A thread for real estate, architectural, and interior design photography

New to this thread. I've always shot interiors at night. Maybe it's because I've never shot HDR before.

What do you all think of this photo? Could I get a similar look shooting in the daytime with HDR?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

My Edit.....just a quick one. Just some burning & dodging. But yea....lots of pink in it. Look at the building on the far right..

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

sean, check out the re-edit a couple posts back.

mikekelley wrote in post #13172978

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Casa De Cadillac by mike kelley / mpkelley.com, on Flickr

How's this looking?

Now that looks great! The reduction in yellow hue allows the sky to work much better. Taking out the tail lights puts the focus where it needs to be. Great job!

I have to ask....was this a sky you added or was it there?

Thanks Tyler. These things can be a fickle beast, sometimes I just get so caught up in putting in as much cool stuff as I can that it ends up hurting the image.

I replaced the sky with one that I took in Malibu a couple of weeks ago

Thanks so much for your help on this one!

Looks somewhat like an architectural illustration in tempera paint. I like it.

mikekelley wrote in post #13173228
Thanks Tyler. These things can be a fickle beast, sometimes I just get so caught up in putting in as much cool stuff as I can that it ends up hurting the image.

I replaced the sky with one that I took in Malibu a couple of weeks ago

Thanks so much for your help on this one!

The re-edit works for me too, Mike. (I've been busy and just opened up again.)

The red lines WERE distracting, with the interrupted lines being the worst. Otherwise it's an interesting and effective shot.

I'm thinking about selling my 17-40mm for a 16-35mm... What do you guys think?

I found a local 16-35mm for about $1k and I can sell my mint 17-40 for about $750. Would it be worth the extra few hundred for the 2.8? Would you do it?

I hear optically they're almost the same. The 2.8 could be loads of fun

discoduck wrote in post #13175476
I'm thinking about selling my 17-40mm for a 16-35mm... What do you guys think?

I found a local 16-35mm for about $1k and I can sell my mint 17-40 for about $750. Would it be worth the extra few hundred for the 2.8? Would you do it?

I hear optically they're almost the same. The 2.8 could be loads of fun

I thought about the upgrade myself but I was told that optically they were pretty much the same. Since I never use mine wide open, I figured it was not worth it. Whether I'm shooting interiors, exteriors, or landscapes, I am never wide open with my 17-40. For me, it just didn't make sense. However, if you use your UWA for other stuff, then it might make sense for you.

Thanks for the comment

I'm going to stick with the 17-40. I shoot mostly cars other than real estate and I find I never use my 17 for shots.

I'll save my cash for an 85mm 1.2

TGrundvig wrote in post #13176084
I thought about the upgrade myself but I was told that optically they were pretty much the same. Since I never use mine wide open, I figured it was not worth it. Whether I'm shooting interiors, exteriors, or landscapes, I am never wide open with my 17-40. For me, it just didn't make sense. However, if you use your UWA for other stuff, then it might make sense for you.

Did you notice if the barrel distortion was about the same? If I go full time in this I was thinking about a 16-35. I figure it's the same on the wide end as my 10-22 on the 7D so that was my main concern. Before I sold my 5D2 I shot a few things with my 17-40 but thought it had much more barrel distortion than my 10-22. This was prior to me getting LR3 so it took more time in PS for me to remove. But like I said, the plan if I went full time was for another 5D2 (or maybe 5D3 now) and a 16-35.....plus another Macbook Pro. I was going to go for a 17 T&S but my eye's are terrible for manually focusing & checking verts. Much easier for me to see & correct on my monitor.

I am getting ready to post my 16-35II up for sale. It is a great lens, but since I got my TS17, it has not left its storage. You are right about one thing, the auto focus is nice to have. I find myself zooming in live view all the time to check focus.

mitchman wrote in post #13172994
New to this thread. I've always shot interiors at night. Maybe it's because I've never shot HDR before.

What do you all think of this photo? Could I get a similar look shooting in the daytime with HDR?

I use SNS-HDR and it works great for daytime pictures. I could never get the handle on photomatrix, everything turned out too over processed for my taste. I think all this shot you provided really needs is maybe the white balanced checked a little and the verticals fixed. I took the liberty to play a little with the vertical.

Thanks for the reply Pingman!

What is SNS-HDR? I've been playing with HDR-Pro that comes with Photoshop CS5, but I'm having trouble seeing the benefits of it vs just tweaking a RAW photo.

Thanks for the advice on the verticals. I didn't even notice that! I like it even better now that you straightened it.

The dark windows don't bother you too much? That's why I'm interested in HDR. I'm hoping I'll be able to shoot interiors in the daytime. But I'm sure there will be a whole host of other problems that will arise.

Yeah, I think it always sells a room better when you see natural light coming in. Just do a search for SNS-HDR, you can download a demo version and try it out. I like it because it does a good job of taking a window that is exposed properly, and combines it real well with the normal interior frames. Of course you do normal bracketing. I find it does great at getting rid of those blown out windows from ambient light. I have my 5D II custom settings set as C1 for +1/0/-1, and C2 for +2/0/-2 and C3 for + or -4 as I need for the exposure. It might be over kill, but at least i have them in post if needed.