Hotel room photography - Tips?

I was asked to take some Hotel Room shots for a small mountain lodge. The outside shots, no problem. For inside, I'm a bit lost.

On the wide end, my 10-22 stretches the bed into a diamond, makes the bed look 4' long and 8' wide, or visa-versa.

The decor (being a mountain cabin) is pretty drab, although french multi-paned windows and doors look quaint. If I put some flowers on a table in the foreground it sparks it up a little.

I have 2 flashes but little else for lighting.

The photos are for on-line viewing. They will post 1 or 2 shots of each room interior plus 1 exterior shot of each out-building. Maybe a couple of shots of things like lodge-pool.

My main questions is for room interiors. The rooms requested are large as mountain cabins go (about 12x15).

Does someone have a formula? Some tips?

If it's too dark you may want to try renting additional lights, or slow shutters.

If there's a big difference between the outside and inside light, you'll have three choices. The first is to light up the interior of the room, but in a way that doesn't overdo it and makes the lighting look natural. The second is to do an HDR or Photoshop blend. And the third is to pick up some negative film like Fuji 160 Pro-S, 160 Pro-C, Kodak 160NC, or Kodak 160VC. I myself would choose the film route, and for architecture I like Kodak 160 VC (but I know an architectural photographer who prefers Fuji Pro-S).

With negative film you want to avoid underexposure, and it's almost impossible to overexpose. So what you do is meter off the shadows and meter off the highlights. If they're 7 stops apart or less, just fire away using the shadow reading. If they're 8 or 9 stops away then I'd drop one stop of exposure from the shadow reading. And if they're 10 or 11 stops (something you'll almost never encounter) then you need a lab to pull in development. Scanning 35mm negatives on a decent scanner will give you a good 10-15 megapixels to work with.

This is a shot I took on 4x5 Kodak 160VC, in which there was a 9 or 10 stop difference between the ceiling shadows and the windows and the altar.

http://www.pbase.com/d​rpablo74/image/7358378​1.jpg

That's a great shot Paul.

I should have phrased my question more about composure. Your comments about 7 stop dynamic range, particularly for highlights, really intrigue me into trying film photography again, alas; now's not the time to experiment.

For composure; I know that the obvious answer is to look through internet and magazine examples for a good angle and just replicate it. I just thought someone might be able to offer some tips.

Removing the trash can from the shot, placing flowers, straightening the bedding skirt, etc are pretty obvious. I just can't imagine how best to portray a small space in a single shot, or even two shots. If I try using 10mm, the bed will be severely distorted no matter what I do. I could stitch three 35L shots using PS CS3. Donno.

Another idea, just take a shot of the view out the window like some Realtors choose to do.

Anyhow; I need the voice of experience. Thanks.

I have a wonderful book called "Photographing Buildings: Inside and Out" by Norman McGrath. You can probably find a used copy somewhere. Shooting architecture is just a hobby for me (as is all photography), but if you're doing this professionally you really might want to invest in this book, which cannot be all that expensive.

He gave some interesting advice, like sometimes avoiding very typical views like shooting right down the aisle of a church (hence my oblique composition in that cathedral shot).

But inside a hotel room I think you're going to want to think almost in Feng Shui terms. Try to capture space, avoid cutting things off, show how there are paths of movement between the door and the room, or paths of light between the bed and the window. You'll need to be shooting moderately wide for a lot of it.

Don't fall too in love with ultramegasuperwide views, though. If you're shooting 12mm on APS-C or 17mm on full frame, you can get a lot of softening and stretching of any details at the periphery. Many people won't notice, but many will. I think it looks less professional, and in fact even fisheyes can look less disturbing for views that wide.

I have no idea what I am talking about with regard to this, so feel free to ignore me completely, but you might look at doing this as a panoramic with a more standard focal length lens - doing a series of shots sweeping the room.

My best suggestion is stick with normal lenses and stitch. It's the only way to keep perspective well - unless you take the photo from near the ceiling and then adjust the pesrpective later.

DrPablo wrote in post #3902069
If there's a big difference between the outside and inside light, you'll have three choices. The first is to light up the interior of the room, but in a way that doesn't overdo it and makes the lighting look natural. The second is to do an HDR or Photoshop blend. And the third is to pick up some negative film like Fuji 160 Pro-S, 160 Pro-C, Kodak 160NC, or Kodak 160VC. I myself would choose the film route, and for architecture I like Kodak 160 VC (but I know an architectural photographer who prefers Fuji Pro-S).

With negative film you want to avoid underexposure, and it's almost impossible to overexpose. So what you do is meter off the shadows and meter off the highlights. If they're 7 stops apart or less, just fire away using the shadow reading. If they're 8 or 9 stops away then I'd drop one stop of exposure from the shadow reading. And if they're 10 or 11 stops (something you'll almost never encounter) then you need a lab to pull in development. Scanning 35mm negatives on a decent scanner will give you a good 10-15 megapixels to work with.

This is a shot I took on 4x5 Kodak 160VC, in which there was a 9 or 10 stop difference between the ceiling shadows and the windows and the altar.

http://www.pbase.com/d​rpablo74/image/7358378​1.jpg

Yes, very nice shot. I would love to see an HDR comparison to this shot for the same subject.

I do know one thing about architectural photography is that there is so much about the lines and ensuring that photos compliment the key aspects of the structure and design. Most snapshots do not accentuate this, but with the cathedral post above, the leading lines of the ceiling and arches to the front using the rule of thirds is classic. Additionally, the walls have to be straight and distortion removed, generally and photoshop allows this with its lens distortion filter quite well.

canonpink wrote in post #3907306
Yes, very nice shot. I would love to see an HDR comparison to this shot for the same subject.

Thanks for the comment!

Here you are. Not the same day, though. The first one is another from the same shoot, taken on a Cambo 4x5 view camera with a Schneider 90mm f/5.6 Super Angulon XL lens and Kodak Portra 160 VC. The negative was scanned on a Microtek i800 flatbed scanner. This lens corresponds to a ~24mm lens on 35mm, or a, 15mm lens on APS-C.

The second was an HDR from a year earlier, taken in the same place, using a 300D and Tokina 12-24. I am pretty good at HDRs in general, and this one was from 5 or 6 base captures.

Obviously the perspective is controlled far better with the view camera. The lighting was different, and probably better on the day I took the HDR, because there was more natural light filling the room. The dynamic range was probably similar both times.

I actually really dislike the lens distortion filter in Photoshop except for very minor corrections. If you want to keep lines straight for this kind of shot, you either need to hold the camera perfectly vertical with no tilt at all, or you need a shifting lens system (be it a TS-E or a Hartblei or a view camera or whatever). At the bottom you can see the effect of the Photoshop filter on straightening the lines on that same image. Obviously not an acceptable result.

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

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

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

Thank you for all the great advice.

I should clarify, my post was after-the-fact. I shot it last weekend and wasn't overly happy with the results. You know; "hey, this isn't so easy". lol

I shot a wedding up there a couple months back and that came off nicely. In chatting with the proprietor I offered a few shots for her book. We were heading up for long weekend getaway so I offered to do some shots while there.

Anyhow; I'm slightly to link my results next to Paul's beautiful church shot, but for better or worse here's the result (uploaded last night). On reviewing this morning, I see I need to revisit some of the color balancing. I think my monitor at home is overly bright (reloaded my computer from scratch last week - color balance drivers not in yet).

CP; Thanks for the tips on lines + divisions. I think my interest is stimulated in this field now. It's such a mystery (and I think a small hotel room a challenge).

Paul; Tilt-shift Fancy stuff! Holding it flat and cropping seems appropriate to my budget. I'll start practicing for the next opportunity to actually have my photos used for something. Love your shots. (makes me wonder if a Tilt Shift lens could come in handy for wedding photography).

The last couple of places I viewed on line looking for places to stay while skiing in Colorado did not show the "whole" room--just parts of it. If the room had a nice view out of a window, include that and some furiture next to it--hopefully a dresser with a mirror and angle yourself so you are not in the shot, but the viewer can see what is outside the window (the view of the mtn) and see the room in the mirror. If you are trying to show decorum, show just half the bed and head board, and an end table with lamp in the corner. Show a shot of the antique footed bath tub (with a view out the window) and so on. As you found out, going too wide distorts while trying to convey too much info in the photo. The last place we stayed basically showed photos of the beds, the kitchen and living area, and a couple shots of the outside. We didn't see the whole room until we got there.

Rudy M. wrote in post #3908609
The last couple of places I viewed on line looking for places to stay while skiing in Colorado did not show the "whole" room--just parts of it. If the room had a nice view out of a window, include that and some furiture next to it--hopefully a dresser with a mirror and angle yourself so you are not in the shot, but the viewer can see what is outside the window (the view of the mtn) and see the room in the mirror. If you are trying to show decorum, show just half the bed and head board, and an end table with lamp in the corner. Show a shot of the antique footed bath tub (with a view out the window) and so on. As you found out, going too wide distorts while trying to convey too much info in the photo. The last place we stayed basically showed photos of the beds, the kitchen and living area, and a couple shots of the outside. We didn't see the whole room until we got there.

Thanks, That's a great help.

Here's a slideshow of the ones they selected. It's just in slideshow format to show her it's possible, not that all THESE photos are appropriate for that medium.

For next time I do something like this, I think I'll have a much better idea. Cramped quarters did present a challenge, but not trying to tell too much with one photo is a help. I should have varied lenses too ... my 24-105 or 35L might have made a few good ones without all the distortion.

Oh; I am trying to imagine how to get the antique footed bathtub and the window in the same shot. Maybe that mirror trick? If the room was small, the bathroom was tiny.

DrPablo wrote in post #3907710
Thanks for the comment!

Here you are. Not the same day, though. The first one is another from the same shoot, taken on a Cambo 4x5 view camera with a Schneider 90mm f/5.6 Super Angulon XL lens and Kodak Portra 160 VC. The negative was scanned on a Microtek i800 flatbed scanner. This lens corresponds to a ~24mm lens on 35mm, or a, 15mm lens on APS-C.

The second was an HDR from a year earlier, taken in the same place, using a 300D and Tokina 12-24. I am pretty good at HDRs in general, and this one was from 5 or 6 base captures.

Obviously the perspective is controlled far better with the view camera. The lighting was different, and probably better on the day I took the HDR, because there was more natural light filling the room. The dynamic range was probably similar both times.

I actually really dislike the lens distortion filter in Photoshop except for very minor corrections. If you want to keep lines straight for this kind of shot, you either need to hold the camera perfectly vertical with no tilt at all, or you need a shifting lens system (be it a TS-E or a Hartblei or a view camera or whatever). At the bottom you can see the effect of the Photoshop filter on straightening the lines on that same image. Obviously not an acceptable result.

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

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

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

Thanks for sharing these and you created some believable HDRs.

On the topic of preventing distortion with wide angle lenses, I think what you are telling me is that is the lens is perfectly level (i.e. using a bubble level on a tripod), this will prevent vertical distortion, although the bubble distortion may be present and usually is minor and can easily be rectified by the distortion filter in PS.

I did a portrait shoot recently and ensured my camera, regardless of vertical or horizontal orientation, was perfectly level via the ballhead's bubble level, but the wall paper strip at the top of the frame showed a little bubble distortion (actually I think convex distortion because the line where the wall paper strip met the actual wall at the top was bowed downward a little bit. I think this is only rectified manually by getting the camera as far back as possible (or is it closer to get rid of this?).

Thoughts?

More actually, but you have to do them before you shoot. Any one, or a combination of these:
Wait 'till the outside light level drops.
Shoot the shady side of the building.
Common Cine technique: Put something ND over the window to lower the light level. A cheap fix is to use big plastic tablecloths.
Common Cine technique: Put something over the window to change the WB:
http://www.estreetplas​tics.com/
http://www.productiona​dvantageonline.com/Col​or/
Some use a gel thats both ND & color correcting.