John down under
Veteran Member
--
Cheers John, Adelaide Australia; http://www.pbase.com/jhphoto ; 50D, 40D, G10, F100fd
Cheers John, Adelaide Australia; http://www.pbase.com/jhphoto ; 50D, 40D, G10, F100fd
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
How wide an angle lens before the end result is cheating
- Thread starter Itsjustme
- Start date
John down under
Veteran Member
Hi AP. 12mm is on a 1.5 crop body, right? 12mm on its own doesn't say so much about the FOV. I often use 10mm (from 10-22 zoom) on a 1.6 crop body.
All that said AP, lovely photos without a doubt. Kudos to you.
--
Cheers John, Adelaide Australia; http://www.pbase.com/jhphoto ; 50D, 40D, G10, F100fd
aplucini
Senior Member
Thanks for your comments John.
I'm assuming the OP is using a 1.5 or 1.6 crop camera thus my comment regarding his assertion that a focal length wider than 21 or 24mm is too wide or is deceptive and thus my point that, on a 1.5 or 1.6 crop camera 10 or 12mm is not too wide and is not deceptive.
Allan in Colorado, USA
I'm assuming the OP is using a 1.5 or 1.6 crop camera thus my comment regarding his assertion that a focal length wider than 21 or 24mm is too wide or is deceptive and thus my point that, on a 1.5 or 1.6 crop camera 10 or 12mm is not too wide and is not deceptive.
--
Allan in Colorado, USA
Thank you for all your replies and some really fantastic pictures.
Just found an example agents web site where the exif information tells me the camera is a Nikon D" with 11.5 mm focal length and 35 mm equivelent is 17 mm.
Here in the UK the laws about misrepresentation are very strict and which (whether you or I like it or not) do cover the pictures as well as the text even if the text clarifies the room size. The laws say the two parts (picture & text) must not give a misleading impression no matter how great the shot.
So if I buy a new camera I am bound by the laws in this country???
Just found an example agents web site where the exif information tells me the camera is a Nikon D" with 11.5 mm focal length and 35 mm equivelent is 17 mm.
Here in the UK the laws about misrepresentation are very strict and which (whether you or I like it or not) do cover the pictures as well as the text even if the text clarifies the room size. The laws say the two parts (picture & text) must not give a misleading impression no matter how great the shot.
So if I buy a new camera I am bound by the laws in this country???
DSPographer
Senior Member
The idea that a lens with the focal length equal to the sensor diagonal represents a "normal" field of view comes from the size and comfortable viewing distance of typical prints. If you stand close to a huge print though it could easily cover 90 degrees of width of your vision which is what an 18mm full frame equivalent lens would represent. So, viewed so the print covers the same angle of your vision as the lens recorded any rectilinear lens presents a truthful undistorted view of a room. Of course legal rulings are sometimes irrational but if you include text on how to view a print correctly and it doesn't require you to hold the print unreasonably close to your nose then I would say the image doesn't misrepresent the room. So, to be perfectly truthful images from wide lenses should be printed big enough to let you hold them close enough for the correct field of view.
It is a tough one for me as I will be going back into the business and was about to start looking at a new camera (DLSR) but this has made me think. I am not able to single handedly going to overturn the laws. So for the moment I will stick with my 2/3 month old Canon SX10 and take my time.
Thanks for your input.
aplucini
Senior Member
I think you're worrying too much about someone accusing you of misrepresenting the size of rooms, etc. I don't think that a lens wider than 21 or 24mm is going to alter reality enough for someone to accuse you of being deceptive. If they did, they would really be pushing it to make such an accusation stick.
I think deception laws regarding real estate photos are targeted towards such situations where someone alters the photo to change the color scheme of rooms or add grass to a lawn when it doesn't really exist or remove utility power lines from the scene and other similar alterations.
--
Allan in Colorado, USA
I think deception laws regarding real estate photos are targeted towards such situations where someone alters the photo to change the color scheme of rooms or add grass to a lawn when it doesn't really exist or remove utility power lines from the scene and other similar alterations.
--
Allan in Colorado, USA
No in the UK it IS a problem because I did speak to the department that police the specific legislation. So not wishing to break the law because an associate did break it on something minor IMO and was fined £5000.
John down under
Veteran Member
Allan, I assumed the OP was talking about 21mm as a FF equiv, just as others mentioned 28mm, which is fairly standard WA equivalent, even on many compact cameras, as you probably know. Either way, I agree with you that those kinds of FLs or even wider are not too wide for real estate. While some people might find WA to be misleading, I wouldn't think most people feel that way. On the contrary, I think a smaller FOV that shows a smaller part of a room can be much more misleading about the size of the room.
--
Cheers John, Adelaide Australia; http://www.pbase.com/jhphoto ; 50D, 40D, G10, F100fd
John down under
Veteran Member
Sorry to hear the law on using wide angle in real estate photography is so restrictive in the UK. Good luck with figuring out what works best for your business needs within the limitations of the law.
--
Cheers John, Adelaide Australia; http://www.pbase.com/jhphoto ; 50D, 40D, G10, F100fd
aplucini
Senior Member
Exactly. If the lens isn't wide enough it is misleading in the sense that the viewer doesn't have enough visual information to make an informed or good decision on whether to visit the property in person.
Allan in Colorado, USA
--
Allan in Colorado, USA
Rriley
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 20,877
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 474
in my experience, 21mm isnt particularly wide in this field, I use an 18mm EFL all the time. I think, I have a duty to display the architecture of a property, and I use the furniture more or less as props.
I would think in very small rooms like bathrooms, a 28mm might only get you an image little bigger than the sink, so are they selling houses with sinks, or houses with bathrooms.
The fact that rooms may look bigger is incidental to the deepness of UWA (ultra wide angle), there is no purposeful account to deceive. Usually plans are provided to houses so, the prospective buyer ought use the totality of the information available, not what they 'feel' they are looking at.
In order to cover most rooms, that is provide 3 corners in an image, you need a lens exceeding 90 degrees field of view (fov). In FF terms that approaches lenses in the order of 14-18mm.
I always attempt to shoot as long a focal length (FL) as possible, but some spaces do not lend themselves to those strategies. I will often shoot open-plan interiors as components, kitchen space, dining space, living space. Then join the spaces up to show the full arrangement, its those sort of images that present some risk.
that method represented in these simple cottage views
a more upmarket look of same
You could take the case too that the street view is often confined by the distance from the house,commonly an 18mm raised to top of window height gets me out of this problem and restores the roof profile. I also usually include a wide view to provide a street plus house view, I wonder could I then be accused of making a house seem inappropriately small.
You must also take into account the framing used for websites and the internet. For it is a fact that many vendors have 4x3 framing for their net images, for a 3x2 camera this is a problem, for it means that you have to crop every image and you lose fov. Therefore a wide lens becomes less so in the order of 6% of the horizontal fov. For four thirds cameras of course, this isnt an issue as they are 4x3 frame already.
--
ʎǝlıɹ
plɹoʍ ǝɥʇ ɟo doʇ uo ǝɹɐ ǝʍ 'ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ uı
wotevah
Forum Enthusiast
Distances in wide angle photos appear to be much larger than reality, maybe because we judge distance in a "normal" perspective, which I suppose is more accurately represented by a 35mm angle (35 mm equiv).
I'm interested to know the shape of rooms and just how much space I have for moving around and placing my furniture. A wide angle photo is very misleading in both respects because not only does it alter apparent geometry, but it can make a cramped bathroom look the size of a full room. Outside photos look like you have an acre of lawn and your house is a hundred yards from the street, which may explain why I am seeing them used more and more even when a normal angle would have worked.
That one doesn't buy sight unseen is not the point. I don't want to have to waste time and drive there only to find that my expectations were way off. In fact that is what deceptive advertizing rules are trying to combat, luring of people with a false expectation so they can eventually be convinced in person to buy. Especially with real estate where people use all the tricks in the book to get people to come in.
I think that a perspective-corrected wide angle photo would not be so objectionable though, because the far objects would be brought closer where we'd expect them to be.
--
-wotevah
I'm interested to know the shape of rooms and just how much space I have for moving around and placing my furniture. A wide angle photo is very misleading in both respects because not only does it alter apparent geometry, but it can make a cramped bathroom look the size of a full room. Outside photos look like you have an acre of lawn and your house is a hundred yards from the street, which may explain why I am seeing them used more and more even when a normal angle would have worked.
That one doesn't buy sight unseen is not the point. I don't want to have to waste time and drive there only to find that my expectations were way off. In fact that is what deceptive advertizing rules are trying to combat, luring of people with a false expectation so they can eventually be convinced in person to buy. Especially with real estate where people use all the tricks in the book to get people to come in.
I think that a perspective-corrected wide angle photo would not be so objectionable though, because the far objects would be brought closer where we'd expect them to be.
--
-wotevah
JoePhoto
Veteran Member
I also need a new camera for Real Estate.
I will concentrate on some of the newer models that offer AUTO (built-in) HDR.
There can be an huge difference in lighting, with possibly (probably) a bright stream of sunlight coming in through a window, (maybe lighting a "square" of light on the opposite wall), with dark shadows, and then there is the EXTERIOR view looking outside through the (same) window into the beautiful garden/pool outside.
The essence of a good RE shot is indeed the interior, but with the "view" looking outside through the window.
ONLY HDR will enable this.
PP (HDR) takes a lot of time, and and "auto" HDR can be a life-saver.
--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto
( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )
Wow some very excellent photos and advice - thank you so much.in my experience, 21mm isnt particularly wide in this field, I use an 18mm EFL all the time. I think, I have a duty to display the architecture of a property, and I use the furniture more or less as props.
I would think in very small rooms like bathrooms, a 28mm might only get you an image little bigger than the sink, so are they selling houses with sinks, or houses with bathrooms.
The fact that rooms may look bigger is incidental to the deepness of UWA (ultra wide angle), there is no purposeful account to deceive. Usually plans are provided to houses so, the prospective buyer ought use the totality of the information available, not what they 'feel' they are looking at.
In order to cover most rooms, that is provide 3 corners in an image, you need a lens exceeding 90 degrees field of view (fov). In FF terms that approaches lenses in the order of 14-18mm.
I always attempt to shoot as long a focal length (FL) as possible, but some spaces do not lend themselves to those strategies. I will often shoot open-plan interiors as components, kitchen space, dining space, living space. Then join the spaces up to show the full arrangement, its those sort of images that present some risk.
that method represented in these simple cottage views
a more upmarket look of same
You could take the case too that the street view is often confined by the distance from the house,commonly an 18mm raised to top of window height gets me out of this problem and restores the roof profile. I also usually include a wide view to provide a street plus house view, I wonder could I then be accused of making a house seem inappropriately small.
You must also take into account the framing used for websites and the internet. For it is a fact that many vendors have 4x3 framing for their net images, for a 3x2 camera this is a problem, for it means that you have to crop every image and you lose fov. Therefore a wide lens becomes less so in the order of 6% of the horizontal fov. For four thirds cameras of course, this isnt an issue as they are 4x3 frame already.
--
ʎǝlıɹ
plɹoʍ ǝɥʇ ɟo doʇ uo ǝɹɐ ǝʍ 'ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ uı
aplucini
Senior Member
What good is a 35mm angle if you can't see half the room due to the narrow field of view? The purpose of a WA lens is to show you the entire room not to deceive you. A narrow FOV can make the room appear smaller than it really is.
I guarantee a cramped bathroom is not going to look like a full-size room even with a WA lens. Bigger perhaps, but not a full-size room.
If the photographer made the house look it was 100 yards from the street then he is a poor real estate photographer. That is bad composition in real estate photography. For the exterior front shot it is important to frame the shot appropriately to show some lawn in the foreground and a just a few feet of space on the left and right side of the house. The main subject is the house so you don't want it to appear far away. You want to give the viewer a good look at the house.
If a narrow FOV lens is used your expectations are going to be way off because you can't see enough of the room to make any accurate judgment of it's size and layout.
If the perspective from a WA lens is corrected (using some type of software I presume) part of the steps involved in correcting that perspective forces you to crop the photo which will be equivalent to taking the photo with a narrower lens in the first place. So you're back to the same problem of having photo that doesn't show enough of the room.
--
Allan in Colorado, USA
Rriley
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 20,877
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 474
you might look at some Pentax SLRs, I believe they have that
what you need is to learn how to use flash
use manual mode, set aperture for DoF
set speed to cut off daylight through windows
if you dont have a feel for it
just go to the window and meter the outside scene
.....................lead pipe cinch
not so
just a few examples, without the cartoon HDR look
all use a single camera mounted FL50r flash
E3, 1/125, F5, ISO160, 11mm
E3, 1/125, F4, ISO250, 9mm
E3, 1/250th, F4.5, 200ISO, 9mm
maybe
i shoot without a tripod
you more than likely need one if you shoot HDR
and you need the software, or PS skills
however E3 does a modicum of HDR
this file shot jpeg ISO bracketed. (ISO bracketing takes 1 shot and makes 3 frames in camera) The 3 frames were merged in Photomatix using 'average', tripod used
--
ʎǝlıɹ
plɹoʍ ǝɥʇ ɟo doʇ uo ǝɹɐ ǝʍ 'ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ uı
Rriley
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 20,877
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 474
normal? normal for what
normal for FF is 43mm, for 4/3rds its 21.64mm
is it anymore misleading to try to sell you a house with a picture of a door
b/se thats pretty well what you are committing to
Its important to show the house as it is, with its full roof profile, and to provide the 'context' of the surrounds. You dont need to do this for every view, but there should be one at least
i think people that buy houses unseen are either completely careless, totally rich, or loony
would it be any better to have no images at all
maybe a sketch, or a written description
b/se other than looking at images of doors,
that what you are committing to
nonsense
perspective correction can be achieved in software
it will lose resolution, but not so much that you will notice.
TS lenses also come in various flavours,
the 2 that Canon offer are 24 and 17mm
thats 1mm less than what I commonly shoot with
--
ʎǝlıɹ
plɹoʍ ǝɥʇ ɟo doʇ uo ǝɹɐ ǝʍ 'ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ uı
John down under
Veteran Member
Great work RR. I thought the houses and vegetation looked like they could be local, so I checked your profile. Small world. I'm glad we don't have a regulatory body telling us what's too wide for real estate photography.
--
Cheers John, Adelaide Australia; http://www.pbase.com/jhphoto ; 50D, 40D, G10, F100fd
--
Cheers John, Adelaide Australia; http://www.pbase.com/jhphoto ; 50D, 40D, G10, F100fd
JoePhoto
Veteran Member
Good (excellent) photos.
I agree that it can sometimes (often) be done, but the (new) auto-HDR I feel does open up more options. (albeit it does require a tripod)
Using (fill) flash in a large room may still be uneven, (albeit "bounce" is an option to more even the dispersal).
I noticed in a couple of your examples, the sun was "setting", so it was not very bright outside ... and in another there were very, very, very large (and open) windows so there was indeed a lot of the natural interior light.
In those cases, I agree, HDR would be unnecessary.
But there are others where an HDR option would be useful, and I am glad they are starting to make it standard; (albeit there are only a couple so far).
--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto
( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )
I agree that it can sometimes (often) be done, but the (new) auto-HDR I feel does open up more options. (albeit it does require a tripod)
Using (fill) flash in a large room may still be uneven, (albeit "bounce" is an option to more even the dispersal).
I noticed in a couple of your examples, the sun was "setting", so it was not very bright outside ... and in another there were very, very, very large (and open) windows so there was indeed a lot of the natural interior light.
In those cases, I agree, HDR would be unnecessary.
But there are others where an HDR option would be useful, and I am glad they are starting to make it standard; (albeit there are only a couple so far).
--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto
( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum