Am I asking the Impossible From My Camera?

[MDJAK]

No wisecracks now. Got it?

Regardless of the fact I'm currently on the darkside, I was doing some interior shots this weekend for a friend trying to sell his six million dollar home. (No, not the crumpler, a real house.) Pictures are to be used for a real estate magazine, multiple listing website and his portfolio as a builder.

I asked him if he wanted to do the shots at sunrise or sunset and being a nonphotographer he said no, high noon is the best light on the house. Well, I didn't want to argue with him. Of course it was incredibly bright and contrasty.

House is on the Long Island Sound. Sky was extremely white.

So, I set up two flashes indoors and attempt to expose for the sky while at the same time exposing the room correctly. I did get a few, but for the most part it was damn near impossible.

Is HDR the only option here?

me

[BigBlueDodge]

I would think that HDR would be a primary candidate in this situations. I'm assuming that by the price tag, that it's a large house, and a couple of Nikon flashes wouldn't have adequate power to properly and evenly light the interior. I'd go back and bring the tripod and start bracketing some shots if shooting at high noon is your only option.

BTW, I still want to know what kind of Frankenstein stuff you got going on with a G10 and 25mm extension tube.

[MDJAK]

I've never done HDR and that's why I didn't even try. I did use a tripod though.

Here's an example of a shot, where the water shows, the sky is blown out, and the interior is too dark. Agree?
http://www.pbase.com/image/111026486.jpg

[MDJAK]

btw, the floor is a very dark stained oak as is the table.

As to the G10 and the 25mm tube, the tube is the last vestige of my Canon L collection. Knowing full well when Canon sorts out the AF problem and comes out with a killer Mark IV, I'll be back with a vengeance and will still have at least my tube.

[-MasterChief-]

dude, expose for the outside and let the flash expose the interior of the house.

[BigBlueDodge]

Yeah, I see what you are referring to. I do think that there are two options

1. Take the pictures at a time where the intensity of the outside lighting is similar to the intensity of the inside lighting. This will allow the dynamic range of your camera to record all of the tones.

2. Do HDR. Bracket your shots, and use Photoshop or Photomatix to combine the pictures.


BTW, you seriously need to clean that sensor off. Got lots of dust bunnies on it.

[DDCSD]

And clean that dirty Nikon sensor!

EDIT: Ah, I got beaten to it.

[MDJAK]

Here's another example
http://www.pbase.com/image/111026694.jpg

And believe it or not, I did clean the sensor before I left the house. Not very well obviously. Actually made it worse. And I used the wet swabs too, but obviously to no avail. When I saw the marks I was sick. It's a lot of work even with the dust removal tool in LR2. I cleaned it again, this time with a Visible dust brush and then the wet swabs and it was much better.
I do miss the sensor cleaning of the MKIII, for sure; it worked very well.

I tried exposing for the outside and letting the flash expose the inside. I tried manual and aperture mode. Nothing I did, including increasing the flash output, seemed to work completely.

[-MasterChief-]

I tried exposing for the outside and letting the flash expose the inside.

did you spot meter the outside scene? it should work.

[BigBlueDodge]

I think the problem you will run into using the flash route, is getting even lighting throughout the picture. This, of course, assume your flashes can put out enough light to overcome the small aperatures that will be required when you expose for the bright outside lighting.

[MDJAK]

I didn't spot meter the outside, just tried to expose it by using the focus mark, which I now realize was dumb. But if I had done as you suggest, what mode should I have been in?

[BigBlueDodge]

did you spot meter the outside scene? it should work.


This is alot different than using fill flash for portraits outdoors. There is a much larger area to light, and requires more flash output. Then you have issues trying to create even lighting throughout the images so that the ceiling is lit the same as the floors.

Let me ask you this. Where you do point the flash? Do you point it at the ceiling, in an attempt to bounce it? The result is that the ceiling is now lit, but the floor is not. Do you point it at the floor to show off the dark wood? But since it's dark, the flash doesn't bounce as much, and the ceiling is several stops less. Do you point it at the walls, if so which one? Is one wall going to be brighter than the other? You see where I'm going with this. It's hard to create large, diffuse wrap around lighting with a small speedlight. You seem to be pretty confident about exposing for outside, and using flash for fill. I'd love to see some of your photos where this has worked great.

[MDJAK]

I think the problem you will run into using the flash route, is getting even lighting throughout the picture. This, of course, assume your flashes can put out enough light to overcome the small aperatures that will be required when you expose for the bright outside lighting.

So if I didn't use flashes, would HDR be the only way? I'm also now seeing the terrible shadows created by the flashes.

[versedmb]

You need to convince your friend that the shots would be better taken at another time of day. Everything looks better during "the magic hour" ;) . Some night shots of a property like this would probably look great too.

[BigBlueDodge]

So if I didn't use flashes, would HDR be the only way? I'm also now seeing the terrible shadows created by the flashes.


Using HDR, or taking pictures at dawn or dusk would be my preferred options.

The shadows are something you will have to deal with if using flashes.

[AJSJones]

If noon is the only option, you need to go rent some (maybe a lot of) professional lights - softboxes, reflective umbrella thingies etc to minimize the shadows.

[MDJAK]

Well, as I was sitting there, after shooting, and exporting and making a DVD for them, I told his wife, with whom I work and know better (he had left) that I read in National Geographic the editors won't even look at pics from their photogs if they're not shot at sunrise or around sunset. She was surprised by that and said there are beautiful sunsets there. I'll have to return and give it a try.

[-MasterChief-]

I'd love to see some of your photos where this has worked great.

i have to dig them up, but i will as soon as i find one.

[MDJAK]

Here's the view from the rear deck: Note the glass walls/railings:
http://www.pbase.com/image/111029159.jpg

[Kruzkal]

HDR, or take an image spot metered to the outside as well as inside then use a mask to manually blend the two in PS.

[blueM]

Some night shots of a property like this would probably look great too.

Second this idea. I also agree with the idea of shooting at sunrise or sunset.

[kcbrown]

Where are the wisecracks? You can't have a thread where the OP says "no wisecracks" without at least a few wisecracks!

:-P

[DDCSD]

A MarkIII could have done it...

[kcbrown]

On a more serious note, if you have to shoot at noon, I think the best option would be to make the windows play as minor a role in the shots as possible. The lighting in the dining room shot actually looks like it would look really good if you shot from, say, the fireplace (so that the room would have a nice diffuse side lighting from the window). I think you can make the place look really good in your shots, but unless you're willing to do HDR you'll have to ditch the idea of including the outside in the shots while shooting during midday.

EDIT: Besides, what do you really want to emphasize? The beautiful interior, or the gorgeous surroundings? If you want both then you may want to shoot them in such a way that one does not overpower the other. That could be challenging, but that's why this stuff is fun!

[PhotosGuy]

You might have to use HDR. high noon is the best light on the house. If it were me, I'd take the shots when I thought I should, both interior & exterior. Then show them to him.

Photographing Bathrooms, Bedrooms (Pg 2), Hallways (Pg 3), Living Rooms (pg 4), (http://www.all-things-photography.com/photographing-bathrooms.html) etc.

[Ziffle]

serious side....Don't for get to change your camera height.

'no wise cracks' section....
You are showing a lot of ceiling.... by getting more of the dark floor - it will help hide your ....ah... expertise in sensor cleaning.... :lol:

[Shellback]

I agree with telling him the best time to take the shots is the way to go. If he doesn't respect your judgment as the photographer then you need to decide if you really want to do it.

Take two exposures for each view, one exposed for the windows and one for the interior. Combine the files as layers (window shots on bottom or background layer) and either erase or use a mask and paint over the windows (and possibly the light on the floor etc. from the windows) to reveal the properly exposed window areas.

I've never shot home interiors but I've done some old buildings and a covered bridge and this has worked for me. I also shoot in RAW but I imagine it would work fine with high quality JPG shots.

[Tom W]

I shot an interior a couple of weeks ago, for similar reasons. It was a heavy overcast/rainy day. The light was actually quite good in terms of contrast, though the view through the windows was obviously not spectacular.

[egordon99]

You do know that IF the outside is blown out, you use a faster shutter speed, right? (or smaller aperture/lower ISO, but that also affects the flash exposure)

Now I've never shot in a room quite that big (my house is a little smaller), but I have no problems keeping the windows from being blown out, and using my lowly 580EXII to illuminate the interior. It's all about controlling the "two" exposures, flash and ambient, where flash exposure is controlled by flash power, ISO, and f-stop, and ambient exposure is controlled by shutter speed, ISO, and f-stop.

What do you usually shoot? You have some pretty kicka*s gear! I'd love to have a 200-400 f/4 VR :)

[egordon99]

Listen to Tom! I LOVE rainy/overcast days. For portaits, get the subject lit by this light, and ooooooooooh, photographic goodness ensues!

I shot an interior a couple of weeks ago, for similar reasons. It was a heavy overcast/rainy day. The light was actually quite good in terms of contrast, though the view through the windows was obviously not spectacular.

[muscleflex]

dude, strobist site has got an article relating precisely to this type! :-)

[egordon99]

You're not asking the impossible from the camera (dynamic range issues aside...) but the camera isn't as smart as we'd like to think, so you have to "tell" it NOT to blow out the windows, and then set it up (along with additional lighting) so that it properly captures the strobe-lit interior.

I guess you can say you're asking the impossible if you wanted to go into this shoot, put it on AUTO and get a fabulous picture worthy of "Better Homes & Gardens"

[Perry Ge]

Dude, don't forget that this is REAL ESTATE photography. Your aim is not to create art - your aim is to show off the property favourably but accurately. So do not ponce around with HDR, and blown out windows aren't the end of the world. But if you must eliminate them, as others have said, just meter for the outside and then use strobes.

[Roy Webber]

I run my own real estate company (http://www.fuerteventura-propertyworld.com/) and shoot all the images; if you need any tips, please let me know
Roy

[René Damkot]

I'd vote no flash, proper time of the day, tripod and blended exposures:
http://www.moonglade.net/~rene/Sumatrastraat55/source/image/rhd_20070420_liset_0097.jpg

[kcbrown]

Dude, don't forget that this is REAL ESTATE photography. Your aim is not to create art - your aim is to show off the property favourably but accurately.


Actually, wouldn't the goal be to show off the property as favorably as possible while also making the shots recognizable (when looking at the property in person)?

I'd think the idea would be to make people want to go see the place. Most shots I've seen of property are quite dull, actually. I'd think a good photographer would be able to give a property seller a huge advantage over most of the others.

I'd think creating art in real estate shots would be the way a good photographer could make that advantage a reality.

[Perry Ge]

Actually, wouldn't the goal be to show off the property as favorably as possible while also making the shots recognizable (when looking at the property in person)?

I'd think the idea would be to make people want to go see the place. Most shots I've seen of property are quite dull, actually. I'd think a good photographer would be able to give a property seller a huge advantage over most of the others.

I'd think creating art in real estate shots would be the way a good photographer could make that advantage a reality.

Why didn't you quote the rest of my post? We don't disagree at all. I said "favourably but accurately", you said "favourably while recognizable". You say tomato I say....tomato :lol:.

I've done interior photography once before, not for real estate though, for a brochure. I went for 'accurate but pretty', shot at night (solves the window problem!), ended up with stuff like this:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2034/2299195659_ddf7f21d9a.jpg?v=0

[DDCSD]

Actually, wouldn't the goal be to show off the property as favorably as possible while also making the shots recognizable (when looking at the property in person)?

I'd think the idea would be to make people want to go see the place. Most shots I've seen of property are quite dull, actually. I'd think a good photographer would be able to give a property seller a huge advantage over most of the others.

I'd think creating art in real estate shots would be the way a good photographer could make that advantage a reality.

But you have to be very careful. You don't want people to show up and wonder where the heck the place they saw in the photos went. It makes people mad when they feel they have been deceived.

[Perry Ge]

But you have to be very careful. You don't want people to show up and wonder where the heck the place they saw in the photos went. It makes people mad when they feel they have been deceived.

+100

[kcbrown]

But you have to be very careful. You don't want people to show up and wonder where the heck the place they saw in the photos went. It makes people mad when they feel they have been deceived.

True.

So you just have to make sure that they show up at roughly the time you took the shots so that the lighting is the same. :-D

[kcbrown]

Why didn't you quote the rest of my post? We don't disagree at all. I said "favourably but accurately", you said "favourably while recognizable". You say tomato I say....tomato :lol:.


Heh. Yeah, I suppose that's the case. When someone says "accurately", I usually presume they mean something more strict than "approximately"...


I've done interior photography once before, not for real estate though, for a brochure. I went for 'accurate but pretty', shot at night (solves the window problem!), ended up with stuff like this:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2034/2299195659_ddf7f21d9a.jpg?v=0

Very nice shot! The real question is: did it look something like that in real life? :-)

[zincozinco]

Im only on page 1 but you need to do atleast 3 shoots dawn and dusk, - inside out if you cant make it return next day... its hell but make sure you cover the angles at different times of day as well as ALL the mid daylight shots NEED to be HDR forget about flashes if you dont bring a mobile studio to give an even light, we are talking about 6 000 000 house its not the "flat around the corner". get some "feely" "moody" shots at night.... very important....

[zincozinco]

Dude, :) check out some real estate pages before going next time, so that you get an idea of what is "needed". Also if you go "wide" make sure you can crop so that furniture and walls dont look weird. A saviour is a TS lens.

Edit: Im only saying and this is nice critique, the 2 photos you posted (page 1) look like the furniture is a bit weird and that the architect was high when he did the ceiling etc.. you really need to look at the detail as you would with any subject in PP. Architecture is about straight lines and horizons especially when you give an overview of a room, not so important on details.. I hope you dont take this the wrong way. However if you wont be able to get back on different hours, BLOW out the windows and that can give you a nice feel and the horizon is not important ... anyway its late here and im just rambling on!! Good Luck!!

[trailblazer]

I didn't read any other post other than the OP, so I may be repeating information.
I believe these two links will prove useful for you:

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/08/one-light-real-estate-photography.html

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/02/scott-hargis-interview-tonight-8-pm-pt.html

I think that shooting high noon is a bad idea with two flashes because they do not have enough power after hit the limit of 1/250 SS and you crank down the aperture to maybe f/16 trying to expose for the outdoors.

So unless you are going to rent some high powered strobes, I really think you should speak with the owner of the house about shooting either morning or evening because your camera cannot compress the dynamic range you are trying to get from those scenes, without HDR or shooting at another time of day.

[-MasterChief-]

they do not have enough power after hit the limit of 1/250 SS

assuming Mark used his D3, his sync speed wouldve been 1/500th.

[DDCSD]

assuming Mark used his D3, his sync speed wouldve been 1/500th.

Only in HSS mode. The D3's X-sync is 1/250s.

[trailblazer]

assuming Mark used his D3, his sync speed wouldve been 1/500th.

Not unless he was using high speed sync:

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25434/D3.html

And while that is fine, it would seriously lessen his flash power which he would need.

[-MasterChief-]

oopsie! thanks for the clarification guys! ive always known Nikons to have a higher flash sync speed but times have changed! :D

[Perry Ge]

Very nice shot! The real question is: did it look something like that in real life? :-)

a) Thank you :D.
b) Yes :p, it's a karaoke bar/lounge. Bars often look cool.

[PaulSoebekti]

Hi Mark.

Canon USA has this article on real estate photography,

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2887

Hope it helps.

Paul

[Tomi Hawk]

Very nice shot! The real question is: did it look something like that in real life? :-)
Heyyy, he said, "no wise cracks" ...


:p

[DocFrankenstein]

1) Don't allow the clients to tell you how to shoot. They probably have no idea that you can take a picture in the evening at all.

2) Do shoot at sunrise/sunset. Grab an ambient meter. Turn the lights on inside and start shooting when the light outside is about 2 stops higher than the light inside.

3) You can shoot like that without the flash

4) But they probably have a bunch of those little ceiling projector lights, and they're very contrasty. This is where your flash comes in to bring the contrast down.

you'll have maybe 15 minutes to shoot to the point where your outside light matches your inside. At that point turn off some of the inside lights and shoot some more.

Try to expose to show off the texture in the floors.

I'd do this with a large format camera because it has all the movement and film, because it handles overexposure better than digital.

this is what it looks like when the outside ambient matches the inside. For a natural look, you want the outside about 1-2 stops higher than inside.

You'll have a color balance problem as well. Outside light is blue, tungsten is yellow and fluorescent is green. So don't mix tungsten and fluorescent and put some gels on the lights and your flash if you can to bring everything to daylight.

Alternatively put daylight to tungsten on the windows and flash.

[DocFrankenstein]

My picture is a perfect example of what you should expect if you bring a huge flash in the middle of the day. The light distribution is not even and you'll get very shadowy areas.

What you want is to be there 30 minutes before sunset and shoot for an hour after with the ambient light in the room. At some point the light levels will work out to be pretty and natural looking.

[PhotosGuy]

2) Do shoot at sunrise/sunset. Grab an ambient meter. Turn the lights on inside and start shooting when the light outside is about 2 stops higher than the light inside.
And don't feel that you have to live with their stinkin' 60 wt table lamp mood lighting, either. Carry some high wattage bulbs with you to brighten up parts of the image. Just don't burn up any expensive lamp shades! :D

[MDJAK]

You guys/gals have been extremely helpful. I told them we gotta do it again at or near sunset and they're all for it. Hopefully my sensor's a bit cleaner too.

As to that interview quoted above on photoCamel, I joined the site, but I don't see the video. I realize it was over a year ago. Is there any way to find that?

me

[p32shooter]

use 2nd curtain shutter for the flash too

[H20boy]

And don't feel that you have to live with their stinkin' 60 wt table lamp mood lighting, either. Carry some high wattage bulbs with you to brighten up parts of the image. Just don't burn up any expensive lamp shades! :D

I don't think like this...but it's a great tip! Brighten up the room as much as possible with those lamps.

[Eagle i]

Where are the wisecracks? You can't have a thread where the OP says "no wisecracks" without at least a few wisecracks!

:-P
Ok so if the guy is selling a $6,000,000 home why doesn't he hire a pro?


















:cool: j/k that's all I got in the way of a wisecrack

[mbellot]

No wisecracks now. Got it?

Its a Nikon, you're lucky you got pictures at all.

:p

[egordon99]

What would this accomplish? If the shutter speed is at or close to X-sync, and the subject is static, I can not see any reason to use 2nd curtain.

use 2nd curtain shutter for the flash too

[TMR Design]

Sorry I'm late to the party Mark.

In terms of asking too much from your camera. Very simply, yes. The dynamic range of the scene exceeds that of the camera's sensor, but that doesn't mean it can't be captured. There are compromises in highlight and/or shadow but it can be done. The interior can be lit with flashes or strobes that are carefully placed so they're hidden or out of the shot, firing up at the ceiling with wide reflectors to provide, soft even fill lighting.

You can get a reading on the exposure for outside the windows and figure out how much you want or need to underexpose. Then make sure your interior lighting is above the exterior by the number of stops you want to underexpose the exterior.

Use an ND filter to bring you overall exposure back down to where you want to be shooting.

I know, easier said than done, but that would be my approach.

[RichNY]

Jeez, so much of the advice here is as bad as your images Mark :)

To the HDR junkies, don't forget you need to keep the image within the dynamic exposure range of a CYMK commercial printer.

To all the sunrise/sunset guys- spend some more time in the lighting forum. Proper use of flash will allow you to shoot any time during the day.

Post #5 gave you the correct approach and Robert's post above should help to eliminate those hard shadows. The reference to the ND filter also gives you an excuse to buy that Singh-Ray Vari-ND filter you've probably been planning to buy ;)

If you can swing re-shooting for the same day we do the botanical gardens next week I'll be your lighting assistant in trade for a steak. (Not burned like you did the first one)

[kcbrown]

Jeez, so much of the advice here is as bad as your images Mark :)


Yeah, but even worse, there aren't enough wisecracks. :-P

:-D

[TeeTee]

Don't ask so much of the camera, ask more from yourself.

Shoot at the right time of day when the sun is weaker (around sun rising/setting, twilight), with a WB to complment the interior lighting of the house, and supplemental flash only when necessary and in a flattering manner. Photographers have been shooting well exposed interior architecture with windows in the scene for decades if not centuries.

HDR is an effect, not a solution.

[breal101]

Mark, the best way to approach this problem is to use modified HDR. It uses both flash to light where it's needed and multiple exposures to bring the image into range. You don't have to hide the flash, just use the section lit by it in a layer and not the part of the image where the flash shows. It's best done by bouncing in the flash or using a modifier such as an umbrella or softbox. Yes, it's a bit time consuming in both shooting and post but the result is worth the trouble. And your friend RichNY doesn't know what he's talking about, we print images done this way all the time. They are well within the range of commercial printing. In fact that's the reason we shoot using this method, to bring the dynamic range to an acceptable level. Burn his steak, with advice like that he deserves it.:) Just remember that the f-stop must remain constant for this, shutter speed can be changed as needed. With low power flash units it would be best to shoot at a time when the ambient outdoor light is lower.

[René Damkot]

use 2nd curtain shutter for the flash too

Won't make a lick of difference...

[polarbare]

Selling a $6M home? Hire someone who knows these answers already, as a friend that should be your recommendation IMO. Not making any assumptions about you or your photography but you clearly aren't a real estate specialist and for this level of investment he should hire a pro.

[chauncey]

But he does have level horizons, unlike some of us.

[tylershumway]

Interior photography sure is an art. It takes great execution/lighting/composition to pull off a great picture. I've talked to a few photographers who do this type of work and it takes them many hours, replacing all the lamps with higher wattage, adding fill flashes, metering the scene right.