| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jimbo

Joined: 19 Oct 2006 Posts: 3097 Location: Perigord noir
|
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:10 am Post subject: Some thoughts about shooting rental property interiors. |
|
|
Recently, LMH member katiebythesea invited me to shoot pictures of her four rental properties in the Pyrenees, in return for a holiday at the same time. It’s worth remembering that, without Paolo’s forum, the opportunity wouldn’t exist for members to assess the cut of each other’s jibs and suggest such mutually beneficial partnerships. Therefore, paying my dues to LMH (and with Katie’s permission), I’m posting a few suggestions about how a professional photographer approaches such an assignment, in case a little of this information might be of value to owners shooting their own material - or considering commissioning a professional in the future.
About bartering your skills:
I’m all for barter but, as I’m waiving my fee, the project has to be something that I’d enjoy. Some places are just too far away (without a travel contribution), some places don’t appeal and – as an owner myself – the rental season is out of bounds for other than paid assignments. But it can work.
We’re all in this together (as the politicians say):
Pro snappers have little control over their assignments. They shoot when and where their clients demand, to tight deadlines and usually in far from optimum conditions. Which isn’t much different to rental owners struggling with limited access to their properties. And, naturally, access is never going to be possible in high season when everything looks wonderful.
The answer is to prioritise and use your time constructively. Only work on what can work – don’t waste time trying to recreate June in November. Look carefully at what pictures already exist. Give the 80%’ers a free pass and concentrate on the duffers. Fill the gaps.
Think about your equipment and your skills. For the pictures that you want, do you need longer or wider lenses? A tripod? Lighting equipment? Can you borrow or hire these – or would an equipment upgrade be a wise investment? Do you have an image editing programme and do you know how to use it – or would additional training be helpful? If you’re compelled to shoot with what you already have, work only to the equipments’ strengths. And practise, practise, practise the difficult stuff at home before you shoot the real thing.
Jim
I’ll add more thoughts and some pictures from Katie's shoot over the coming days. Feedback is always welcome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
paolo

Joined: 17 Jun 2004 Posts: 3715 Location: Provence, France
|
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Looking forward to your insights, thanks for sharing.
For my part, the two key bits of equipment for interiors are a wide lens and a steady base - tripod, monopod or back of chair - especially at this time of year when exposure can be long. Never use flash! _________________ Paolo
Lay My Hat
http://www.laymyhat.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jimbo

Joined: 19 Oct 2006 Posts: 3097 Location: Perigord noir
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
What camera and lens?
Ideally, you need a camera over which you can exercise control (ie: which does more than shoot on automatic/programme mode) and you need a lens of 24mm or wider (I’m talking 35mm lens equivalents). My preferred combination is a digital SLR with a 14mm lens and 20-35mm zoom.
If you’re serious about interiors, it’s worth shelling out the money for a sturdy tripod (one with built-in spirit levels and a ‘pan and tilt’ head is the best). This is because interiors involve lengthy exposures and you won’t be able to hand-hold successfully without losing sharpness. Don’t fire the shutter by hand, even if the camera’s on a tripod, because you risk introducing vibration – use (ideally) an electronic shutter cable release or the built-in self timer.
Digital cameras are now so clever that their built-in exposure system can read difficult situations like bright windows and dark areas and combine them to give you a workable photograph. But it’s vital not to over-expose or you will lose your highlight detail. This may not matter for sunlight streaming in a window but it does if you can’t retain tone in light-coloured walls. Don’t worry if your original looks too dark because an enormous amount of detail can be rescued from the shadows but, once detail is lost from the highlights, it’s gone for good.
An interior is, effectively, a still life where nothing moves. The best exposure programme to use is aperture priority (usually marked as ‘av’). Select this and you’ll notice that the aperture changes as you rotate the dial. Go to the smallest aperture (usually f16) and go back three clicks to f11 because lenses (particularly cheaper ones) produce their best results a little distance from their smallest and widest apertures. Using a small aperture will give the greatest sharpness range from foreground to background but it dictates using a longish shutter speed to compensate (and that’s why a tripod is essential). Focus (manually if possible) somewhere in the middle of the picture - if you focus on foreground or background, you'll risk losing sharpness across the whole image.
The two pictures below demonstrate the process (shot on 14mm lens). The first is a 16-bit RAW file (more about RAWs later) which has detail in the highlights and shadows. Don't be alarmed by its dark appearance. The picture beneath is the finished 8-bit jpeg file supplied to the client - low contrast but with detail in all the important areas. From this original; cropping, contrast, colour saturation, colour balance and sharpness can be altered to suit the web page or publication, but it's vital to remember that such changes are destructive (you're throwing away data) and non-reversible. So always save your original file for later use.
More to follow.
Jim |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
HelenB
Joined: 30 Apr 2005 Posts: 10658 Location: Durham/Le Monetier-les-Bains, Serre Chevalier
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I've just purchased a new camera (LUmix G3), so I'm looking forward to putting your tips into practice after Christmas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jimbo

Joined: 19 Oct 2006 Posts: 3097 Location: Perigord noir
|
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lighting your interiors:
In the days of film (particularly transparency – negative film was a little more forgiving), what you saw was definitely what you got. Unevenly lit rooms needed to have patchy lighting supplemented with powerful accessory flashes or tungsten bulbs which had to be filtered to the dominant light sources to avoid colour casts. Shoot a room with daylight, tungsten bulbs and fluorescent tubes jostling for attention and the resulting film tranny looked like a box of Newberry Fruits. The arrival of digital capture, particularly when linked with a powerful editing programme like Photoshop and with RAW files, changed the landscape overnight.
Look at the photographs (original RAW and finished jpeg) below of a bedroom with en-suite (taken with 14mm lens). Difficult shot because the room is relatively small, light falls off rapidly across the frame, illumination comes from mixed daylight and tungsten bulbs and the bathroom is (unflatteringly) lit with a single overhead bulb.
This could be tackled in at least three ways (always many ways to skin the photographic moggy):
1. Even up the lighting by hiding supplementary flashes or tungsten bulbs behind the bedroom wall and bathroom door.
2. Shoot as two pictures with differing exposures and patch together later in Photoshop.
3. Or, as I’ve done, shoot as a single picture and use Photoshop’s powerful tools to compensate for uneven exposure and colour casts (I’ve also added a weak fill from a flash bounced off the wall behind me to illuminate the rafters - more about flash later).
Again, don't worry if the original file seems very dark. What you need is something that contains all the information you require to make your finished file.
Jim
More to follow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Giddy Goat

Joined: 12 Jun 2005 Posts: 9050 Location: UK+France/Midi-Pyrenees
|
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gripping stuff Jimbo and thank you!
Was it your intention to enable us to see the pics enlarged? Things look hopeful when I mouse over them, but nothing happens when I click. _________________ http://www.facebook.com/Gascony.Magic?ref=ts
"The secret of success is to get up early, work late and strike oil" John D Rockefeller |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jimbo

Joined: 19 Oct 2006 Posts: 3097 Location: Perigord noir
|
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Giddy Goat wrote: | | Was it your intention to enable us to see the pics enlarged? Things look hopeful when I mouse over them, but nothing happens when I click. |
Not really, GG. These are Katie's originals which she has kindly allowed me to use in this context. They are deliberately low resolution but are, I hope, clear enough to illustrate my points. Perhaps, when Katie has re-jigged her website, a link could be added to access the pictures from there?
Jim |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
la vache!
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 Posts: 10425 Location: A field, somewhere between Brittany and Normandy
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Normandie

Joined: 06 Jun 2006 Posts: 806 Location: France - southern Manche (50)
|
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| la vache! wrote: | | Thankyou for all your tips which are given freely and generously Jim! It is very kind of you to share your knowledge. |
Seconded. It's very interesting to read how you go about achieving the best result and it is also interesting to me what a different - and more positive - feeling I get about the bedroom and ensuite with the lighter, brighter photo. Bright interiors lift the spirits (or they lift mine, anyway).  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jimbo

Joined: 19 Oct 2006 Posts: 3097 Location: Perigord noir
|
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2011 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| la vache! wrote: | | I'd be interested in knowing the dimensions of the room in the last photo - is that possible? |
From memory, I'd guess at around 3x5m. Perhaps Katie might have the actual dimensions?
Jim |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
katiebythesea
Joined: 26 Mar 2008 Posts: 281 Location: French Pyrenees
|
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2011 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
I will happily supply links to the web site photos when it is up and running, just waiting to get the disc with all the hi res images on it
Reading through this has confirmed that it is really tricky to get interiors right and as an off site manager I don't get much time to experiment and try out all this wonderful advice, if I was on site then I would enjoy having it all on hand and give it a go.
LV- don't have the dimensions of the room to hand but is is quite large, on the other side of the room (which can't be seen in the photo)there is a wardrobe too.
Thanks again Jim |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
la vache!
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 Posts: 10425 Location: A field, somewhere between Brittany and Normandy
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
katiebythesea
Joined: 26 Mar 2008 Posts: 281 Location: French Pyrenees
|
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It does but it I think a more realistic representation of the room in this case as it shows more of the room in a single shot with the door to the en-suite which I just couldn't do with my reliable but old Nikon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
paolo

Joined: 17 Jun 2004 Posts: 3715 Location: Provence, France
|
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| katiebythesea wrote: | | It does but it I think a more realistic representation of the room in this case as it shows more of the room in a single shot with the door to the en-suite which I just couldn't do with my reliable but old Nikon. |
The conundrum about wide angle lenses - they can make rooms look bigger, in some cases deceptively so, but a 'normal' lens makes it look smaller than it is. I tend to think it is better to show more of the room. _________________ Paolo
Lay My Hat
http://www.laymyhat.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jimbo

Joined: 19 Oct 2006 Posts: 3097 Location: Perigord noir
|
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| paolo wrote: | | Never use flash! |
Flash and interiors: Always a disaster? Or Robin to your Batman?
Well, it’s yes. And no! If by ‘flash’, you mean those low power units embedded into a camera close to the lens, I’d say yes. Put your camera on automatic, trigger the flash and the results are usually dismal – bright foreground and dark background, odd reflections off shiny surfaces and all atmosphere destroyed. However, if by ‘flash’, you mean a powerful, dedicated stand-alone unit, with the flash exposure controlled by your camera, I’d say a resounding no! Seated in your camera’s hot-shoe, with swivel and tilt head, its output seamlessly integrated into the overall exposure by your camera’s systems, with the ability to progressively increase or decrease the flash power and - by use of a cable or slave unit - be removed from the hot-shoe and placed it anywhere in the room (but still controlled by the camera), you have the equivalent of Lady Galadriel’s phial of light given to Frodo as he approached Mount Doom.
Few of my interiors are shot without flash, but it is never the main light source. Rather, it is a low-power addition squirted into dark areas or bounced off walls and ceilings to record detail in roof beams, log-burning stoves, dark floors or gloomy furniture. If a client can see that I’ve added flash, I would consider the picture a failure. In reality, ‘flash-assist’ is a ‘cheffy’ device used to add professional sparkle to a picture.
Unfortunately, powerful stand-alone dedicated flash units don’t come cheap. My top-end unit for my DLSR cost over 500GBP, but is as important a tool as my additional lenses or my tripod.
The photograph below of Katie’s La Grange mountain gite shows the process. Lit only with strong sunshine blasting through floor to ceiling doors on the left, the right hand living area was very dark. First the sunlight was diffused by dropping the door blinds (hence the grid pattern on the furniture). Then the living area was illuminated by a flash in the hot-shoe, with the light bounced off the light-coloured stone wall above and to my right. The camera, with its sophisticated exposure system, seamlessly blended the lighting strands together in a homogenous whole (but be careful if you're bouncing off coloured walls or ceilings because the flash light will take on the colour of the surface and give a partial colour cast to the picture).
More to follow.
Jim
Last edited by Jimbo on Sat Dec 10, 2011 7:47 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|