Real Estate Interiors

[heathermarie]

Hi Guys!

I need some help. I shoot a lot of real estate photos and really want to up my game and that means HDR. Now I have no problem with HDR for exteriors, but when it comes to interiors I'm not sure I know quite what to do.

I really want windows to pop with great color and clarity and not be blown out.

Typically for my indoor shoots I meter my windows and use my 430ex to fill the room. So my settings are usually around iso 400, f9, 1/160ish ... lets say. This work great.

So... I want to go to HDR instead.. now I can use AEB on my 40d, but I cannot use my flash with this feature? Also, I don't want to futz with a tripod on my stills so, my shutter speed can't get too low.


Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

[Sgt.]

I would suggest the tripod or a monopod!!
I have only done this twice for friends but they were very pleased.
Have a look.

http://22ndstudio.smugmug.com/Business/Real-Estate-Photos/8019467_vLdix#521662409_BFiVD

[Sgt.]

Oh if you use lightroom, you can use an adjustment brush to bring the exposure down on a window.

[_GUI_]

If you do several shots at different exposure, you will be able to lift the dark interior areas (you, or your favourite tone mapping software) without noise appearing, so flash is not needed.

A curve like this (http://www.guillermoluijk.com/tutorial/dcraw/curvas_exp.gif) has absolutely no effect in tones and can be used to lift these areas working in the same way as fill light.

But please, use a tripod, the best and cheapest noise killer and sharpness enhancer ever.

Regards

[heathermarie]

Thanks for the response guys...

If I meter to get the windows any where near to not being blown out then everything else is way too dark.. beyond recovery..

In this tour is a couple of HDR photos... the look I'm talking about.. the windows look surreal and I'm assuming this is HDR... but without the HDR feel (which is my goal)

http://www.obeo.com/565975

Please let me know if you have any other comments/help/tips for me!

[_GUI_]

If I meter to get the windows any where near to not being blown out then everything else is way too dark.. beyond recovery.

The camera is limited in the dynamic range it can capture, it is not a matter of how you meter, but how exposed your RAW files are. If in a high dynamic range scene you only shoot once, you will either get blown windows (left) or noisy shadows impossible to lift with a minimum IQ (right):

http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/nonoise/ejemplo1.jpg


With just 2 shots 3 or 4 stops apart, you will be able to get the best from each having a perfect HDR composite (non-clipped highlights + noisefree shadows):

http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/nonoise/ejemplo2.jpg


That is why a tripod is very recommended.

Regards

[heathermarie]

Maybe I'm totally on crack..

Can you show me the three shots you got before you blended them together? I just can't figure this out for the life of me!

[_GUI_]

Can you show me the three shots you got before you blended them together? I just can't figure this out for the life of me!
No, because I only took two shots (4EV apart).

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/1757/nucia.jpg

[heathermarie]

Oh I'm GOING crazy on this. I'm trying to use AEB. If I meter for the light spot (the window) then I get three interior dark images... and if I meter for the dark spot inside then I get blown windows.

Thanks so much for your help. Can you explain the steps you took to evaluate this scene and what settings you used?


Why.. WHY... *cries*

[_GUI_]

You are focusing so much on metering, while you should focus on exposing.

Always in M mode, I did a couple of test shots in order to get the maximum exposure without blowing the outside views (what you call 'get the windows any where near to not being blown'), and that was shot 1. Next I set exposure +4EV with respect to the previous exposure setting (i.e. I set a 2^4=16 times longer exposure time) and shot again. That was shot 2. And that's it.

I now use AEB, but it's the same story:
1. Before setting the AEB, I do a couple of test shots in order to get the maximum exposure without blowing the outside views
2. Once achieved the goal in 1, now I lift exposure by +2EV (i.e. set a 2^2=4 times longer exposure time)
3. Now activate AEB {-2,0,+2}, and do the three shots

Step 2 is very important in order to make the least exposed shot (-2 in the bracketing), a shot with maximum exposure right before clipping the highlights.

Regards

[Viva-photography]

I use exposure fusion, much more natural looking.

[MikeFairbanks]

You're really smart for doing this (HDR for interior real estate shots). I noticed a couple months ago while searching for real estate that a couple people had done it (hdr), but most do not. Heck, most realtors and agents take poor shots (and most homeowners leave all the clutter out such as magnest all over the refridgerator, etc.).

Two things I learned about interior real estate photography and open houses are:

1. The more light the better. Turn on all the lights, open the window shades, blinds, etc.

2. Get rid of the clutter, and that includes family pictures on the wall, drawings on the fridge, etc. People don't want to see YOUR home. They want to see THEIR future home.

[HastyPhoto]

If your shooting interiors I highly suggest you pretend your shooting outside in bright sun and shoot atleast 11 exposures from -5 to +5 after metering a medium toned scene inside. This way your just about sure to gather all the detail for both inside and out. If its super bright outside I'd even go a few stops darker too, check your histogram.

[_GUI_]

shoot atleast 11 exposures from -5 to +5 after metering a medium toned scene inside. This way your just about sure to gather all the detail for both inside and out.

I think by shooting at least 11 exposures to get a single image, you are about sure to quickly fill your memory cards and waste tons of time processing unnecesary shots. 3 shots are enough for any HDR situation that is intended to end in a real state brochure.

[HastyPhoto]

I think by shooting at least 11 exposures to get a single image, you are about sure to quickly fill your memory cards and waste tons of time processing unnecesary shots. 3 shots are enough for any HDR situation that is intended to end in a real state brochure.


You couldnt be more wrong!

[_GUI_]

You couldnt be more wrong!
Wrong in what?

[kirkt]

If your shooting interiors I highly suggest you pretend your shooting outside in bright sun and shoot atleast 11 exposures from -5 to +5 after metering a medium toned scene inside. This way your just about sure to gather all the detail for both inside and out. If its super bright outside I'd even go a few stops darker too, check your histogram.

You don't need to pretend anything. Meter your highlights and shadows and capture them with proper exposure. You certainly don't NEED 11 images - sure, you can shoot as many as you want, but your camera probably has a dynamic range of about 8 to 10 stops - if you take two or three shots spaced 2 to 3 EV apart, you'll capture the 14 stops that the human brain can perceive. Now, combining them to leverage all of that data can be an issue. if you use exposure blending (enfuse, tufuse, by hand - also Zero Noise which does the same thing but in 16 bit TIFF form) then you are good to go because there is no pixel averaging, just segmentation of the best exposed pixels. If you use HDR combination techniques, then you may need more data to eliminate noise - then you obviously have to deal with tonemapping. Then there is HDR PhotoStudio which is somewhere in between because it allows you to make traditional adjustments in 32 bit space, giving you fewer artifacts. Then of course you can do a whole boatload of 32 bit adjustments in PS using the Magic Bullet Photolooks plug-in from Red Giant Software (can you believe it, 32 bit CURVES!). Blah blah blah.

Example from some old RAWs I found cleaning a hard drive. Sorry about the JPEG compression - trying to keep the file size small. Three RAWs combined in HDR Photo Studio 2 (Mac) and some basic adjustments done there. Saved as a 32 bit "BEF" file - HDR Photo Studio's file format - there is a plug-in for PS to open this format. In PS, 32 bit adjustments in PhotoLooks, the mode change to 16 bit with some final tweaks.

http://kirkt.smugmug.com/Photography/Photo-of-the-Day/hdr-0009-0015test2/837212750_MAc4J-X3.jpg

Kirk

[TGrundvig]

Thanks for the response guys...

If I meter to get the windows any where near to not being blown out then everything else is way too dark.. beyond recovery..

In this tour is a couple of HDR photos... the look I'm talking about.. the windows look surreal and I'm assuming this is HDR... but without the HDR feel (which is my goal)

http://www.obeo.com/565975

Please let me know if you have any other comments/help/tips for me!

Ok, this company does the photo processing themselves. They send out the photog, get the images and then they blend, or fuse. If you look closely at the images in the link you provided, you will see both blow out windows and crystal clear windows, yet the interior exposure appears to be the same. Take the kitchen, for example, one has a blown out window over the sink and the other does not, but they both appear to have similar interior exposure.

What they are doing is a very time consuming practice. Basically, they create the HDR image using whatever software they use. Once they get that final image, they then take it and the image with the most ideal window view, or a HDR image created from images to get the best window view. They then layer those to images with the window view image on top. From there, you use a soft brush and literally just erase all the parts of the image except for the window area to reveal the properly exposed interior underneath. The result is the perfectly esposed interior with a layer of the perfect exposed window area. Flatten the layers into one image and you have.

Trust me, I have used several programs, I have used everything from two images to 12, I have played with all the settings, there is no program that will give you an interior exposed like that with the windows exposed like that in one image. Another give away of this technique is to look closely at the kitchen sink below the window....see the extremely bright areas on the sink fixture? How could that be so bright if the window is so soft? It can't, it's impossible. The only way to get that final image is the way I described.

Here is one I did using the technique I described....

[TGrundvig]

Here is another one but I used PS to do the HDR. I created two HDR images, one for the interior, one for the exterior, I layered them and then erased the areas I didn't want in the top layer.

[TGrundvig]

Now, this image was done using six images and the HDR was created in Photomatix 3 Pro. The only reason this image worked is because of how close I was to the window. The HDR I created from further back (at the entry to the kitchen) did not give me the same results because the dynamic range was too wide.

[bfinta]

also you can see in that set that he only bothered to 'fix' some of the windows in some of the shots, there is some bedroom pics where the windows are blown out and some where its not completely blown out but certainly washed out a bit. I too have been playing with my setting for interior 'blended' shots and I find for really bright windows -2 is not enough to prevent the windows from being blown out, usually i find if i go -4 then my problem of windows being blown out is eliminated but then of course i have to bracket -4 -2 0 so then i have no choice but to bracket 3 more shots so i end up doing 0 +2 +4 ... now i may be wrong as i've gone on the assumption (probably wrong but i'll test it myself in the next few days) that they have to be evenly spread out the shots but i will try doing a set -4 -2 0 +1 +2 and see how that turns out.

[TGrundvig]

also you can see in that set that he only bothered to 'fix' some of the windows in some of the shots, there is some bedroom pics where the windows are blown out and some where its not completely blown out but certainly washed out a bit. I too have been playing with my setting for interior 'blended' shots and I find for really bright windows -2 is not enough to prevent the windows from being blown out, usually i find if i go -4 then my problem of windows being blown out is eliminated but then of course i have to bracket -4 -2 0 so then i have no choice but to bracket 3 more shots so i end up doing 0 +2 +4 ... now i may be wrong as i've gone on the assumption (probably wrong but i'll test it myself in the next few days) that they have to be evenly spread out the shots but i will try doing a set -4 -2 0 +1 +2 and see how that turns out.

I'd be interested in hearing your findings becuase I apply the same process, if -4 is what is required to expose for the window then +4 is the other end. However, I find that +4 is usually off the scale on the histogram. One book I read mentioned something about using the histogram as a guideline, not the EV. What I end up doing is just deleting the image(s) that over expose too much. I only want to see the shadows, not see clearly under the couch, which is what +4 gives me. I try to keep the shadows as much as I can so it looks as natural as it can, but then the images used typically do not result in a balanced -4 to +4 range.

Please let me know what you discover and I'll try the same thing and we can compare notes. Maybe even provide the images of both. The HDR of -4 to +4 and the HDR of just following the histogram. After all, this is how we get better, right?

[Bollan]

Hi Heather, if you really want to up your game in real estate photography you really need to get some basic rules sorted out first.

Tripod is an absolute must to start with. You need to shoot at as low ISO as possible and for interiors that means a tripod, end of story. Also if you want to get into HDR photography you must use tripod if you want decent results.

On camera flash is rarely a good option for lighting up interiors as it often creates flat and ugly images. Try to use as much available light as possible and in cases when that's not enough use 2-3 of camera flashes/strobes to gently lit up your area. As you want to step up your game why dont get yourself two softboxes, they work great for lighten up interiors with a soft smooth light.

As for metering there is no "one recipe" solution for how many brackets you need to to shoot. It all depends of the actual scene. In a dimly lit room you maybe need 9-11 stops of range to cover the whole scene's dynamic range. In a well lit room less brackets can get you covered.

Michael James is a great real estate shooter and you can find some useful tips and ideas on his blog at http://hdriblog.com/. If you take a look at his galleries, thats how good real estate HDR images should look like.

[CaptivatedByBeauty]

You don't need to pretend anything. Meter your highlights and shadows and capture them with proper exposure. You certainly don't NEED 11 images - sure, you can shoot as many as you want, but your camera probably has a dynamic range of about 8 to 10 stops - if you take two or three shots spaced 2 to 3 EV apart, you'll capture the 14 stops that the human brain can perceive.
...
Kirk

Dynamic Range varies from Sensor to Sensor
http://hdriblog.com/category/hdr-tutorial/

A single shot on a D3x is like taking two separate shots with an older Canon Rebel about 1 EV stops apart and then blending them in post. So if a D3x shooter says you only need 3aeb with frames at +/-2EV, you actually need 6aeb at +/-1EV with your older Canon Rebel to get the same gorgeous post production results. How do I know this? I’ve shot with both!!!
...
When bracketing you only get extremely clean data in the center/sweet spot of each capture. A camera like a Nikon D3x gives you more clean data in the middle part of the histogram than even a Canon 5D Mark II. So if you have to bracket a huge dynamic range scene with 11 frames spaced 1EV apart with a D3x, you might want to consider bracketing only 2/3rds steps between frames with a 5D Mark II (and increase the number of shots to cover the same dynamic range). With an APS-C sensor you will often need to go down to 1/3rd EV jumps between frames and take far more shots to cover the same dynamic range in order to caputure the same clean data throughout that range.
...
I know this because I’ve delivered nearly 15,000 commercial images that were originally fully bracketed series of 7-15 shots per image. And I’ve used dozens of cameras from various brands like Pentax, Nikon, Sigma and the worst of dynamic range brands… Canon. So I’ve done a ridiculous amount testing to try and find the holy grail of HDR capture. In the end, there is no one camera sensor or system that is perfect, but what I’ve found are general rules that allow you to make sure you get the entire dynamic range of a scene nailed with what system you are currently using.


Maybe this explains why Bob Hasty suggested such a large number of exposures.

[kirkt]

Dynamic Range varies from Sensor to Sensor
http://hdriblog.com/category/hdr-tutorial/

Maybe this explains why Bob Hasty suggested such a large number of exposures.

While DR varies from sensor to sensor, it is the way that you use the available dynamic range that counts.

Here is a database that will permit you to compare the dynamic range of many commercially available sensors:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database

When you arbitrarily pronounce that you MUST shoot 11 or 13 or whatever exposures, you are already assuming things about the shoot that may be irrelevant. Because most people do not understand how exposures are combined in various workflows, they assume more is better. This is not the case. This is similar to stating that you MUST merge only raw files for HDR - nope. JPEG can be just as good, and sometimes better, for example - when acquisition speed is a factor, or you are shooting a large HDR panoramic image where there are several exposures per panorama segment. If you are making a true 32bit HDR file in your workflow, you can always correct white balance in full 32bit precision if your JPEG WB was a little off. But you need to understand how your JPEGs must be made in camera so that you do not start introducing artifacts into the HDR assembly process. Again, more is not always better.

You need to evaluate two aspects of capturing the full scene-referred luminance:

1) the exposure bracket
2) the images used in the merge, based on the tools you are using to produce the final set of data.

Simply saying that you need to pretend that you are shooting in bright sunlight outside for interior captures makes no sense. Although it may be counterintuitive, shooting outside in bright sunlight does not necessarily mean that your scene will have a high dynamic range. In most any scene you can meter for the dynamic range and choose a range of exposures that acquires the full range in the scene. If you read Michael James' blog thoroughly, you will appreciate this as well, although I know he likes to do things like shoot in fractional EV steps, which can get a little over the top.

There are automation tools that permit extended bracketing so that you can easily acquire 13 exposures - i use a Promote Control and it makes life easy. However, I rarely use all of the exposures when I make the merge, regardless of which application or workflow I use. Because memory cards are cheap, you can shoot way more exposures than you think you need, just in case there is something you want to bring out in the data that you did not visualize when you were shooting.

So, I'm not sure why Bob Hasty says the things he says in this (old!) post. Here is a really good resource that addresses a lot of these issues - Christian Bloch is working on the second edition of his essential HDRI Handbook reference and, hopefully, it will be out soon:

http://www.hdrlabs.com/tutorials/index.html

kirk