging image and a chair, just as you've described it would create visual tension in a positive way!

As for the mirror, It was not shot straight on for two reasons,

one, well, it's a mirror and my ugly mug would be smack dab right in the middle of it, i know that it could have been taken out in post but shooting this angle with a wide angle lens created the "engagement" that I lacked in the rest of the composition.

two, there's a TV behind the mirror, it's one of those fancy Seura displays with a LCD behind a mirror.  There is another shot that shows the TV live!

I know it's hard to take one shot out of context as the more you have the better the story.  I do however believe in creating a strong composition in which a single photo can stand on its own out of context and series.

I appreciate the reply and input!  Now let's help you guys with your pictures so you can make money on the areas in which you are truly masters!

Cheers,
Eric

 

[es07Eric]

There is a lot of good information here… and that may be problematic for someone (

 

[Paul G]

You're welcome. I completely understand your point about the 'corrected' shift image looking flat. Great for documenting an object or space but can hamper the sizzle at times.

 

[alkaline]

Eric is right my friend. Need to see a specific thing so that we can move forward.
A couple of my habits for interior:
- I shoot at the widest focal length in combination with the FX format.
- I often use flash
- I shoot RAW files for further edits
- The exposure triangle can be seen in the accompanying demonstrations

I wish you much success

[wink]

p.s. titl shift lens is not a necessity, I would rather invest in a good flash and a tripod head with micro adjustment

 

[Paul G]

p.s. titl shift lens is not a necessity, I would rather invest in a good flash and a tripod head with micro adjustment

Regarding tripod heads, Manfrotto 410 or 405 are hard to beat for architectural photography.

As for lighting, oh my is that a deep yet utterly necessary tangent for architectural photography. Flash is an intimidating thing for photo noobs. We're not talking that little pop-up thingy on an entry level SLR. Flashes need to be off camera, often using multiple heads, often with diffusion devices attached and using stands. Also have to address the issues of color temperature and intensity of the ambient light (if any), be it a window (and the time of day and cloud cover) or the artificial lighting (be it incandescent, fluorescent or LED) and worse yet is a combination of them all. There you will be adjusting the ambient light using your shutter speed relative to your flash output to get the desired intensity balance.  And balancing the color temps takes using color shifting gels on the light sources or doing each light source as a separate image and recombine in photoshop. The good news in all this complexity is how MUCH easier it is to get a handle on it using digital vs film.

As far as cameras go, if you want great images you'll need to go beyond your cell phone or entry level cameras. Those can be useful in a pinch but don't come close to offering the features and accessories you may find helpful down the road. Look for 'full frame' SLRs. What that means is the digital sensor is the same size as 35mm film image area. And for lenses you want those that are designed for that sensor size. Here's an explanation from Nikon regarding their DX vs FX product lines: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Article/g588ouey/the-dx-and-fx-formats.html  I haven't kept up with all the brands and models but Canon and Nikon were long dueling for supremacy in this area. One thing Canon has an edge on is their 17mm tilt shift lens, IIRC Nikons widest tilt shift is 24mm. But both are extremely capable brands and once you're invested in lenses you tend to stay with the same brand (I happen to have Nikon). There's also larger format products like Haselblad and view cameras but no need to go there IMO for the DIY architectural or product photographer.

You'll want to understand the relationship between f-stop and depth of field. F-stop is the varying size of the lens aperture, with the larger number corresponding to the smaller aperture size. Depth of field is what impacts the focus of near and far objects in an image. The smaller the aperture the greater depth of field. But also the smaller aperture restricts your light which matters if you want a human in the shot who can't sit perfectly still for a 30 sec exposure using the dim indoor ambient light. It's tempting to just increase the 'film' speed but that tends to degrade the image quality. Flash might be the rescue in such situations.

I have some books that are now out of print, but here are a few newer ones that might seriously help a newcomer to the disciplines of architectural photography. I haven't read these but per the descriptions and reviews seem to address many of the fundamental issues:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1933952881/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1412676474&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1608953009/ref=pd_aw_sims_1?pi=SL500_SY115&simLd=1

One thing to keep in mind when starting out is that the human eye and brain are amazing at processing images and technology is trying to catch up. For example when you look at a room in person your head and eye is changing position and every time you do your eye adjusts its focus and iris (f-stop) and your brain combines all these varying details into one 'image'. It also is adjusting the color temperature in the various inputs and combines the blue window light with the yellow incandescent light and you perceive it all as the same when it isn't.  So your job when taking a picture is to overcome all the limitations of the technology to capture the image as your far superior eyes and brain see it. Do this long enough and your eye and brain will be able to dumb down to the level of the camera which especially helps you see how to adjust the lighting.

Lastly I haven't even touched on composition. That's the largely personal preference aspect but all the fundamentals of camera settings and lighting apply to all of it. Enjoy the journey

 

[BAO]

Eric/Alkaline,

Amazing shots.  Are you two using HDR in your shots.  The details look almost surreal.

 

[fdengel]

Looking at the two columns, I was actually taking that to be lens distortion.

The perspective is interesting and makes a great picture, but I think I would have tried to straighten those out a bit - it looks "wrong" to me with them tilted in that much... shouldn't take too much of a tweak though to deal with that...

 

[Paul G]

BTW, if anyone is unsure of what a tilt shift lens does for you just ask

 

[es07Eric]

Eric is right my friend. Need to see a specific thing so that we can move forward.
A couple of my habits for interior:
- I shoot at the widest focal length in combination with the FX format.
- I often use flash
- I shoot RAW files for further edits
- The exposure triangle can be seen in the accompanying demonstrations

I wish you much success

[wink]

p.s. titl shift lens is not a necessity, I would rather invest in a good flash and a tripod head with micro adjustment

Very well executed my friend!  [thumbs up]

p.s. titl shift lens is not a necessity, I would rather invest in a good flash and a tripod head with micro adjustment

I couldn't agree with this more!

Eric/Alkaline,

Amazing shots.  Are you two using HDR in your shots.  The details look almost surreal.

I for one do not use HDR in any of my photography; to me, it's just an unnecessary step.  I do not by any means discourage or frown upon those that do.  When I setup complex shots, I reach for plate glass filters or ND (neutral density) filters to achieve the look I want. 

Now, to answer your question:  No, this is not an HDR composition, this (and I'm speaking for my image) text book example of what lighting can and will do for an image. 

To piggyback off of Paul's comment, these are not pop-up flashes or even the external speedlights, and not to say they can't be used, to achieve the look, there is a time and place for these types of lights.  When I can, I often opt to use the absolute best light possible and that includes the sun! 

Also, when shooting flash, most tend to shoot at higher apertures as the aperture controls the flash and shutter speed controls the ambient.  The "surreal" that your experiencing is due to the stopped down apertures, and again is almost inherent in flash photography.  Another tip related to this: your lens performs at its absolute best stopped down.  Now, I will tell you that there have been times that I've been blown away with lens sharpness wide open (i.e. f/1.2, f/1.4, f1.8, f/2, and f/2.8)

To recap the setup, the bar shot has three mono-lights setup with modifiers. 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Alkaline's images are also using artificial light (flash/strobe).  I'm simply going off of the natural light coming in through the windows in the last two shots:

- in the bedroom, the ambient exterior light is at least 1/3 underexposed relative to the interior
- in the dining room/sitting room shot, he balanced the exterior ambient with the interior exposure

Now, I will say there is a lot more effort that he as put in to these exposures, but these are the two things that stand out to me when I look at photographs.  He did an absolutely amazing job with all three images!  (and Alkaline, I hope you don't take offense at my attempt to dissect your photographs!  [embarassed])

So, if you would like to try an experiment, try taking a picture in a room that has a window sans flash, say your kitchen or living room and shoot into or towards the window, and you will see exactly what I mean!

Also, while a FX/FF or full frame camera would be my weapon of choice, I know that it may not be in the budget for some.  The industry has made amazing advances in wide angle lenses for DX or crop bodies, so take a minute to consider that as well; say the Canon 10-22mm.

I hope this helps and that I haven't added additional complication.  Flash photography is not for the faint of heart.

There have been two very distinct milestones in my photography: 
1.  when I went FX/Full frame
2. when I learned and understood flash photography

Remember that lighting will make or break a photograph...

 

[Paul G]

I would argue that even flash isn't necesary for decent images, but additional lighting still is needed usually. Back in the day I did some stuff using hot lamps (aka 200w or higher incandescent lamps..that got really hot!). Todays LED technology has changed all that with many very nice products for video production that could be put to use in still photography. Here's but one example and there are many more http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B008X7KI2M/ref=redir_mdp_mobile?keywords=600%20led%20video%20light&qid=1364881776&ref_=sr_1_2&sr=8-2

Flash is more capable at competing with the sun since flash isn't (usually) impacted by shutter speed but flood lamps can be easier to visualize with. I know better flash heads have modeling lamps that help visualize but when balancing between flash and ambient the modeling lamps are way too dim and you must rely on test images to assess (or a lot of experience with an ambient/flash light meter). All that being said I still prefer flash since I long ago got over the learning curve but good images can be achieved without it.

 

[Paul G]

Eric/Alkaline,

Amazing shots.  Are you two using HDR in your shots.  The details look almost surreal.

To piggyback on Erics comments about HDR, it's useful to understand what it is and why a properly lit photograph might resemble HDR.

HDR or High Dynamic Range is a software processing of an image to enhance the perceived dynamic range of an image. That begs the question what is Dynamic Range (DR)? Well it is the overall range of tones from black to white that a given imaging medium (slide film, negative film, photo print, laser or inkjet, digital sensor, iphone screen, etc.) is able to capture or display. Typically the capture mediums have a higher DR than the display mediums. In a practical sense it is often described as the amount of detail that can be seen in the deep shadows and bright highlights. Back in the film days, generally speaking negative film had the greatest DR, next was slide film and far behind was the photo printing paper. You may have experienced this when a print came back from a lab and all the highlight detail was gone and it was all white. The info was on the negative but the paper was unable to render it. It would go back to the lab to be exposed differently to retain that highlight detail only to find that the shadow detail was now all black. Some folks like Ansel Adams would overcome this with elaborate dodge and burn schemes in the darkroom, dodging or blocking the light in certain places from getting to the photo paper and burning or enhancing the light in other areas using a sheet of cardboard with a hole in it. Along came computers and photoshop and some folks started experimenting with combining 'dark' and 'light' scans of the same film to bring together both the shadow and highlight detail into one printable file. Eventually came digital cameras and todays sensors have a very high DR (higher than the display screens we use to view the images with) and the HDR software in the camera will quickly do the same trick that early photoshop folks were doing in hours or days.

Well if a scene is properly illuminated in the first place such that it is already in the dynamic range of the computer screen or output paper then HDR becomes less useful. Careful lighting already balances the shadow and highlight levels retaining the details there within the display mediums ability to render it. Technically there will always be some deep shadows and highlights in the scene beyond the ability to render but if they are a very small and insignificant part of the overall image then they don't distract the viewer.

 

[Grasshopper]

Thought I'd chime in here.  I prefer natural light in my photography.

For on site work (like a kitchen, etc.) I find natural lighting is key.

To the OP's question, I've found that HDR photography is the "bees knees".  Simply set your camera on a tripod and set your exposure bracketing in +/- 1 intervals (if unfamiliar, Google "exposure bracketing").  What this does is it shoots (depending on what sensitivity you set up), an image that is under exposed one stop (the -1), and image that is exposed just right (+0), and an image that is over exposed (+1), (some cameras have more brackets available), all with one click of the shutter (i prefer a remote for this).

In a large area, it is next to impossible to optimize exposure for shadows, sunlight coming through window, etc.  This is where HDR comes in to take the best exposure from 3 versions of the same photo to make the best image possible.

There is some pretty good cheap and free HDR software that combines the 3 images and optimizes the three together.  (usually if you shoot where there is sun outside, your "typical" exposure will make the outside wash out, or accentuate shadows.  Combining the three HDR photos with software takes out highlights and dark shadows at the same time.  Usually you can tweak to your taste, but I've found success with the auto adjust settings.

Also for what it's worth, a higher aperture setting is ideal to show off all detail (like f5.6+), so most lenses can do a decent job. (even when I shoot with my  f1.2 lens, I tend to stop it down quite a lot for detail shots).

my two cents.

 

[alkaline]

photo shoot using the ambient light...

[wink][attachimg=1][attachimg=2]

 

[alkaline]

...and flash.

[wink]

 

[Miamont123]

My problem is almost similar, I would like to learn to take good pictures with my professional Panasonic Lumix ... [blink] :'(