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

Latest LR update includes a new upright tool. What do you guys think of it? Finding it a little quirky.

I'll have to look for that. I usually start with "auto" but frequently have to make additional manual corrections.

tytlyf wrote in post #18034205
Latest LR update includes a new upright tool. What do you guys think of it? Finding it a little quirky.

Sometimes it's spot on, but I wouldn't rely on it when it counts. For quick RE shoots, I'll use that and go with it if it's close, but for anything that needs to be 100% straight, I'm still doing it in PS.

Instead of stuff like that in LR which sort of, sometimes works, I would rather have the ability to place guides for the manual corrections. The reason I stopped using the LR corrections is that it can be very aggravating to do the fine adjusting. PS correction is very easy, but if I want to re-edit a corrected file, I have to re-straighten it after any change I make. If only you could save transformations in PS, then I could apply that to any updated versions.

In LR, I do color correction and apply profile corrections, then load a stack of brackets in PS. I make a flattened copy of the layers, and do the final straightening to this layer.

How do you guys do handle this?

I only use LR for image selection, lens and white balance correction, and export/renaming only. Any other perspective/skew correction is much more accurate when manually done in PS.

mltn wrote in post #18034292
Sometimes it's spot on, but I wouldn't rely on it when it counts. For quick RE shoots, I'll use that and go with it if it's close, but for anything that needs to be 100% straight, I'm still doing it in PS.

Instead of stuff like that in LR which sort of, sometimes works, I would rather have the ability to place guides for the manual corrections. The reason I stopped using the LR corrections is that it can be very aggravating to do the fine adjusting. PS correction is very easy, but if I want to re-edit a corrected file, I have to re-straighten it after any change I make. If only you could save transformations in PS, then I could apply that to any updated versions.

In LR, I do color correction and apply profile corrections, then load a stack of brackets in PS. I make a flattened copy of the layers, and do the final straightening to this layer.

How do you guys do handle this?

I stay in LR as long as possible but do not hesitate to go to PS when needed. When you do manual perspective control in LR, you get a grid on the screen that helps with alignment - at least I do. I don't remember if I told it to do that or not, but that function is available.

Many of you have probably already seen this but for those that haven't, here's Julieanna Kost demonstrating how the new Guided Upright feature in Adobe Camera Raw works.

mltn wrote in post #18034292
Sometimes it's spot on, but I wouldn't rely on it when it counts. For quick RE shoots, I'll use that and go with it if it's close, but for anything that needs to be 100% straight, I'm still doing it in PS.

Instead of stuff like that in LR which sort of, sometimes works, I would rather have the ability to place guides for the manual corrections. The reason I stopped using the LR corrections is that it can be very aggravating to do the fine adjusting. PS correction is very easy, but if I want to re-edit a corrected file, I have to re-straighten it after any change I make. If only you could save transformations in PS, then I could apply that to any updated versions.

In LR, I do color correction and apply profile corrections, then load a stack of brackets in PS. I make a flattened copy of the layers, and do the final straightening to this layer.

How do you guys do handle this?

I personally only use PS if I need to take 2 images and mask in a window view. Everything else is done in LR. I haven't learned to do any upright corrections in PS yet either. Not sure if people know this little trick in LR about moving sliders, but if you hold the 'shift' key the movement adjustments on the slider is slowed down greatly for more precise movements.

Hopefully someone can use that tip.

So I finally finished editing this place, and what a pad this was, probably only about 1000ft away from the santa monica pier.

http://www.juwanli.pho​tography …cean-Avenue-305/n-WjQJMj/

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

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

I need to work on nailing better views..

I got to shoot a couple condo units in Long Beach today, the weather could not have been worse for capturing the view, very misty and foggy. What do ya'll think?

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

For real estate or advertising photography, a sunny blue sky is simply a fundamental requirement. If you are not lucky enough to shoot on a sunny day, then you will have to replace the sky and boot saturation in PS to make it appear that you did. A blah view simply destroys the value of the location and positive impact of the photo.

Scott Spellman wrote in post #18036706
For real estate or advertising photography, a sunny blue sky is simply a fundamental requirement. If you are not lucky enough to shoot on a sunny day, then you will have to replace the sky and boot saturation in PS to make it appear that you did. A blah view simply destroys the value of the location and positive impact of the photo.

Okay, here i have 2 different shots from this shoot, the walls obviously still needs some work but currently I'm working on the views, the first picture is a tonemapped image of the actual outside and 2nd one is well.. replacement. It looks a unnatural to me, how can I make this better?

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

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

I think you did a very good job with the sky replacement here. I think that a normal person would not feel it is unnatural at all. You and I notice a few tell tale editing signs at the horizon, but the vast majority would not.

2nd one is a very good attempt. I'd work on making the interior look the part by tweaking white balance (just a tad cooler) and working with tone sliders to make the white walls and ceiling appear crisper and brighter. For the majority, as Scott noted previously, it would be a very convincing shot.

joooowan wrote in post #18036724
Okay, here i have 2 different shots from this shoot, the walls obviously still needs some work but currently I'm working on the views, the first picture is a tonemapped image of the actual outside and 2nd one is well.. replacement. It looks a unnatural to me, how can I make this better?

Hosted photo: posted by joooowan in
./showthread.php?p=180​36724&i=i213961626
forum: Architecture, Real-Estate & Buildings

Hosted photo: posted by joooowan in
./showthread.php?p=180​36724&i=i206453623
forum: Architecture, Real-Estate & Buildings

Sky looks great in the second one. There's a halo in the window frame where you masked in the sky, which can be tough to deal with. Feathering the selection in those areas might help.

The first one doesn't look so hot in part because the sky is darker than the interior, which makes the space less inviting. There's also no natural light in the image, so the flash flattens the room. You could take an ambient frame and brush some window light in on the floor, and possibly replace the entire ceiling with an ambient exposure too. These days I almost always use an ambient ceiling exposure, even when the rest of the space is lit with flash.