Asoshkin
Well-known member
I wouldn't turn on interior lights. Doing that will cause a mixed of day light and orange tungsten light which will look awful in my opinion. Bring strobes to match with daylight conditions.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
C&C needed please, first try with interiors
- Thread starter akjos
- Start date
I like the first pic of all the pairs, except the bed shot. The reason I like the first ones is that the colors are less saturated, which to my eye gives them a bit more elegance.
The reason for the exception is, even though the difference is slight, the colors are a bit more in harmony.
The reason for the exception is, even though the difference is slight, the colors are a bit more in harmony.
Thank you for your opinion
.--
http://www.infiniteartphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries
.--
http://www.infiniteartphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries
Bob from Plymouth
Leading Member
None of them, apologies if it sounded like criticism, I said the distortion on your images was ok and I can see the guides you used when I view your first image in Photoshop, so assumed you had corrected them. It was a general comment about getting the best result for this kind of photography and something I routinely do.
chris-humphreys-photography
Forum Enthusiast
If you're going to be doing this for realtors (or estate agents for the UK), I would forget any form of HDR, you won't have enough time. Or if you do put in the time it won't be a commercially viable bsuiness. At least not until you're highly sought after.
--
http://www.chp-architecturalphotography.com
http://www.chrishumphreys.net
--
http://www.chp-architecturalphotography.com
http://www.chrishumphreys.net
First of all, this is the kind of work I myself would love to do. Like you, I like architecture, both interior and exterior.
I think the images are fine...the perspective has been corrected, and the lighting is pleasing to the eye.
I have no doubt that the realtors like your work. I've seen interiors that the realtors themselves tried to take...with a P&S with built-in flash...they look like what they are...snapshots.
--
Tom, Ohio USA
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuikosan/
http://tbower.zenfolio.com/
'One should not LIVE in the past, but one should never FORGET the past'.
'Did you ever get the feeling that the world was a tuxedo and you were a pair of brown shoes?'
---George Gobel, 1969
"You know you can't please everyone so you got to please yourself"
---Rick Nelson
I think the images are fine...the perspective has been corrected, and the lighting is pleasing to the eye.
I have no doubt that the realtors like your work. I've seen interiors that the realtors themselves tried to take...with a P&S with built-in flash...they look like what they are...snapshots.
--
Tom, Ohio USA
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuikosan/
http://tbower.zenfolio.com/
'One should not LIVE in the past, but one should never FORGET the past'.
'Did you ever get the feeling that the world was a tuxedo and you were a pair of brown shoes?'
---George Gobel, 1969
"You know you can't please everyone so you got to please yourself"
---Rick Nelson
Yes , I know what you mean. I'm no magician or expert by any means but i knew instantly when I saw their photos realtors themselves took, that I can do MUCH better, regardless of direct experience or not...
I actually wondered how they can get anyone to look at the property when photos
look so bad...
The question is - are they willing to pay for the the service of having it done "right" ( or at least much better then they ever would
)
--
http://www.infiniteartphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries
I actually wondered how they can get anyone to look at the property when photos
look so bad...
The question is - are they willing to pay for the the service of having it done "right" ( or at least much better then they ever would
) --
http://www.infiniteartphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries
Very impressive website Chris.
Yes it is time consuming, but so would be setting up lighting in each room etc. So it almost evens out i guess. Less time on location, little more time in PP....
Looking at your great shots, i notice hint of HDR myself. Would you mind sharing your shooting and processing technique? -hdr or not, one exposure for outside, one for the inside, then blended..... or just one photo period?
I'd really appreciate it.
Thanks!--
http://www.infiniteartphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries
Yes it is time consuming, but so would be setting up lighting in each room etc. So it almost evens out i guess. Less time on location, little more time in PP....
Looking at your great shots, i notice hint of HDR myself. Would you mind sharing your shooting and processing technique? -hdr or not, one exposure for outside, one for the inside, then blended..... or just one photo period?
I'd really appreciate it.
Thanks!--
http://www.infiniteartphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries
I was wondering also, how do you deal with seeing yourself or camera of tripod in the mirror in tight bathroom shots. I saw one that obviously HAD to have reflection as shot, but it doesnt 
I seem to struggle with that. Thanks again
--
http://www.infiniteartphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries
I seem to struggle with that. Thanks again --
http://www.infiniteartphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries
Asoshkin, I understand your assumption here, but have you shot interiors before and have you seen good interior work done when the tungsten lights were used to good advantage?
The results are very positive in that the tungsten lighting lends a slight sense of warmth which translates into the room(s) looking more inviting and lived in, rather than the more sterile simple picture of a room sans ambient lighting fixtures. It's called ambiance and interiors benefit greatly by adding these lights.
To ease things, one can gel the flash units and/or work within shutter speed parameters to balance the tungsten with flash, but remember, the lamps are NOT being used to light the interior, only to accent the room and as such the warmth is not an undue factor in the overall white balance.
The results are able to be modified/balanced any way one chooses when gels and judiscious shutter speeds are employed.
There need not be the dreaded "mix of daylight and warmer tungsten" that most snapshots illustrate when/if you use both to your advantage.
Try it, you'll like it!
Regards, Jim
Odds N' Ends album here:
http://www.pbase.com/jimh/inbox&page=all
Z album here: http://www.pbase.com/jimh/marilyn_the_car&page=all
The results are very positive in that the tungsten lighting lends a slight sense of warmth which translates into the room(s) looking more inviting and lived in, rather than the more sterile simple picture of a room sans ambient lighting fixtures. It's called ambiance and interiors benefit greatly by adding these lights.
To ease things, one can gel the flash units and/or work within shutter speed parameters to balance the tungsten with flash, but remember, the lamps are NOT being used to light the interior, only to accent the room and as such the warmth is not an undue factor in the overall white balance.
The results are able to be modified/balanced any way one chooses when gels and judiscious shutter speeds are employed.
There need not be the dreaded "mix of daylight and warmer tungsten" that most snapshots illustrate when/if you use both to your advantage.
Try it, you'll like it!
Regards, Jim
--
Odds N' Ends album here:
http://www.pbase.com/jimh/inbox&page=all
Z album here: http://www.pbase.com/jimh/marilyn_the_car&page=all
gipper51
Veteran Member
They are willing to pay, just not that muchI actually wondered how they can get anyone to look at the property when photos
look so bad...
The question is - are they willing to pay for the the service of having it done "right" ( or at least much better then they ever would
--
http://www.infiniteartphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries
About 18 months ago, I seriously looked doing real estate photography as a supplemental income. There is only one major competitor around my area but after I checked out his rates it wasn't worth my time even trying to compete. His prices ranged from $59 for a house $250,000 or less up to about $120 for houses $1M and up... and the realtor was not required to pay until it sold. He just went around with a WA lens and takes 50 or so shots of everything. None are what I'd call 'good images' (no staging, furniture arrangement, lighting, etc.). His images are better than any realtor would do, and most (not all) realtors are not willing to pay what the time is really worth for better.
Sure I guess I could have been aggressive and invested lots of my free time schmoozing with the top 1% of top realtors around and 'get in the door', but this is not my livlihood. I focused my photographic efforts elsewhere that are paying much better, without the stress of dealing with "I need it yesterday" realtors.
If you REALLY decide to pursue this work, I hope you've found this site by now:
http://photographyforrealestate.net/
--
Newest galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/architectural
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/interiors
Honestly, I don't see a realtor paying a lot of money to have pics taken when they could do it themselves with a crappy P&S (90% of them), or even a low-end DSLR with a Tamron wide-angle lens and a single on-camera flash unit (the fancy ones).
Realtors are cheapskates and even $50 bucks per house for the service is not worth it for them. They sell the houses regardless and they want to keep all the money so they can keep buying Volvos, lol.
The other photog in your town has got it right -> lots of shots, no technique, quick and dirty, done in an hour. For the few Realtors willing to pay the $50, that will be more than enough.
Believe me, potential buyers don't see the technical prowess in the pics when they look for a house. HDR? That goes completely unnoticed. Multiple remote flashes? Whatever. Have you seen the size of pics in most listings? All that matters is lots of pics, wide angle, period.
I can see an extremely small market for super-high end properties, several million $, but you need a lot more than HDR and a flash to make it. You need TOP photography like what you see in design magazines.
Realtors are cheapskates and even $50 bucks per house for the service is not worth it for them. They sell the houses regardless and they want to keep all the money so they can keep buying Volvos, lol.
The other photog in your town has got it right -> lots of shots, no technique, quick and dirty, done in an hour. For the few Realtors willing to pay the $50, that will be more than enough.
Believe me, potential buyers don't see the technical prowess in the pics when they look for a house. HDR? That goes completely unnoticed. Multiple remote flashes? Whatever. Have you seen the size of pics in most listings? All that matters is lots of pics, wide angle, period.
I can see an extremely small market for super-high end properties, several million $, but you need a lot more than HDR and a flash to make it. You need TOP photography like what you see in design magazines.
Thanks for the link . I saw this website before but never paid it much attention. I will now!
I dont know , I see your point, everyone wants "good enough" results and not to spend too much money, and that often is hardly worth time and effort. I got a word that owner liked the photos so maybe we can discuss it. I'm not worried really about the competition. If my work is good people will eventually find me ... The word spreads out pretty quick usually. Here in vegas there is such real state boom ,with all the foreclosures, etc. Lot of people buy and flip houses ,I'm sure market has a spot for me
I know weddings etc. are more "profitable' but I'd enjoy this kind of work much better. I'm more of the thinker and don;t like to work fast and having to get the shot no matter what. I can do it but its not my preference...
We'll see. I'll try to pursue it ( photography in general0 for few months and see how it goes. If not I'll always have it as a hobby.
--
http://www.infiniteartphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries
I dont know , I see your point, everyone wants "good enough" results and not to spend too much money, and that often is hardly worth time and effort. I got a word that owner liked the photos so maybe we can discuss it. I'm not worried really about the competition. If my work is good people will eventually find me ... The word spreads out pretty quick usually. Here in vegas there is such real state boom ,with all the foreclosures, etc. Lot of people buy and flip houses ,I'm sure market has a spot for me
I know weddings etc. are more "profitable' but I'd enjoy this kind of work much better. I'm more of the thinker and don;t like to work fast and having to get the shot no matter what. I can do it but its not my preference...
We'll see. I'll try to pursue it ( photography in general0 for few months and see how it goes. If not I'll always have it as a hobby.
--
http://www.infiniteartphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries
gipper51
Veteran Member
Your local market is everything. In Vegas you probably have as good a chance as anywhere at succeeding in RE photography. There are people making good livings doing this, so don't let us discourage you, just be realistic in what you can expect. Do the research, plan ahead and stick to that plan.Thanks for the link . I saw this website before but never paid it much attention. I will now!
I dont know , I see your point, everyone wants "good enough" results and not to spend too much money, and that often is hardly worth time and effort. I got a word that owner liked the photos so maybe we can discuss it. I'm not worried really about the competition. If my work is good people will eventually find me ... The word spreads out pretty quick usually. Here in vegas there is such real state boom ,with all the foreclosures, etc. Lot of people buy and flip houses ,I'm sure market has a spot for me
I know weddings etc. are more "profitable' but I'd enjoy this kind of work much better. I'm more of the thinker and don;t like to work fast and having to get the shot no matter what. I can do it but its not my preference...
We'll see. I'll try to pursue it ( photography in general0 for few months and see how it goes. If not I'll always have it as a hobby.
--
http://www.infiniteartphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries
--
Newest galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/architectural
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/interiors
Well, we'll see. If they want me to do it for 50 bucks I'll turn around and wish them nice day. If I have to drive 20-30 miles one way someplace, set up, shoot, come home, load files into PC and PP for a while, c'mon... all that and not counting equipment cost, etc?
Even if I had to do it "quick and dirty" which I really hate to do and work this way with anything, it's just not worth the time and effort.
I see your point but they have to wake up and realize what is going on...
Its same when someone gets rebel and instantly starts offering "professional wedding photography" for 100 bucks. Sure they are some that want SOME photos and will pay that, but may would rather spend more to get some quality.
I know that real estate is different story and market, but same principles apply. You get what you pay for usually. --
http://www.infiniteartphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries
Even if I had to do it "quick and dirty" which I really hate to do and work this way with anything, it's just not worth the time and effort.
I see your point but they have to wake up and realize what is going on...
Its same when someone gets rebel and instantly starts offering "professional wedding photography" for 100 bucks. Sure they are some that want SOME photos and will pay that, but may would rather spend more to get some quality.
I know that real estate is different story and market, but same principles apply. You get what you pay for usually. --
http://www.infiniteartphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries
chris-humphreys-photography
Forum Enthusiast
Hi,
I've experimented over time and found to make it a viable business, you really need to limit the amount of PP you do. Limited PP is fine if it saves you time on setup and I'm pretty quick at it. I almost always use available light.
The approach to each shot very much depends on a) what type of scene it is (high contrast interior, exterior, night shot etc), and b) what I want the final image to present.
There have been occasions where a view through a window is dreadful so I have let the window over expose, this approach sometimes gives a nice 'dreamy' type interior shot.
When the exterior view through a window is important then I shoot one shot for the ambient light inside and one exposed for the window but around 1 stop over-exposed. The 'window' shot also exposes internal light fittings well so serves a dual purpose.
I will adjust white balance and the levels a little in ACR of both images so they are a close match, then import into Photoshop and overlay the 'window' exposure onto the ambient exposure and use a layer mask to blend in the view together with the light fittings.
It may sound a little complicated but I've found it quicker and a more 'scientific' approach than HDR or exposure blending, which can be a bit hit and miss.
The only time I do use exposure blending (never HDR for architectural work), is when the scene has a rediculous amount of high contrast which would simply take too long to blend manually.
Same approach for exteriors really, I try to get them in one shot if I can, if not then I look to manual blending or exposure blending.
To answer your second query about reflections, it's simply a case of positioning your camera and tripod against a background that can be easily cloned, setting a timer and getting out of the room (or lying on the floor!)
Cheers
Chris
--
http://www.chp-architecturalphotography.com
http://www.chrishumphreys.net
I've experimented over time and found to make it a viable business, you really need to limit the amount of PP you do. Limited PP is fine if it saves you time on setup and I'm pretty quick at it. I almost always use available light.
The approach to each shot very much depends on a) what type of scene it is (high contrast interior, exterior, night shot etc), and b) what I want the final image to present.
There have been occasions where a view through a window is dreadful so I have let the window over expose, this approach sometimes gives a nice 'dreamy' type interior shot.
When the exterior view through a window is important then I shoot one shot for the ambient light inside and one exposed for the window but around 1 stop over-exposed. The 'window' shot also exposes internal light fittings well so serves a dual purpose.
I will adjust white balance and the levels a little in ACR of both images so they are a close match, then import into Photoshop and overlay the 'window' exposure onto the ambient exposure and use a layer mask to blend in the view together with the light fittings.
It may sound a little complicated but I've found it quicker and a more 'scientific' approach than HDR or exposure blending, which can be a bit hit and miss.
The only time I do use exposure blending (never HDR for architectural work), is when the scene has a rediculous amount of high contrast which would simply take too long to blend manually.
Same approach for exteriors really, I try to get them in one shot if I can, if not then I look to manual blending or exposure blending.
To answer your second query about reflections, it's simply a case of positioning your camera and tripod against a background that can be easily cloned, setting a timer and getting out of the room (or lying on the floor!)
Cheers
Chris
--
http://www.chp-architecturalphotography.com
http://www.chrishumphreys.net
Thanks for the response. The photos I posted are blended. I know there is room for improvement but software is pretty good...
I used manual blending with mask before, it works pretty well outside but indoors where is a lot of stuff, like furniture , or anything protruding into the windows can make it a pain. Could you be little more specific on how to deal with the blending and masking? I'd love to shoot one shot for outside and one or 2 for the inside and be done....
--
http://www.infiniteartphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries
I used manual blending with mask before, it works pretty well outside but indoors where is a lot of stuff, like furniture , or anything protruding into the windows can make it a pain. Could you be little more specific on how to deal with the blending and masking? I'd love to shoot one shot for outside and one or 2 for the inside and be done....
--
http://www.infiniteartphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries
chris-humphreys-photography
Forum Enthusiast
The key to a good blended image is to take the ambient light exposure into RAW and work on it to boost the shadow area, recover some of the clipping and generally adjust it as if you were taking a single shot. Then take your window exposure, adjust the white balance to match the ambient exposure and again boost the shadows and use recovery to lift the overall tone of the photograph closer to the ambient exposure. This basically makes it a lot easier to mask in as the 'joins' will be of a similar tone.
I paste the window exposure in, add a layer mask and fill it with black to effectively remove it from view. Then using a soft brush at around 50% opacity start to paint in the window exposure. It can get a little tricky when you don't have a clean window opening, but the good thing about doing it this way is it is very easy to use a black brush to removed any areas that aren't blending well and have another go.
Hope that makes sense.
--
http://www.chp-architecturalphotography.com
http://www.chrishumphreys.net
I paste the window exposure in, add a layer mask and fill it with black to effectively remove it from view. Then using a soft brush at around 50% opacity start to paint in the window exposure. It can get a little tricky when you don't have a clean window opening, but the good thing about doing it this way is it is very easy to use a black brush to removed any areas that aren't blending well and have another go.
Hope that makes sense.
--
http://www.chp-architecturalphotography.com
http://www.chrishumphreys.net
Thanks again. yes, it makes sense. I did my first photos this way pretty much here
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/image/132274488
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/image/132276297
I'm just worried that it will take too much time trying to do it with furniture in the way, etc. And may not that well when you have sharp edges of windows...But I'll give it a shot.
--
http://www.infiniteartphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/image/132274488
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/image/132276297
I'm just worried that it will take too much time trying to do it with furniture in the way, etc. And may not that well when you have sharp edges of windows...But I'll give it a shot.
--
http://www.infiniteartphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum