Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: pinay on February 17, 2008, 10:25:42 am
-
What kind of lights do you bring when shooting Interiors for resorts/hotel ?
Do you bring mono lights or just small speedlights?
What's on the bag when shooting interiors/architecture?
I hope for suggestions and comments please
-
Deleted
-
You can start with Michael Harris book
'Professional Interior Photography'
http://tinyurl.com/ywohaj (http://tinyurl.com/ywohaj)
-
You can start with Michael Harris book
'Professional Interior Photography'
http://tinyurl.com/ywohaj (http://tinyurl.com/ywohaj)
You can check the The Foliage Group website, they will surely help you.
-
You can check the The Foliage Group website, they will surely help you.
I carry the same kit to every interiors job. The one time that I leave something I never use at home, I'm going to need it!
5x Profoto D1 500 Air (http://tinyurl.com/ydnmkr2) (love these! use them as hot lights too, beautiful light and really fine control)
6x Dedolight 150's (http://tinyurl.com/yaye3tz) (the ulitmate inky! 150 watts with a spotted intensity as bright as an Arri 300 + on board dimmer)
3x Mole Inkies (http://tinyurl.com/yje7su9) (these will flood broader than the Dedos. I use them when the light has to be real close)
8x Lowel Omnis (http://tinyurl.com/ylobxor) (crappy but effective workhorse 600watts, flood and spot, usually throw them through a silk or ceiling bounce)
4x Smith Victor Flood (http://tinyurl.com/yjhwt55) (you usually see these on top of wedding videographers cameras, I never use them, but 600 watts each in tiny space good backup light)
15 8' Stands
4 13' Stands
2 12x12 Silks
4 3x6 Diffusion Panels
Chris' Inky Review (http://christopherbarrett.net/blog/?p=333)
I recall this shot at LAX took every light I had... also, I like to carry an incline vial... had my assistant set the tilt on the monitors all to the same angle. Ok, yeah, I'm a little crazy, besides being a gear junky.
(http://christopherbarrett.net/062266_I.jpg)
-C
-
I usually bring the following:
Lowel Tota Lights 750 watts: great for flood lighting but little control over the light, I usually bounce the light or have it shine through a 32 in. umbrella
LTM Peppers (Fresnel lights): these are great, they have very well designed barn doors and you can zoom the light in and out, I bring 420 and 650 watt versions with scrims to help control the light even more.
Cheap conical metal lights you can get at a hardware store with GE Reveal Light bulbs which are very close to photo bulbs, I also carry daylight balanced cf's which work well with my strobes.
Profoto strobes, power pack kits, I find that they are more reliable when it comes to color. With monolights you could get into a situation where two separate lights give different colors making post editing more fun.
And then an array of umbrellas, color correction gels for tungsten to daylight, tungsten to florescent, daylight to tungsten, and daylight to tungsten minus 2 stops (large sheets of these to gel windows if the shot can not be done with strobes) along with other color gels, diffusion gels, plenty of light stands, large black canvas cloth to block sunlight, white canvas to place on the wall/floor to bounce light.
-
I carry the same kit to every interiors job. The one time that I leave something I never use at home, I'm going to need it!
5x Profoto D1 500 Air (http://tinyurl.com/ydnmkr2) (love these! use them as hot lights too, beautiful light and really fine control)
6x Dedolight 150's (http://tinyurl.com/yaye3tz) (the ulitmate inky! 150 watts with a spotted intensity as bright as an Arri 300 + on board dimmer)
3x Mole Inkies (http://tinyurl.com/yje7su9) (these will flood broader than the Dedos. I use them when the light has to be real close)
8x Lowel Omnis (http://tinyurl.com/ylobxor) (crappy but effective workhorse 600watts, flood and spot, usually throw them through a silk or ceiling bounce)
4x Smith Victor Flood (http://tinyurl.com/yjhwt55) (you usually see these on top of wedding videographers cameras, I never use them, but 600 watts each in tiny space good backup light)
15 8' Stands
4 13' Stands
2 12x12 Silks
4 3x6 Diffusion Panels
Chris' Inky Review (http://christopherbarrett.net/blog/?p=333)
I recall this shot at LAX took every light I had... also, I like to carry an incline vial... had my assistant set the tilt on the monitors all to the same angle. Ok, yeah, I'm a little crazy, besides being a gear junky.
Have you tried redheads instead of the omni's? I just hated the omnis I had but the redheads are really sweet and the case stays cool. You can put it right next to fabic when on and not worry.
-
Interesting take on the inky's
I've been using peppers for years, and I have 12. You are correct the get really hot and the spot-flood wormscrew gets crummy with time. Polishing it helps extend the life. I've shot a ton of work with these things.
I bought out a studio when I started my business and got a few minispots in the deal. I ended up using the carcasses for target practice. Amazing what a 9mm fmj will do to one of those suckers
Have you tried redheads instead of the omni's? I just hated the omnis I had but the redheads are really sweet and the case stays cool. You can put it right next to fabic when on and not worry.
I have found that the pepper's wormscrew gets stuck too and have been thinking about applying a little graphite to them. Think that would help it out?
-
I have found that the pepper's wormscrew gets stuck too and have been thinking about applying a little graphite to them. Think that would help it out?
Quick Note: Graphite is known to corrode aluminum (alloy to you Brits). Molybdenum Disulfide does the trick without affecting expensive metal bits. I've used it to smoothen the movements on my old Arca F Line. I still have way more than I'll use in my lifetime if anybody wants some.
-
Quick Note: Graphite is known to corrode aluminum (alloy to you Brits). Molybdenum Disulfide does the trick without affecting expensive metal bits. I've used it to smoothen the movements on my old Arca F Line. I still have way more than I'll use in my lifetime if anybody wants some.
Good thing I said something before using it. Where do you get that stuff at?
Setting the monitors all to the same angle Chris, nice. I just did a job where my assistant got to the room first while I was speaking to building engineer and alined all 40/45 chairs; I thanked him but then reminded him that we now have to make sure they are all at the same height and all of the legs are pointed in the same direction. Yes, we architectural photographers are crazy.
-
I have found that the pepper's wormscrew gets stuck too and have been thinking about applying a little graphite to them. Think that would help it out?
I've not tried lubricantsd on the wormscrews, figuring the heat would render it useless.
-
for these I brought none
not to say that using lights is un-nessecary
but you can do a lot without
-
You can start with Michael Harris book
'Professional Interior Photography'
http://tinyurl.com/ywohaj (http://tinyurl.com/ywohaj)
Did you like the book from personal experience? I was interested in the book but the mixed reviews kept me away.
-
for these I brought none
not to say that using lights is un-nessecary
but you can do a lot without
most of those pictures are nice, but they don't have the "wow" factor.
-
most of those pictures are nice, but they don't have the "wow" factor.
I disagree...
-
I've not tried lubricantsd on the wormscrews, figuring the heat would render it useless.
I did some research and that lubercant can work well up to 350 degrees C or 662 degrees F.
-
I disagree...
Do you disagree because you find the scene amazing or the lighting? I look at an interior picture in two ways, the work of the architect or designer, hence the interior, and the work of the photographer, hence lighting and composition.
Those pictures might portray amazing places, but given the discussion is about lighting they don't look amazing in that context.
-
Do you disagree because you find the scene amazing or the lighting? I look at an interior picture in two ways, the work of the architect or designer, hence the interior, and the work of the photographer, hence lighting and composition.
Those pictures might portray amazing places, but given the discussion is about lighting they don't look amazing in that context.
Just to put your opinion in context, could you point us at some similar photos which for you do have the wow factor?
-
Just to put your opinion in context, could you point us at some similar photos which for you do have the wow factor?
Ashley Morrison's work for example goes beyond beautiful scenes, it demonstartes awesome lighting: http://www.ashleymorrison.com/ (http://www.ashleymorrison.com/)
By the way what I am stating above really goes beyond stating opinions. From studying many amazing interior pictures I came across a common theme to amazing lighting: direction. Directional light gives definition to a scene, flat light on the other hand kills a scene. There are exceptions, of course, like the shot CBarrett posted where the general lighting mood is flat but still offers definition by smart placement. Looking at the naturally lit shots in question my first impression was "ok". Later as I looked at them I thought the light was flat and that's why I thought they were ok but not amazing.
I know this is not in response to you CBarret but if you are reading let me ask you, was the original scene lit like the picture? There are beautiful lights coming from the bottom of the bar and computer tables. You placed those there, correct?
-
most of those pictures are nice, but they don't have the "wow" factor.
Judging by your statement, one could get the impression that you'd gladly dive into the world of candy/disneyland photography.
I look at an interior picture in two ways, the work of the architect or designer, hence the interior, and the work of the photographer, hence lighting and composition.
I'm sorry but you are mistaken. Architecture IS about lighting and composition.. If someone doesn't realise it then I don't know how can someone shoot architecture and be proficient in it.
-
I did some research and that lubercant can work well up to 350 degrees C or 662 degrees F.
Thanks, I'll check it out.
-
most of those pictures are nice, but they don't have the "wow" factor.
I disagree as well.
-
most of those pictures are nice, but they don't have the "wow" factor.
I too think the shots are excellent. I have clients that want me to use all my lights, and other clients where I don't use any, (if possible). All depends on what illumination is there to work with and the feeling you are looking for. My philosophy is composition is key, then lighting where you need it. But back to the question:
I usually bring the following:
Daylight- 12 monolights (Profoto), a Profoto 1200b, four dynalite 1000s, and usually one 3200ws pack and head.
Tungsten - Arri 150's, Arri 650's, Mole Inky's, Mole Tweenie's, Micky Mole's, Lowell DP's, and a dozen small sockets with an assortment of practical bulbs.
And I use as few as possible :-)
-
Judging by your statement, one could get the impression that you'd gladly dive into the world of candy/disneyland photography.
I'm sorry but you are mistaken. Architecture IS about lighting and composition.. If someone doesn't realise it then I don't know how can someone shoot architecture and be proficient in it.
Well, I think you can certainly achieve impactful images without resorting to fantasy. And while much architecture does make lighting a strong consideration, most designers are concerned with the actual light levels necessary as appropriate to the environment while trying to maintain efficiency in energy usage. When you take that in conjunction with the fact that no lighting can be designed to be optimal for a single point of view (camera) then the best lit spaces in the world might not be photogenic at all.
I have seen lighting design get much better in the last 20 years, and that has made my job a little easier, but I've yet to meet a space that couldn't use a little help, and while I find Marc's pictures quite good, I can't help but feel that a few lights here and there would of added extra richness and sparkle.
Edit: Regardless of any criticism, Marc knows I think very highly of his work.
I regret that I never save my initial captures of a space to compare a heavily lit interior with the scene in it's natural state.
Here is a job, though, that employed substantial lighting on every shot...Image links to site.
(http://christopherbarrett.net/062363_D.jpg) (http://christopherbarrett.net/lit/)
I do try to be open to other points of view, and other ways of working, but it seems the more pictures I look at the more committed I become to dragging all my crap to every shoot.
We all have our own markets, and our approaches have to find equilibrium with those markets. I am fortunate that my clients expect me to take the time that I like to take. In that time, of course, we are missing numerous other photos that could be shot if I just showed up with a camera, but in the end the client and myself have to ask what has more value in selling their design, several photos that are just ok or a few exceptional ones. I struggle with that balance on every shoot... making sure the projects are thoroughly documented without compromising my standards and WHILE STAYING ON BUDGET!!!!!
-C
-
Well, I think you can certainly achieve impactful images without resorting to fantasy. And while much architecture does make lighting a strong consideration, most designers are concerned with the actual light levels necessary as appropriate to the environment while trying to maintain efficiency in energy usage. When you take that in conjunction with the fact that no lighting can be designed to be optimal for a single point of view (camera) then the best lit spaces in the world might not be photogenic at all.
I have seen lighting design get much better in the last 20 years, and that has made my job a little easier, but I've yet to meet a space that couldn't use a little help, and while I find Marc's pictures quite good, I can't help but feel that a few lights here and there would of added extra richness and sparkle.
I regret that I never save my initial captures of a space to compare a heavily lit interior with the scene in it's natural state.
Here is a job, though, that employed substantial lighting on every shot...Image links to site.
(http://christopherbarrett.net/062363_D.jpg) (http://christopherbarrett.net/lit/)
I do try to be open to other points of view, and other ways of working, but it seems the more pictures I look at the more committed I become to dragging all my crap to every shoot.
We all have our own markets, and our approaches have to find equilibrium with those markets. I am fortunate that might clients expect me to take the time that I like to take.
-C
Did the designer of the space shown above feel your additional lighting had destroyed the character he or she had envisioned when creating the design?
-
Did the designer of the space shown above feel your additional lighting had destroyed the character he or she had envisioned when creating the design?
Ha! That's a good point Craig. No matter how much I light, I do it with sensitivity to the design and I haven't dealt with a client yet that didn't feel I was lighting the space the way the wished they could have.
I think the Atticfire stuff, while dynamic has no sensitivity to the architecture.
That's the real key, isn't it? Being sensitive to design, and more importantly YOUR client's design... listening and interactivity are so important.
I never ask, "how should this space be lit?" I ask "what do you want to convey?" It's MY job to translate that into lighting using my experience, knowledge and tools. If we're good at our jobs, we know way more about lighting architecture than architects do.
-
Ha! That's a good point Craig. No matter how much I light, I do it with sensitivity to the design and I haven't dealt with a client yet that didn't feel I was lighting the space the way the wished they could have.
I think the Atticfire stuff, while dynamic has no sensitivity to the architecture.
I agree on the atticfire stuff. But I guess its a matter of taste and application. If for example the atticfire stuff was done with advertising in mind, the property to a retail customer, the photos might be perfect for the application.
However done for some designers it might be overkill.
Horses for courses.
You made another good point upthread that lighting for photography is generally designed to look good from a single positon. Designers don't have that luxury.
Case in point. Years ago when I was the in-house photographer for Starcraft, I would build a set, light it, take my image and then the in house video guy would try and shoot video of the set. He had great luck from the still camera position but usually he was totally hosed when the moved the camera.
My boss at the time noted it was somewhat of a waste of time for both of us to build lighitng sets for the same product, and asked me to light for video guy when I was setting up my shots. You need to understand I was creating 15-20 spotlight sets, and they were camera location specfic. I told the boss he was not going to like the results but he was interested in saving time, not quality. So I did it, with flat, crosslit and diffused light. The boss was happy, the video guy happy, the company president very unhappy. He wondered why his cool stills had become flat and boring. I was never asked to do it again
-
Judging by your statement, one could get the impression that you'd gladly dive into the world of candy/disneyland photography.
lol, what exactly is that world?
I'm sorry but you are mistaken. Architecture IS about lighting and composition.. If someone doesn't realise it then I don't know how can someone shoot architecture and be proficient in it.
I am not mistaken in that statement and you have not explained why I would be.
Consider the following example, you can be a very good photographer that's working very hard to take an amazing shot of a crappy sloppy space. As much as you try the end result will depict the reality of the place and in this case will be boring. Perhaps the results of your effort are amazing relative to the setting and you could win an art/creativity contest with that shot, but the final image for the common viewer is nonetheless boring. On the other hand you can be a casual photographer taking a shot of an amazing place. You put very little effort and thought and technically your picture is ok but the content makes the shot so interesting. Obviously, if the better photographer shoots the same scene he will go beyond making an interesting shot, he will make an amazing shot.
The moral of the example is that photographers are more or less bound by the reality of the scene they are photographing, unless of course they are after abstract/sureal pictures. I have experienced this first hand when I started architectural photography. My first project was photographing a very beautiful restaurant. I did many composition mistakes but still the pictures were very interesting and people signaled their appreciation with the comment "wow". The second project was an average hotel. By then I had learned allot and was much better in taking interior shots. The end result was good given the setting, but was less interesting then the less technically correct pictures of the restaurant.
To think that architectural pictures are all about lighting and composition is unfair to the architectural designer that created the scene to be photographed in the first place and frankly that view just comes across as arrogant.
With regard to people who disagree with my initail comment I pose to you a question, what is it that you find amazing about the lighting in those pictures? I am very curios to know.
-
I didn't write that architectural pictures are all about lighting and composition. I wrote that ARCHITECTURE is about lighting and composition. And if you want it explained, here it goes. Composition- because an architect thinks about the form in an abstract way but in the same time obviously keeps in mind all of the project assumptions (I should quote CBarrett's "form follows function" here). Lighting is somewhat defined by the 'light' of the form. By light we understand all of free space in a solid architectural form. Good design is always related to lighting, as an architect you cannot ignore it and approach an architectural project without thinking about the light of the form and lighting (there is obvious correspondence of light of form and final lighting of free space). CBarrett made a very good point- well-designed architecture not neccessarily means well-lit in terms of photography, because we shoot from one point, not move around as a person which actually uses the designed space. And that's when you add lighting- with respect and sensitivity to the architecture you shoot, you have to understand the designer first and grasp the idea he had for this space. You can interpret the scene in your own way but you have to respect the designer and his thought. Obviously you can make a statement and do the opposite- neglect it, change the space with composition of your shot and lighting, but if you do so, do it all the way..and I think that this kind of projects are generally an exception, it's more like a personal project, 'I show you what I think and what's my feeling of this space'. For me, Cbarrett is a good example of a person who understands the design he is shooting and adds his lighting keeping all the things I mentioned in mind.
Since good architects think about this 'light' of the form hence lighting, you can shoot it without additional light. It's your choice and if the subject is shot in a good way it's just the matter of your taste to add the lighting or not. Not using additional light may be regarded as beneficial because the shot MAY have more real look and feel. Take a look at Rainer work, he doesn't use additional light. It's just the matter of how good you are.
And if you are not sensitive enough you can fall into the thing I'd call disney/candy shooting. Unreal, over-lit spaces which for my taste remind me of candies.
lol, what exactly is that world?
I am not mistaken in that statement and you have not explained why I would be.
Consider the following example, you can be a very good photographer that's working very hard to take an amazing shot of a crappy sloppy space. As much as you try the end result will depict the reality of the place and in this case will be boring. Perhaps the results of your effort are amazing relative to the setting and you could win an art/creativity contest with that shot, but the final image for the common viewer is nonetheless boring. On the other hand you can be a casual photographer taking a shot of an amazing place. You put very little effort and thought and technically your picture is ok but the content makes the shot so interesting. Obviously, if the better photographer shoots the same scene he will go beyond making an interesting shot, he will make an amazing shot.
The moral of the example is that photographers are more or less bound by the reality of the scene they are photographing, unless of course they are after abstract/sureal pictures. I have experienced this first hand when I started architectural photography. My first project was photographing a very beautiful restaurant. I did many composition mistakes but still the pictures were very interesting and people signaled their appreciation with the comment "wow". The second project was an average hotel. By then I had learned allot and was much better in taking interior shots. The end result was good given the setting, but was less interesting then the less technically correct pictures of the restaurant.
To think that architectural pictures are all about lighting and composition is unfair to the architectural designer that created the scene to be photographed in the first place and frankly that view just comes across as arrogant.
With regard to people who disagree with my initail comment I pose to you a question, what is it that you find amazing about the lighting in those pictures? I am very curios to know.
-
Honestly, there is no point in arguing taste. Unless an image is just dreadful with absolutely no understanding of photography or light it is almost always about personal preference and/or personal taste. Frankly, I am very glad it is that way. There is room for many many different styles.
-
and workflows as well.
Honestly, there is no point in arguing taste. Unless an image is just dreadful with absolutely no understanding of photography or light it is almost always about personal preference and/or personal taste. Frankly, I am very glad it is that way. There is room for many many different styles.
-
I think the Atticfire stuff, while dynamic has no sensitivity to the architecture.
A disney ride in every image and affront to good taste.
And yes, arguing taste or style is mute, unless it clearly overwhelms the architecture.
-
I'm not sure which of these two commercial shots is more "true" to the architecture. But the one where the sunlight came through is surely "better." Even interior architecture can be affected by natural light. So there is nothing wrong in my book with altering the lighting in an interior to give it more impact. My clients are generally ad agencies, builders, developers, and property owners rather than architects and interior designers. So they may be open to more impact and interpretation.
I like to use Alien Bee lights because they are small and lightweight. Their shape allows them to be hidden more easily than other monlights. And their power can be adjusted from the camera position. They also use all of my Balcar modifiers. I don't use tungsten lights much anymore because I often shoot interiors that are mixed with daylight. And may commercial interiors use unusual use energy efficient ligthing rather than tungsten. So I can gel my strobes.
I think some shots certainly work without adding lighting as in my example above. But in general, I like to establish a mood with lighting.
Here is an example of a residential interior where I used some lights from the outside through the windows along with some lights inside.
-
, and while I find Marc's pictures quite good, I can't help but feel that a few lights here and there would of added extra richness and sparkle.
agree full heartedly!
just too lazy to bring them to each job!
and am in the process reconsidering which way to do so.
it would add extra strain on my already busy schedule.
anyway an extra sparkle does not mean candy/disneyland!
-
I didn't write that architectural pictures are all about lighting and composition. I wrote that ARCHITECTURE is about lighting and composition. And if you want it explained, here it goes. Composition- because an architect thinks about the form in an abstract way but in the same time obviously keeps in mind all of the project assumptions (I should quote CBarrett's "form follows function" here). Lighting is somewhat defined by the 'light' of the form. By light we understand all of free space in a solid architectural form. Good design is always related to lighting, as an architect you cannot ignore it and approach an architectural project without thinking about the light of the form and lighting (there is obvious correspondence of light of form and final lighting of free space)....
As an architect myself (and professional photographer)... i have to say you are throwing a wwiiidddddeeee blanket over what a "good" architect does. I'm not going to get into an argument about what a good/non-good architect is, but suffice it to say that the majority of project time is not spent on composition and lighting (don't I wish it were). In this day and age of sub-disciplines... lighting is the domain of the lighting designer (if there is one on a project) and/or electrical engineer. Said designer is generally not even in the architect's office, so it is rare indeed that the actual architect does lighting design. Do they have input? Sure (sometimes). Generally, cost has the final "input"... so when an architectural photographer can come around and create a somewhat hyper-real version of the project (not AtticFire "hyper") that adds back some of the sparkle envisioned originally... that's often good.
In the end though, I've never known any architect who spoke of the "light of the form"... but that isn't to say they weren't thinking along those lines. As a matter of fact, in these days of sustainable design... the form is often a byproduct of the natural function of the space, and as such the architect can be way less enamored with form than with the biological functioning of the space within a larger ecological context. But I digress.
My post isn't a commentary about the quality of any photography... but about what architecture is. I think one should be sensitive characterizing an entire creative discipline in such simple terms.
-
Sorry for generalization, but my statement was not describing the architecture as a whole, but that it is also about composition and light- "Light" of form can be regarded as free space enclosured by the structure. That's a direct translation from my native language so I guess it might be misleading.. I don't know what's the proffesional term for it in english. I'm in no position to argue since I'm not an architect. What I can say is that's where the emphasis was put in the best arch. projects of last 10 years in Warsaw- "light", composition. From my observation I can tell that it's not just Poland, but a whole lot of great award-winning and innovative designs are about same things. But yes, that's definitely a minority of projects..
-
agree full heartedly!
just too lazy to bring them to each job!
and am in the process reconsidering which way to do so.
it would add extra strain on my already busy schedule.
anyway an extra sparkle does not mean candy/disneyland!
The Process:
Get to job and pull around to the loading dock. Throw all the stuff up on the dock (with cart of course) and go park while assistant wheels stuff up to space. Walk in the door to find assistant and client waiting for me. Announce, "The shoot may now begin!"
You, my friend, need to get some young punk to move all that crap around for you.
Even airports are not that big a deal once you've got a system down. When we get to O'Hare, the assistant goes to park the car while I get skycap to take the gear. Skycap goes inside with my ID and credit card and comes back with boarding pass and receipt. Once he gives me claim checks I go inside and have some coffee while I wait for my assistant. Easy peasy.
Then again you shoot a lot more than I do. I do 50 jobs a year, about 375 images.
-C
-
Ashley Morrison's work for example goes beyond beautiful scenes, it demonstartes awesome lighting: http://www.ashleymorrison.com/ (http://www.ashleymorrison.com/)
By the way what I am stating above really goes beyond stating opinions. From studying many amazing interior pictures I came across a common theme to amazing lighting: direction. Directional light gives definition to a scene, flat light on the other hand kills a scene. There are exceptions, of course, like the shot CBarrett posted where the general lighting mood is flat but still offers definition by smart placement. Looking at the naturally lit shots in question my first impression was "ok". Later as I looked at them I thought the light was flat and that's why I thought they were ok but not amazing.
I know this is not in response to you CBarret but if you are reading let me ask you, was the original scene lit like the picture? There are beautiful lights coming from the bottom of the bar and computer tables. You placed those there, correct?
I don't know a lot about this business (yet), but I will hazard a guess. It looks to me as though Ashley Morrison is oriented toward advertising while Marc Gerritsen seems oriented more toward documentation. I would guess that Morrison's clients tend to be advertising agencies, marketing departments and magazines oriented toward general consumption; and I would guess that Gerritsen's clients tend to be architects and magazines that cater to those who are specifically interested in architecture. However, when I say that Gerritsen's style tends to be documentary, I don't mean that he does not present his subjects in an appealing way or that they are not worthy of use for general marketing purposes. I have to wonder if different styles of marketing in different countries play a part as well, but I don't know much about marketing styles outside the US.
David Eichler
-
The Process:
Get to job and pull around to the loading dock. Throw all the stuff up on the dock (with cart of course) and go park while assistant wheels stuff up to space. Walk in the door to find assistant and client waiting for me. Announce, "The shoot may now begin!"
You, my friend, need to get some young punk to move all that crap around for you.
Even airports are not that big a deal once you've got a system down. When we get to O'Hare, the assistant goes to park the car while I get skycap to take the gear. Skycap goes inside with my ID and credit card and comes back with boarding pass and receipt. Once he gives me claim checks I go inside and have some coffee while I wait for my assistant. Easy peasy.
Then again you shoot a lot more than I do. I do 50 jobs a year, about 375 images.
-C
I hope you re-read this one day and it makes you sick to your stomach.
-
Lighting has to compliment the subject. Given the second image in Ashley Morrison's portfolio. A couple is admiring the sunset on the balcony and there is a bright white light shining in through the door. Your intent should be to balance and augment existing light not add something that is completely foreign. There are other interiors that are perfect and the lighting just blends in which is what it should be doing. Good lighting does not draw attention to the lighting itself.
-
Lighting has to compliment the subject. Given the second image in Ashley Morrison's portfolio. A couple is admiring the sunset on the balcony and there is a bright white light shining in through the door. Your intent should be to balance and augment existing light not add something that is completely foreign. There are other interiors that are perfect and the lighting just blends in which is what it should be doing. Good lighting does not draw attention to the lighting itself.
I believe when Ashley posted those, he said they were available light. That may have some impact on the resulting discussions that's been overlooked.
-
I hope you re-read this one day and it makes you sick to your stomach.
What GD was referring to was my post coming off as an elitist who treats his assistants as "pack mules". If I've misrepresented myself, let me just say that my assistants are always highly valued members of the team and I lug just as much of my crap around as they do. We all bust our butts to get the job done, and we have fun doing it.
/done
-
What GD was referring to was my post coming off as an elitist who treats his assistants as "pack mules". If I've misrepresented myself, let me just say that my assistants are always highly valued members of the team and I lug just as much of my crap around as they do. We all bust our butts to get the job done, and we have fun doing it.
/done
Hi C,
We all need to remember that we are only as good as the people that work with, and support us. I can't do what I do without help. I always try to remember that.
-
I carry the same kit to every interiors job. The one time that I leave something I never use at home, I'm going to need it!
5x Profoto D1 500 Air (http://tinyurl.com/ydnmkr2) (love these! use them as hot lights too, beautiful light and really fine control)
6x Dedolight 150's (http://tinyurl.com/yaye3tz) (the ulitmate inky! 150 watts with a spotted intensity as bright as an Arri 300 + on board dimmer)
3x Mole Inkies (http://tinyurl.com/yje7su9) (these will flood broader than the Dedos. I use them when the light has to be real close)
8x Lowel Omnis (http://tinyurl.com/ylobxor) (crappy but effective workhorse 600watts, flood and spot, usually throw them through a silk or ceiling bounce)
4x Smith Victor Flood (http://tinyurl.com/yjhwt55) (you usually see these on top of wedding videographers cameras, I never use them, but 600 watts each in tiny space good backup light)
15 8' Stands
4 13' Stands
2 12x12 Silks
4 3x6 Diffusion Panels
Chris' Inky Review (http://christopherbarrett.net/blog/?p=333)
I recall this shot at LAX took every light I had... also, I like to carry an incline vial... had my assistant set the tilt on the monitors all to the same angle. Ok, yeah, I'm a little crazy, besides being a gear junky.
(http://christopherbarrett.net/062266_I.jpg)
-C
Do you ever have problems finding enough juice for all your lights? I use Speedo & White Lightning mono lights to supplement existing light ( much simpler setups generally than your beautifully done photos ) most of the time. Even at that I once blew up a dentist's office electronics ( computer, fax, etc ). Fortunately Speedo accepted responsibility and came good for the damage.
Also I presume you use a tractor trailer to haul everything around ( now I get it, probably have a big generator on the trailer too )!
-
Do you ever have problems finding enough juice for all your lights? I use Speedo & White Lightning mono lights to supplement existing light ( much simpler setups generally than your beautifully done photos ) most of the time. Even at that I once blew up a dentist's office electronics ( computer, fax, etc ). Fortunately Speedo accepted responsibility and came good for the damage.
Also I presume you use a tractor trailer to haul everything around ( now I get it, probably have a big generator on the trailer too )!
Harold, if you can believe it, I haul all my stuff in a Honda Element. It's a box on wheels and I love it. I try never to plug into the same circuits as any technology and usually only blow circuits in old houses, but I do carry 300 ft of extension cord.
General Rules: 3 monoblocks (or 3 Lowel Omnis) per circuit. If outlets share a common wall they're probably on the same circuit. Kitchen and bath receptacles are typically on their own circuit. My inkies are all 150 watt, so I don't even count their combined amperage any more.
I tend to be paranoid about blowing any office equipment but once in a while you get two outlets 150 feet apart on the same circuit.... always nice to have an engineer on hand or at least know where the panels are.
-C
-
Harold, if you can believe it, I haul all my stuff in a Honda Element. It's a box on wheels and I love it. I try never to plug into the same circuits as any technology and usually only blow circuits in old houses, but I do carry 300 ft of extension cord.
General Rules: 3 monoblocks (or 3 Lowel Omnis) per circuit. If outlets share a common wall they're probably on the same circuit. Kitchen and bath receptacles are typically on their own circuit. My inkies are all 150 watt, so I don't even count their combined amperage any more.
I tend to be paranoid about blowing any office equipment but once in a while you get two outlets 150 feet apart on the same circuit.... always nice to have an engineer on hand or at least know where the panels are.
-C
I agree with not plugging into the computer circuits, that ONE time I was rushed to finish before patients arrived and Murphy's Law took over The Speedo shorted internally which caused a voltage spike .
The Honda is a good high capacity hauler. About 15-20 years ago I did a lot of shoots of large injection moulding machines on 4x5. I used to haul 2 4800 WS packs, 6 heads,a couple of mono lights, 5 ft umbrellas, soft lights, stands etc etc in a Saab 900 I left parked in the plant after unloading. On one occasion some of the guys at the plant came in after everything was set up, and when their shift ended actually stayed to watch us pack up because they couldn't believe everything would fit in the car.
-
Lighting has to compliment the subject. Given the second image in Ashley Morrison's portfolio. A couple is admiring the sunset on the balcony and there is a bright white light shining in through the door. Your intent should be to balance and augment existing light not add something that is completely foreign. There are other interiors that are perfect and the lighting just blends in which is what it should be doing. Good lighting does not draw attention to the lighting itself.
Packing, that could be a thread all by itself
-
Packing, that could be a thread all by itself
By packing, I am assuming you mean packing all of the lights. Yes that can be interesting especially when you need sleep because your shoot was at night.
Time for sleep!
-
I don't know a lot about this business (yet), but I will hazard a guess. It looks to me as though Ashley Morrison is oriented toward advertising while Marc Gerritsen seems oriented more toward documentation. I would guess that Morrison's clients tend to be advertising agencies, marketing departments and magazines oriented toward general consumption; and I would guess that Gerritsen's clients tend to be architects and magazines that cater to those who are specifically interested in architecture. However, when I say that Gerritsen's style tends to be documentary, I don't mean that he does not present his subjects in an appealing way or that they are not worthy of use for general marketing purposes. I have to wonder if different styles of marketing in different countries play a part as well, but I don't know much about marketing styles outside the US.
David Eichler
What you say is very true. Advertising places different requirements, including changing the lighting entirely sometimes. I guess that is what the other poster was referring to as "Disney or Candy World". But since this topic was about lighting and how to use lights to light spaces I didn't think the first example pictures were the best because the lighting was just ok, not amazing. So my comments are directed only at the lighting aspect.
-
I don't know a lot about this business (yet), but I will hazard a guess. It looks to me as though Ashley Morrison is oriented toward advertising while Marc Gerritsen seems oriented more toward documentation. I would guess that Morrison's clients tend to be advertising agencies, marketing departments and magazines oriented toward general consumption; and I would guess that Gerritsen's clients tend to be architects and magazines that cater to those who are specifically interested in architecture. However, when I say that Gerritsen's style tends to be documentary, I don't mean that he does not present his subjects in an appealing way or that they are not worthy of use for general marketing purposes. I have to wonder if different styles of marketing in different countries play a part as well, but I don't know much about marketing styles outside the US.
David Eichler
missed this posts, just too busy documenting!!
I think that is well observed,
thanks!
-
I'm intrigued by this thread and this probably is a slightly naive question from a relative newbie..
When Im lighting interiors I either use packs and strobes and try fill the whole area, which gives a blanket lighting effect.. which can be effective in the right situations, and yes directional too. but this is using almost everything I own... or I try and balance natural light, by using carefully positioned flash.. or reflectors where the room size allows, but sometimes this is next to impossible.
I recently acquired some dado's which are obviously small and portable. thinking about versatility, I have tried putting a diffuser in front of them, either a panel clamped, or a piece of spin in the gel holder.. but the drop off is quite substantial, I can't seem to get my head around the hardness of the lights without that and the multiple shadows I'm getting,
When lighting these glorious interiors do you guys approach it like a product shot and shot countless shots to then blend and shop to get the final frame?.. is it a question of lighting individual aspects of the composition to get the shadows and feel right?..
If so I have doubled my workflow to achieve the results I'm after.. but if that's the case then so be it..
I wanted to improve the way I light subject matter as I feel i have reached a bit of a glass ceiling in what I do.. and I desperately want to move on.
-
Ashley Morrison's work for example goes beyond beautiful scenes, it demonstartes awesome lighting: http://www.ashleymorrison.com/ (http://www.ashleymorrison.com/)
By the way what I am stating above really goes beyond stating opinions. From studying many amazing interior pictures I came across a common theme to amazing lighting: direction. Directional light gives definition to a scene, flat light on the other hand kills a scene. There are exceptions, of course, like the shot CBarrett posted where the general lighting mood is flat but still offers definition by smart placement. Looking at the naturally lit shots in question my first impression was "ok". Later as I looked at them I thought the light was flat and that's why I thought they were ok but not amazing.
I know this is not in response to you CBarret but if you are reading let me ask you, was the original scene lit like the picture? There are beautiful lights coming from the bottom of the bar and computer tables. You placed those there, correct?
-
Christopher,
Can I ask why you feel the need to use the Profotos as opposed to a standard hot light?
I was at B&H earlier today picking up ink and paper for the print exchange and had a look at them and they do seem like wonderful flashes.
I'm just wondering if you could explain a situation in which you would feel the need to use such a powerful flash with such fast recycle times. Is it due to the quality of the light you haven't found elsewhere? The light modifying tools profoto offers? To freeze a person in a shot?
I'm very curious and would love a little insight into your technique.
Thanks,
Sean
-
Chris will no doubt answer this, but my 2cs.
Why do I carry both strobes and hot lights? Every situation is somewhat unique but.....as a general rule........I use light primarily as fill to open up dark areas (compress dynamic range of the scene). Generally, (they can be modified with the appropriate gel) hot lights are tungsten balanced and strobes are daylight balanced. If there is allot of daylight streaming into the room my fill will need to be daylight balanced and very powerful (daylight is strong). If I am shooting a room at that is lit by halogen or household tungsten, my fill will need to be hot lights.
I use pretty much the same hot lights as Chris, but my strobes are definitely old school. I am still using the same Norman strobes I bought 30 years ago (though I own a ton of them now). I'm hoping they last me till I retire (if my aging assistant can keep carrying them).
Christopher,
Can I ask why you feel the need to use the Profotos as opposed to a standard hot light?
I was at B&H earlier today picking up ink and paper for the print exchange and had a look at them and they do seem like wonderful flashes.
I'm just wondering if you could explain a situation in which you would feel the need to use such a powerful flash with such fast recycle times. Is it due to the quality of the light you haven't found elsewhere? The light modifying tools profoto offers? To freeze a person in a shot?
I'm very curious and would love a little insight into your technique.
Thanks,
Sean
-
Thanks Kirk, your 2cs are very much appreciated.
I've only been in the business of photographing architecture and interior spaces for a little over a year. As an architect, I tend to shoot my own work in natural light as daylighting a space is very important in my design considerations. Being out in the professional world and shooting other designer's projects I realize that's not always the case and sometimes constraints are insurmountable that wont allow daylighting or will only allow a minimal amount. This is all to say that any technical advice I can gain from these forums is of great help and I appreciate your response.
-
Chris will no doubt answer this, but my 2cs.
Why do I carry both strobes and hot lights? Every situation is somewhat unique but.....as a general rule........I use light primarily as fill to open up dark areas (compress dynamic range of the scene). Generally, (they can be modified with the appropriate gel) hot lights are tungsten balanced and strobes are daylight balanced. If there is allot of daylight streaming into the room my fill will need to be daylight balanced and very powerful (daylight is strong). If I am shooting a room at that is lit by halogen or household tungsten, my fill will need to be hot lights.
I use pretty much the same hot lights as Chris, but my strobes are definitely old school. I am still using the same Norman strobes I bought 30 years ago (though I own a ton of them now). I'm hoping they last me till I retire (if my aging assistant can keep carrying them).
Strictly speaking, if just filling in shadows, you could just use strobes exclusively and gel them to match tungsten without too much trouble, no? I had the impression that AP's tend to use hot lights when they want more control over the light, to really create their own lighting, because it is easier to see what you are doing, so you can control it better. Of course hot lights would still offer more control even for fill for ambient tungsten, but is the extra control that important that you absolutely need hot lights for this function? I suppose it is a matter of style also.
-
Strictly speaking, if just filling in shadows, you could just use strobes exclusively and gel them to match tungsten without too much trouble, no? I had the impression that AP's tend to use hot lights when they want more control over the light, to really create their own lighting, because it is easier to see what you are doing, so you can control it better. Of course hot lights would still offer more control even for fill for ambient tungsten, but is the extra control that important that you absolutely need hot lights for this function? I suppose it is a matter of style also.
I said this is how I "primarily" use supplemental light. I also use it to create more interesting light than was designed into the space etc. when shooting for advertising purposes. When shooting for architects these days though we are primarily trying to make the space look on a screen or in a print the way it does to the eye and that mainly involves compressing the dynamic range of the scene so that it fits the dynamic range of the digital file. Yes you can use strobes to fill tungsten lit scenes, shoot tungsten via modifying the color temperature of strobes, This I suspect works better in digital where reciprocity is not an issue. But if I can use hot lights, I prefer to simply because they are easier to see what effect they are having (modeling lights don't really cut it) without having to make an exposure.
-
I've only been in the business of photographing architecture and interior spaces for a little over a year.
[attachment=18351:image.png]
This quote from your website makes me smile....
-
Thanks Kirk, your 2cs are very much appreciated.
I've only been in the business of photographing architecture and interior spaces for a little over a year. As an architect, I tend to shoot my own work in natural light as day lighting a space is very important in my design considerations. Being out in the professional world and shooting other designer's projects I realize that's not always the case and sometimes constraints are insurmountable that wont allow day lighting or will only allow a minimal amount. This is all to say that any technical advice I can gain from these forums is of great help and I appreciate your response.
I understand your love of natural light Sean. As an old b&w landscape photographer, I do too and use it exclusively whenever I can. In the old days we lit every shot for that classic advertising look that was so popular with American APs. But now we keep it to a minimum, which is easier because digital is so much more adaptable and forgiving in mixed light. Another factor here in the SW is the strength of daylight. I look at the images of allot of these European AP photographers, see all this soft muted daylight, and am very envious. In the SW we have 300+ cloudless days a year of harsh blasting daylight. The contrast ranges are extreme and a camera does not see this contrast the same way a human eye does-hence the common need for fill to compress the contrast. HDR if handled judiciously can help, but I feel like the next generation of HDR algorithms will be much more useful for producing truly believable results.
The first thing I do on a shoot is check out the possibilities of natural light and plan my day accordingly. Natural light is the priority.
I recently did a rush shoot in Las Vegas of two large institutional buildings and took no lights. Though I oftentimes use no lights on a many interiors, I always have them with me. I hate flying with all my equipment since 911, but there was no time to drive to this shoot. It worked out fine with a fair amount of extra effort in post.
-
I find that strobes have little use for direct lighting since you can not tell how the light will fall until you get an exposure. They also tend to be very harsh when used directly. Because of this I tend to almost always use them indirectly, bouncing the light off walls, ceilings and floor or shooting them through screens. When using strobes though, I still use tungsten lights with gels; I carry around 20 different kinds of gels.
Also, although I hate doing this because it is so tedious, there are situations where there is a window in the scene but, due to how the space is designed, strobes really would not work (unless I had a large banks account and could buy as many strobes as I have tungsten lights), so I gel the window(s). Lee and Rosco both make daylight to tungsten plus 2 stops gels large enough to cover windows. Now you need to cover the outside of the window so the gel is not apparent so you can really only do this on first, maybe second, floor locations.
-
[attachment=18351:image.png]
This quote from your website makes me smile....
Makes sense to me. I think there is a difference between "documenting" and being "in the business".
-
HDR if handled judiciously can help, but I feel like the next generation of HDR algorithms will be much more useful for producing truly believable results.
When ever I use HDR for a shot, I always do the merging manually. I find the programs that preform HDR for you never give great results. I attached a pic that I took recently in which I used tungsten lighting and HDR due to the ceiling lights in the room which gave off incredible hot spots. I think that it came out very true to the space.
-
I also should mention that I set up and shot the ceiling and then (without moving the camera) set up for the floor and desks. Then merged the two images in photoshop.
-
[attachment=18351:image.png]
This quote from your website makes me smile....
It's open to interpretation, but I have been photographing my work for the various firms I've worked for for 10+ years and many of those photos have been published. It was only recently that I went out and starting photographing other designer's work.
-
It's open to interpretation, but I have been photographing my work for the various firms I've worked for for 10+ years and many of those photos have been published. It was only recently that I went out and starting photographing other designer's work.
It was a friendly smile.
I like your website and spend some interesting time at your Blog.
-
It was a friendly smile.
I like your website and spend some interesting time at your Blog.
Thanks Tes. Thats the problem with the internet, a friendly smile or an unfriendly smile, they both just show up as a smile
I really wish I had some more time to keep the blog up to date. Knowing someone (other than me) is reading certainly helps to motivate.
-
I carry the same kit to every interiors job. The one time that I leave something I never use at home, I'm going to need it!
5x Profoto D1 500 Air (http://tinyurl.com/ydnmkr2) (love these! use them as hot lights too, beautiful light and really fine control)
6x Dedolight 150's (http://tinyurl.com/yaye3tz) (the ulitmate inky! 150 watts with a spotted intensity as bright as an Arri 300 + on board dimmer)
3x Mole Inkies (http://tinyurl.com/yje7su9) (these will flood broader than the Dedos. I use them when the light has to be real close)
8x Lowel Omnis (http://tinyurl.com/ylobxor) (crappy but effective workhorse 600watts, flood and spot, usually throw them through a silk or ceiling bounce)
4x Smith Victor Flood (http://tinyurl.com/yjhwt55) (you usually see these on top of wedding videographers cameras, I never use them, but 600 watts each in tiny space good backup light)
15 8' Stands
4 13' Stands
2 12x12 Silks
4 3x6 Diffusion Panels
Chris' Inky Review (http://christopherbarrett.net/blog/?p=333)
I recall this shot at LAX took every light I had... also, I like to carry an incline vial... had my assistant set the tilt on the monitors all to the same angle. Ok, yeah, I'm a little crazy, besides being a gear junky.
(http://christopherbarrett.net/062266_I.jpg)
-C
Hey Mr Barret,
Since you're a tech junkie and interior photographer of great skill you should get for yourself this christmas Leica D8. The super cool range finder. It calculates every triginometric angle for you and measures distances to the mm. It comes with a digital camera for precise aiming to 200 metres.
The price was about 650 euros so it's not that bad!
http://www.leica-geosystems.com/en/Laser-D...TO-D8_78069.htm (http://www.leica-geosystems.com/en/Laser-Distancemeter-Leica-DISTO-D8_78069.htm)
So that not been completely off topic for interiors I have used mostly Dedo lights, (I have 8 units) and lowel Tota lights as well as modeling lights from my broncolor heads (650W).
Patrik
-
Put the Leica D8 on top of your camera it tells the tilt angle. Amazing device.
-
Thanks Kirk for getting to Sean's question... it was the same answer I would of given. Just got in from shooting. 5am to 5pm... 5 Pictures. Did some Lit and unlit exposures just for you guys. This was some of the most involved lighting we've done in a while.
(http://christopherbarrett.net/litunlit.jpg)
(http://christopherbarrett.net/litunlit2.jpg)
Even when you have a lot of nice soft daylight coming in, you can pick up accents here and there to refine things.
(http://christopherbarrett.net/litunlit3.jpg)
Sillks to diffuse windows and various hotlights to add richness overall.
(http://christopherbarrett.net/themess.jpg)
Sometimes you just gotta get up on it!
(http://christopherbarrett.net/boominGranny.jpg)
Man, I am beat! Couple glasses of CB's sangria then bed.
-
Chris,
Great for you to show us how you work. I think I would have approached those spaces very differently, not to say that my results would have been better, but it is very enlightening to see how someone else works. Thanks for that.
Twice I have had to photograph spaces that Nick Merrick also shot. Once before him and once after him. It was very educational to have the opportunity to compare final products.
-
Chris,
Great for you to show us how you work. I think I would have approached those spaces very differently, not to say that my results would have been better, but it is very enlightening to see how someone else works. Thanks for that.
Twice I have had to photograph spaces that Nick Merrick also shot. Once before him and once after him. It was very educational to have the opportunity to compare final products.
Kirk and Chris, you both produce work that I admire greatly and thanks to you both for sharing your views and techniques. Kirk, would you care to give details about how you would have lit (or not) these spaces?
-
Thanks Kirk for getting to Sean's question... it was the same answer I would of given. Just got in from shooting. 5am to 5pm... 5 Pictures. Did some Lit and unlit exposures just for you guys. This was some of the most involved lighting we've done in a while.
Nice stuff.
-
Hi Chris
Hope you don't mind me using your image in this example - but this is to show roughly what I would have been aiming to achieve..
I like to use light to add depth to an image - draw the viewer through it or into it.
Also you will see, I have added a person - to create a focal point or point of interest - which again I feel helps draw the viewer's eye through... as well as add a bit of life.
No rights or wrongs of course - just a different approach and style.
Cheers,
Ashley.
Heh, I almost did that with one of Marc's shots a couple weeks ago to show how I would of lit it, but I was afraid of stepping on his toes. I'm glad you didn't shy away from that as I think it was a good example. I like the person, but often leave that up to the client. I do think that bronze door needs to be lit though, when you "turned it's light off" it became kind of a black hole.
What I would typically do is use my final, lit, exposure and then using curves with gradient masks to produce the effect you have by turning some lights off.
Now that I think about it, I really like the idea of an unlit exposure at the end of the bracket so I could selectively go in and either "turn lights off" or rheostat them down with layer opacity.
Hey! A new trick! Of course, the space SHOULD be lit perfectly on scene, not requiring any further manipulation! But then how many times when retouching, have I gone downstairs, made coffee, gone back up to the computer and looking at the screen wonder, "WTH was I thinking?"
I think this was a great exercise, thanks for the input Ashley. I'll have to post the retouched version as well.
-Chris
-
Kirk and Chris, you both produce work that I admire greatly and thanks to you both for sharing your views and techniques. Kirk, would you care to give details about how you would have lit (or not) these spaces?
I really hesitate to do this. I hate to do Monday morning quarterbacking on anyone, but especially someone as masterful as CB (whose work I have admired for years. I think he is one of the contemporary American masters of interior lighting.........seriously) and on a space I haven't even seen first hand. AND as I said before, let me make this clear, I'm not saying my approach would produce a better product. This is simply how I would approach these spaces for my aesthetic, for my typical clients who are largely architects and shelter magazines-not interior designers. My approach may not be what his clients are looking for at all. They hired CB for a reason.
I like allot of drama and mixed light sources (mixed light that looks good together like incandescent and daylight-IMO green florescents never look good). I can't tell what I am seeing out the windows (blue sky? is this in a high rise office building overlooking the lake?), but with the first two spaces, I think I would set up for a shot at twilght for the first two=utilizing as much of the existing, designed in, light as possible, letting the outside go very blue on the second which appears to be lit with halogens and on the first which appears to be lit with flourescents let the sky go bluish magenta and correct it to a more pleasing color in post. The third image I would approach very similarly as CB but I tend to bounce allot of my fill off the ceilings when they are white rather than build big diffusers. Beyond that I would have to be there. And now I have to run to lunch with a friend.........
-
Heh, I almost did that with one of Marc's shots a couple weeks ago to show how I would of lit it, but I was afraid of stepping on his toes.
-Chris
LOL
that is really funny as I did the same with one of your shots.
and then also did not dare to post it.
all we can do is learn
no sensitive toes here
ok here we go
what I did and reasons why
darkened the left side of the photo; to "close" it off a bit and direct the attention to the more interesting design sections of the stairs and chairs.
lightening of the chairs; for me they are one of the main design ingredients.
also lightening a bit the blue wall and green glass and the dark ceiling over the blue chairs
I also stretched the photo slightly on the left side towards the top, as to me the whole photo seemed on a "slippery slope" towards the left bottom
please show me yours!
cheers
m
PS
before everyone one starts to download photos from my website and starts to post "re-retouched" versions of them here, please don't
only photos that I post here are up for retouch discussion
-
Dammit, Marc! Now I have to go retouch that shot!
Well, I did always want to go back and remove those air diffusers anyway.
I wouldn't touch composition, though. I put that triangular ceiling element perfectly in the corner and like how it plays off of the corner of the rug.
I really enjoy this. Coming out of Hedrich Blessing, I'm quite accustomed to taking some hard criticism. When I was new on camera and would make some silly obvious mistake, Nick would say to me "Why did you decide to do that?" inferring that every square centimeter of the composition had come under my scrutinization and that I was accountable for every element.
He was of course right to point that out. From then on, after I shot each final polaroid, I would walk off set to somewhere quiet and examine every millimeter of the composition (frequently making some minor adjustment afterward and reshooting). Perfection was to be expected.
-
Dammit, Marc! Now I have to go retouch that shot!
Well, I did always want to go back and remove those air diffusers anyway.
I wouldn't touch composition, though. I put that triangular ceiling element perfectly in the corner and like how it plays off of the corner of the rug.
I really enjoy this. Coming out of Hedrich Blessing, I'm quite accustomed to taking some hard criticism. When I was new on camera and would make some silly obvious mistake, Nick would say to me "Why did you decide to do that?" inferring that every square centimeter of the composition had come under my scrutinization and that I was accountable for every element.
He was of course right to point that out. From then on, after I shot each final polaroid, I would walk off set to somewhere quiet and examine every millimeter of the composition (frequently making some minor adjustment afterward and reshooting). Perfection was to be expected.
i am re-editing my website and looked at photos from even 2 years ago and when re-examening them thought sometimes "I would never do that again like that"
I think we all have blind spots and I hope others can help me shed light on mine!
cheers
m
-
Thanks for your response, Kirk. It's so interesting to see different interpretations of the same scene. As has been said, so much depends on the purpose of the image/client's wishes, etc, that there's not often, if ever, a "correct" way. Thanks again, Kirk, Chris, Marc et al.
-
Just wanted to chime in and thank all you posters for a very entertaining and equally educational thread. Thanks a lot for your time and effort.
(Personally I work mainly with food and people photography but I always enjoy expertise and insightful thoughts.) Cheers to you! // Petter
-
Marc G. Ver 2.0
(http://christopherbarrett.net/marc2.jpg)
I evened out the wood and brightened it a little and both layers of wood in the reflection. Cropped some off the right side (found door pulls distracting)
Lit chairs.
Added light to ceiling recess.
Removed downlight near top edge.
Darkened corners ala lens vignette.
Lastly, I would of turned all the lights off and exposed the windows to get a reflection free view to drop in. My changes don't make or break the shot, and it was good to start with... just how I would of spent an extra hour tuning it.
Kirk's remarks on mine were interesting.. I've actually been moving away from the more dramatic lighting. Having to incorporate the architect's use of daylight into much of my work has caused my lighting to evolve in the last few years. I think the moody stuff is beautiful, but it just feels dated to me now. I felt so strongly about the look that I threw out the first 10 years of my portfolio.
I'm working on a look that still has sexiness but feels more organic, more sensitive to the design.
Old Barrett (http://christopherbarrett.net/product/gallery/album/large/Product_009.jpg)
New Barrett (http://christopherbarrett.net/product/gallery/album/large/Product_017.jpg)
and just for yucks, a more recent shot that I'm really happy with the lighting on thats maybe halfway in between the two looks..
(http://christopherbarrett.net/navteq.jpg)
Of course, I'm still learning, still evolving, still having fun...
-cb
-
Thanks for everyone who has chipped in and shared their experience and information here.
This is a great thread - enough to get me to join the forum just to share my gratitude.
I'm still shooting 4x5 film - and with the recent negative emulsions (Portra 160 and Fuji 160) in the mix, I manage to preserve a bit more dynamic range than I could with chromes, somewhat alleviating my need for alot of lights, and allows me to be sensitive to the light as designed by the architect.
That said, I still take a 3000w/s pack and three heads. A few slaved battery flashes I can tuck into corners, and a few hotlights, but my light kit is nowhere close to what I want it to be. And every shoot, I find another gap I'd like to fill, rather than trying to jury rig with what I have.
Baby steps.
Thanks all.
-
it just feels dated to me now
CB
Well maybe that because I am dated.........I am 60 years old
-
Very Interesting so far, thank you!
CB: do you find you get a lot of mixed reactions from clients when you have "blue" windows?
it seems to be a sore spot for some of my clients.
This is how I work, some spaces are lit more than others, some are all day light.
I process the file out a few different ways, ie: one for the window's, one for the dark area, one for correct WB of some light that was too much to try to balance while shooting, and some times because if we can't hide a light, I just do another exposure and only take the lit part from the file that has the stands and cables in the image.
These are all layered together and then the image is cleaned up. (why is there so much cr*p on ceilings these days?)
I use a mixture of Profoto Acutes, Red Heads (different Wattage) and at times Totas.
No real rules, just light the space as we "build" the shot.
am
-
I use a mixture of Profoto Acutes, Red Heads (different Wattage) and at times Totas.
Apologies for the silly question... I've seen "red heads" listed a few times. Are those just Mole Richardson's equivalents to the Tota's or something else?
-
Apologies for the silly question... I've seen "red heads" listed a few times. Are those just Mole Richardson's equivalents to the Tota's or something else?
Hi actually I should be more specific
These are made by an Italian company named Ianiro, The 500w and 1000w have a Red shell so they are named "Red Heads" the 2000w lights have a golden yellow shell, so they are commonly refereed to as "blondes" on set.
They are very light and cool down faster than the metal cased lights.
I personally like them a lot.
am
-
These are made by an Italian company named Ianiro, The 500w and 1000w have a Red shell so they are named "Red Heads" the 2000w lights have a golden yellow shell, so they are commonly refereed to as "blondes" on set.
Thanks very much for the clarification. Many of the Mole's that I've run across had a rust/red metal case, so I wasn't sure if that was what you were referring to. Those look useful, and the light weight is always appreciated. I'll look into them.
Cheers,
Liam
-
CB
Well maybe that because I am dated.........I am 60 years old
Nothing old about you work, though, Viejo!
I am highly critical of my own work, very few of my images satiate me and I feel something of a constant anxiousness to improve the vision.
-
Very Interesting so far, thank you!
CB: do you find you get a lot of mixed reactions from clients when you have "blue" windows?
it seems to be a sore spot for some of my clients.
This is how I work, some spaces are lit more than others, some are all day light.
I process the file out a few different ways, ie: one for the window's, one for the dark area, one for correct WB of some light that was too much to try to balance while shooting, and some times because if we can't hide a light, I just do another exposure and only take the lit part from the file that has the stands and cables in the image.
These are all layered together and then the image is cleaned up. (why is there so much cr*p on ceilings these days?)
I use a mixture of Profoto Acutes, Red Heads (different Wattage) and at times Totas.
No real rules, just light the space as we "build" the shot.
am
I actually don't get much feedback on the color of windows, more about the tone than anything... often wanting more detail. I try to throttle that back to avoid the heavy HDR look which can often feel very unnatural to me.
I totally do that multi-exposure layering with a light in the middle of the shot. Hey, if that's the absolute best place to light from, why limit yourself? Sort of like Marc walking around his location with a hand held strobe.
-cb
-
I just have one question, how are you getting your pics into the post as opposed to just a thumbnail you have to click on?
-
I just have one question, how are you getting your pics into the post as opposed to just a thumbnail you have to click on?
Huh... I just click the "Insert Image" button when writing my posts and paste my url in the box that pops up and there they are. If they're under a certain dimension they don't get reduced, but I have no idea how to make the little thumbnails.
This has been discussed before, I'm sure.
-
I just have one question, how are you getting your pics into the post as opposed to just a thumbnail you have to click on?
You need to have the image hosted online somewhere. Then you can put the url between img tags ([ img ]URL here[/ img ]- without the spaces. (or use the insert image button, CBarrett mentions)
comme ça
(http://streetlevel-photography.com/galleries/gallery_places/images/beckman_sm.jpg)
-
Alright, thanks for the quick answer, I see the insert image icon now. I have always been using the upload tool under the script bar.
-
Hi actually I should be more specific
These are made by an Italian company named Ianiro, The 500w and 1000w have a Red shell so they are named "Red Heads" the 2000w lights have a golden yellow shell, so they are commonly refereed to as "blondes" on set.
They are very light and cool down faster than the metal cased lights.
I personally like them a lot.
am
I really like my redheads as well. The cool shell is a very big plus in the tight spaces I work. I have a soft spot in my heart for mole 2k zips as well.
-
Here is a fun one, I really like simple solutions for difficult scenarios for clients. Not necessarily my "best:, but many of my favorite images personally are about problem solving. They thought this couldn't be shot, which presented an access problem later on. This is a really tight meditation space in a hospital. This space was unfinished (lighting and fireplace). So first we did a vertical flat stitch with an old 24T/S. Then we added one light around the curve corner, a hot light (I wanted the warmth and color contrast-no outlet back there and no working lights-so removed the extension cord in post). Then stripped in the fire from another interior in post.
[attachment=18478:UNMH_Cancer_38.jpg]
-
Marc G. Ver 2.0
in shanghai on a shoot........ using lights haha!
will react and report when time allows
cheers
m
-
Here is a fun one, I really like simple solutions for difficult scenarios for clients. Not necessarily my "best:, but many of my favorite images personally are about problem solving. They thought this couldn't be shot, which presented an access problem later on. This is a really tight meditation space in a hospital. This space was unfinished (lighting and fireplace). So first we did a vertical flat stitch with an old 24T/S. Then we added one light around the curve corner, a hot light (I wanted the warmth and color contrast-no outlet back there and no working lights-so removed the extension cord in post). Then stripped in the fire from another interior in post.
[attachment=18478:UNMH_Cancer_38.jpg]
Well seen Mr. Gittings. Nice shape and visual flow. Ironically, I want more drama in the lighting (did I just say that?). I retouch outlet plates and sprinklers whether the designers ask for it or not.
-
do you guys use spot meters still?
I mean, you can guess the exposure, but do you still use a spot/ambient meter to get a rough base exposure?
just wonderin'.
-Dan
-
Well seen Mr. Gittings. Nice shape and visual flow. Ironically, I want more drama in the lighting (did I just say that?). I retouch outlet plates and sprinklers whether the designers ask for it or not.
Thanks, yeah I was looking at the lighting and crap too. It is supposed to be a quite space. I go back and forth on all the cleanup. Sometimes I clean things up so much in post that they look like renderings instead of photos. The architect on one project I just did that won an AIA honor award referred to my photographs as "surreal", but he loved them right? He won the big award. That comment made me pause though. I think maybe I was pushing things too far, getting intoxicated with Photoshop. I think the trick is to clean it up enough that all the visual distractions are gone without turning it into an architectural version of the Pilsbury Dough Boy. This here was a rush job all the way around (had to shoot it before they moved in-the administration didn't want us in after) and I didn't push the shooting or post as far as I might usually do it. I am now getting ready to sell some serious stock on this project to the builder and design consultants and revisiting the files.
-
Here is a fun one, I really like simple solutions for difficult scenarios for clients. Not necessarily my "best:, but many of my favorite images personally are about problem solving. They thought this couldn't be shot, which presented an access problem later on. This is a really tight meditation space in a hospital. This space was unfinished (lighting and fireplace). So first we did a vertical flat stitch with an old 24T/S. Then we added one light around the curve corner, a hot light (I wanted the warmth and color contrast-no outlet back there and no working lights-so removed the extension cord in post). Then stripped in the fire from another interior in post.
I get a kick out of the tough ones too! These are really tight spaces, a few as small as a phone booth. Makes lighting and camera placement (suction cup mount on the wall for one) really interesting to say the least. When possible I prefer high drama light.
Interior cabin of a 30 foot boat, this is about 12-15 feet in depth and 8-9 feet wide, Sigma 12-24 at 12. Mole 1k zips through the portholes, 2-650 moles from the front hatch to cast the long shadows, 6- pepper 200's bounced in a number of places and 2-1k moles into a silk over each hatch near the camera.
(http://www.craiglamson.com/misc/LL1/LL1/images/Rinker07_300_salonc.jpg)
Head in a 42 foot boat, about 3 people long. Sigma 12-24 at 12, camera on a suction mount. 1-pepper 420 bounced to the left ceiling near camera.
(http://www.craiglamson.com/misc/LL1/LL1/images/Rinker_07_420_head.jpg)
Forward V-Berth in a 37 foot boat. Sigma 12-24 @ 16. 650 mole through the visable porthole, 1k mole zip through the non visable porthole on the right, 200 Pepper ceiling bounce at the camera.
(http://www.craiglamson.com/misc/LL1/LL1/images/Rinker08_370_berth_copy.jpg)
Head in a 30 foot boat, smaller than a phone booth. Sigma 12-24 @ 12. 420 Pepper bounced int the ceiling corner on right, 200 Pepper into a card under the camera, 1k zip through the porthole.
(http://www.craiglamson.com/misc/LL1/LL1/images/Rinker07_300_head.jpg)
-
When ever I use HDR for a shot, I always do the merging manually. I find the programs that preform HDR for you never give great results. I attached a pic that I took recently in which I used tungsten lighting and HDR due to the ceiling lights in the room which gave off incredible hot spots. I think that it came out very true to the space.
I don't understand what you mean by doing the merge manually. It is my understanding that you need software to do the merge. I am talking about tonemapping with Photomatix, Photoshop, etc.
BTW, I have done HDR and my main reference is Michael Freeman's book, which seems very thorough and makes no mention of merging by hand.
-
I don't understand what you mean by doing the merge manually. It is my understanding that you need software to do the merge. I am talking about tonemapping with Photomatix, Photoshop, etc.
BTW, I have done HDR and my main reference is Michael Freeman's book, which seems very thorough and makes no mention of merging by hand.
For my use... Rather than tonemapping, I stack the layers, and use layer masks to reveal and blend. Windows for instance, if you have a good exposure for the interior, and then a couple of stops adjusted for better windows, just using a layer mask to swap those is more effective and more natural looking (I feel) than a full tonemap.
Not sure if that's what JoeKitchen meant, but that's my method.
-
For my use... Rather than tonemapping, I stack the layers, and use layer masks to reveal and blend. Windows for instance, if you have a good exposure for the interior, and then a couple of stops adjusted for better windows, just using a layer mask to swap those is more effective and more natural looking (I feel) than a full tonemap.
Not sure if that's what JoeKitchen meant, but that's my method.
My method as well. Never could get a good feel for Photomatrix.
-
I used to always play Stack-n-Mask too, but I'm getting decent stuff out of Photomatix nowadays. Frequently, though, I'll still layer the result into the base exposure to retain good contrast. ie.....
(http://christopherbarrett.net/091201_005.jpg)
(http://christopherbarrett.net/091201_005Windows.jpg)
-
My method as well. Never could get a good feel for Photomatrix.
That is exactly what I was alluding to. I also will play with the levels and curves in each layer as well as adjust the percentage that the layer is seen. I tried Photomerge and others and was always disappointed with the results as compared to this method. I guess it is like an automatic trans compared to a standard. Yes the auto work goods, but a stick shift driven by someone who knows what they are doing always seems to run better.
Also, I really admire how well you light such small interiors, must be a headache sometimes to get everything lit well and not have harsh shadows or hotspots.
By the way, where can you get suction cup mounts? What is the company that makes them?
-
By the way, where can you get suction cup mounts? What is the company that makes them?
The one I have used is a Manfrotto - but I know both Matthews and Novaflex also make them. Some already set up to take a lightweight pod head or magic arm, others set up for lights - posts.
-
I am not sure if my style is outdated or not, but Its what my clients want. I have wanted to change my style, but the type of projects I have been shooting just don't work with it. I have started to use less lighting to work with newer clients budgets.
with out light this room looked boring and dead. 8 - 10 lights and a couple of small mini strobes. 1 hour setup
(http://www.johngibbel.com/oakwood_web/toluca_hills/bin/images/large/_Living_Room.jpg)
another image a few years old. 20 - 22 lights plus lots of small mini strobes 3 hours setup
(http://www.johngibbel.com/gallery/familyrooms/large/image2.jpg)
www.JohnGibbel.com
-
Nice work. FWIW, I have long considered the uplights beneath the plants to be outdated. I'm not sure why except that the interior designers I work for quit using those kinds of accents quite a few years ago.
-
P.S. The longest exposed image should be the base layer with no mask applied to it for this method to work. If using more then two layers (which I only do in rare cases since doing so starts to make the image and contrast look surreal), they should be stacked so each layer is progressively a shorter and shorter exposure. Also, make sure you adjust the exposure using the shutter speed, not the aperture.
-
My method as well. Never could get a good feel for Photomatrix.
Same three. I do my HDR by hand with Layers. To me Photomatrix dims the highlights to much and lightens the shadows to much, it just doesn't look right.
Question for CB on your photo you think is a good mix of your old and new style. The reflection of the window on the wood ceiling, how do you feel about it. I go back and forth on reflections that cause color balance to shift (in the photo to a blue cool color). Sometimes I want to remove it completely to represent the materials texture and true balanced color. But in truth that is how the wood ceiling looks on site. And I want to show that truth sometimes.
So my questions to you is would the old you tried to of removed that completely with lighting? And is the new you trying to keep elements of this sort in your photos? How about other people here, how you resolve these lighting issues?
Aaron
-
I do a fair amount of work for custom builders to fill in the gaps between real jobs. The budgets are low so I need to work quickly. I have to squeeze a decent set of shots out of a limited time even if the light is not primo. Here is an example of an HDR that to me works (a little surreal I admit). The day was bright overcast. The sun was high and above left. The area under the porch was too dark. If I exposed for the porch the sky blew out. A pain to try and light the porch. Three exposures-2 stop range. Exposure Blend in Photomatix. HDR always needs some aditional adjustments in PS after the blend. HDR is just another tool if used appropriately.
Before and after:
[attachment=18488:Panorama_03.jpg]
[attachment=18491:Panorama.jpg]
-
Alright, since we are throwing images out there, here is one that I took recently. For exteriors, I usually always try and time the image for the correct time of day so that the sun is hitting the side of the building I am shooting. Doing so usually results in being able to get the image in one shoot I find, but if it is really bright or the face of the building faces north and never gets sun, then I use HDR. For exteriors though, I only ever use two exposures that are no more then 1.5 stops apart just keep things looking real. Just so you know, this image also has more editing then just HDR.
By the way, nice job Kirk. I would have made the sky a little less contrasty, but that is just me.
-
I use less up lights now then in the past, sometimes a dark plant needs a little light, and the uplight is a simple way to fill a dark plant.
Nice work. FWIW, I have long considered the uplights beneath the plants to be outdated. I'm not sure why except that the interior designers I work for quit using those kinds of accents quite a few years ago.
-
delete
Okay, feel like an idiot.
-
Craig:
The best trick to get around shooting cramped boat interiors is to shoot in really Big boats
Kidding aside, I do have to say shooting yacht interiors is absolutely challenging to say the least, thing you never think about, I've had to track down the laundry machine to see that it's causing the mild vibration under the tripod and stuff like that.
I also Stack n Mask manually, to me nothing beats a glass of wine and a Wacom tablet.
the images attached are 5-6 files masked, both for different WB and density as well as outside exposure.
BTW I find for this kind of photography, it's very convenient to have a tripod with the tilting center column, I use the gitzo GT2540EX.
-
The one I have used is a Manfrotto - but I know both Matthews and Novaflex also make them. Some already set up to take a lightweight pod head or magic arm, others set up for lights - posts.
I use Bogens, use them with both lights and cameras. I'm a sucker for grip equipment and alwsys find a place to use the weird stuff.
-
You did not have to do anything just because I said something Kirk, and after seeing new image, in the first one you posted you can see more detail under the roof. The original is a better trade off. Its just that it sort of looks like there is a thunderstorm approaching?
Not sure what you mean. I just added the "before" for reference as an afterthought (and I did realize that on the "after" I had not converted it to sRGB and changed that). Client comments-the contractor loved the HDR because you could see all the rich detail under the roof. He thought it "really came alive". To satisfy him any other way would mean I would have had to light it. Later it ran full page in an article in a homebuilder magazine. The editor thought it was a bit "surreal" and didn't like it that much but ran it. Personally I like the HDR (I grant you a bit tooooomuch maybe). The straight image just sits there, muddy and lifeless.
-
The other attachment that did not attach to my previous post...
-
Craig:
The best trick to get around shooting cramped boat interiors is to shoot in really Big boats
Kidding aside, I do have to say shooting yacht interiors is absolutely challenging to say the least, thing you never think about, I've had to track down the laundry machine to see that[attachment=18493:DFHT_0036_LR.jpg] it's causing the mild vibration under the tripod and stuff like that.
I also Stack n Mask manually, to me nothing beats a glass of wine and a Wacom tablet.
the images attached are 5-6 files masked, both for different WB and density as well as outside exposure.
BTW I find for this kind of photography, it's very convenient to have a tripod with the tilting center column, I use the gitzo GT2540EX.
Oh yes thats a GREAT solution! I must get me some of those to shoot! With the 40' and smaller I can shoot indoors, in a warehouse ect. Then vibration is not a problem. I use a 30' tethering cable and 30' shutter release cord and work from the ground. Quite often I'll go inside and move props (usually a tihgt fit past the camera) while the AD and stylist watch and trigger the camera from outside. My avatar photo is the result of one such time. I just stuck my head in front of the 12 mm while the AD triggered the camera and waited for the roar of laughter when the image popped up!
I have a number of 'pods, but my favorite for this stuff is an old Bogen, small and light and I can fit the camera pressed against a wall or tihgt in a corner. Most of the time its impossible to look through the viewfinder.
-
Not sure what you mean. I just added the "before" for reference as an afterthought (and I did realize that on the "after" I had not converted it to sRGB and changed that). Client comments-the contractor loved the HDR because you could see all the rich detail under the roof. He thought it "really came alive". Later it ran full page in an article in a homebuilder magazine. The editor thought it was a bit "surreal" and didn't like it that much but ran it. Personally I like the HDR (I grant you a bit tooooomuch maybe). The straight image just sits there, muddy and lifeless.
Are you using exposure blending or tone mapping?
-
Are you using exposure blending or tone mapping?
Exposure blend plus some additional post mainly to perk up the midtones which tend to get a little flat and lifeless.
I like Tony Kuyper's Luminoscity Masks (http://goodlight.us/writing/luminositymasks/luminositymasks-1.html) for this.
-
I would like to get some silks but can not find them on the B&H website, what are the referred to as?
-
I would like to get some silks but can not find them on the B&H website, what are the referred to as?
I've been making mine to fit my panels for some time, just buy Nylon Taffetta, and sew it. It helps to have a surger (my wife does) for the edges. Everyone wants way too much money for pre-made panel fabrics.
-
I've been making mine to fit my panels for some time, just buy Nylon Taffetta, and sew it. It helps to have a surger (my wife does) for the edges. Everyone wants way too much money for pre-made panel fabrics.
That sounds like a much better way to go. Joanne Fabrics here I come.
-
Same three. I do my HDR by hand with Layers. To me Photomatrix dims the highlights to much and lightens the shadows to much, it just doesn't look right.
Question for CB on your photo you think is a good mix of your old and new style. The reflection of the window on the wood ceiling, how do you feel about it. I go back and forth on reflections that cause color balance to shift (in the photo to a blue cool color). Sometimes I want to remove it completely to represent the materials texture and true balanced color. But in truth that is how the wood ceiling looks on site. And I want to show that truth sometimes.
So my questions to you is would the old you tried to of removed that completely with lighting? And is the new you trying to keep elements of this sort in your photos? How about other people here, how you resolve these lighting issues?
Aaron
I take that on a shot by shot basis. Sometimes the color of the reflection feels perfect, other times it destroys the richness of the material beneath it. I think it depends on the space. Frequently I'll do a Hue/Sat adj layer, select that blue (or whatever color) and desaturate it a little bit (masking the adj layer if need be)
On Silks....
I have two of these. (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/32997-REG/Matthews_319000_12x12_Overhead_Fabric_.html)
and seven of these (http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/RM7360/).
For the Calumet panels, I didn't like their aluminum frames and made my own out of PVC (with elastic cord running through) $2.50 in PVC versus $70 for Calumet frame. (http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/RM7232/)
-
For the Calumet panels, I didn't like their aluminum frames and made my own out of PVC (with elastic cord running through) $2.50 in PVC versus $70 for Calumet frame. (http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/RM7232/)
Mine are some of the original Dean Collins Lightforms from 20 years ago...
What was it about the Calumet frames you did not like?
-
Mine are some of the original Dean Collins Lightforms from 20 years ago...
What was it about the Calumet frames you did not like?
They weren't any lighter or more compact than my PVC frames and you have to align the channels on each tube before you can slip them together... too sloooooow.
-
What do you think is you all's favorite (or what you use the most) light modifier? Barn doors, silk panel, nothing, etc
Aaron
-
Craig,
Do you ever have a client complain about the distortion caused by the 12mm lens? I have and was curious what your experience has been. Even though I don't know what else you could do to get that type of shot in such a small space. Unless you get a really big saw and cut the boat in half. For some reason I don't think the owner/client would like that
-
Exposure blend plus some additional post mainly to perk up the midtones which tend to get a little flat and lifeless.
I like Tony Kuyper's Luminoscity Masks (http://goodlight.us/writing/luminositymasks/luminositymasks-1.html) for this.
Thanks for the link Kirk, this rocks! Just sent Tony 25 bucks.
-
What do you think is you all's favorite (or what you use the most) light modifier? Barn doors, silk panel, nothing, etc
Aaron
Barn doors and grids. (Blackwrap in a pinch) If you can't control where the light does and doesn't go, you're working against yourself.
-
Craig,
Do you ever have a client complain about the distortion caused by the 12mm lens? I have and was curious what your experience has been. Even though I don't know what else you could do to get that type of shot in such a small space. Unless you get a really big saw and cut the boat in half. For some reason I don't think the owner/client would like that
Never on a boat, a few times on RV's. It's a bunch easier to use a longer lens in an RV if needed but even thsn 24 is almost to long to show any sense of space. When they complain tell them to crop, its the same as using a longer lens
With the 12 you really need to watch what you put near the camera. Also keep in mind I usually lose a bit of the image to perspective correction.
-
What do you think is you all's favorite (or what you use the most) light modifier? Barn doors, silk panel, nothing, etc
Aaron
Depends on the shot, sometime the barndoors are really important, sometime gels are needed more (like diffusion gels and color correction gels or even theatrical color gels). Like if I am lighting desks or chairs and need nice highlights in certain areas, barndoors are essential. But if I am lighting a ceiling with exposed beams and want highlights or need to even out the light but can not avoids shadows, I really need diffusion gels to soften the edges.
FYI, Lee makes a really cool diffusion gel called brushed silk; makes the light into a soft oval as long as you are at least 12 feet away from your subject. Really great applications.
-
Depends on the shot, sometime the barndoors are really important, sometime gels are needed more (like diffusion gels and color correction gels or even theatrical color gels). Like if I am lighting desks or chairs and need nice highlights in certain areas, barndoors are essential. But if I am lighting a ceiling with exposed beams and want highlights or need to even out the light but can not avoids shadows, I really need diffusion gels to soften the edges.
FYI, Lee makes a really cool diffusion gel called brushed silk; makes the light into a soft oval as long as you are at least 12 feet away from your subject. Really great applications.
I will have to check that Lee gel out. While working in architecture I remember Ledalite had some 2x2 and 2x4 flourescent lights with a new diffuser called MesoOptics (http://www.ledalite.com/technology/mesooptics). I would love to try and use it as a diffuser for photography lighting. Though I doubt if it would be cheap.
-
Since I posted the lit and unlit versions, I thought I would go ahead and put up the retouched finals.
(http://christopherbarrett.net/GLP/091201_001.jpg)
(http://christopherbarrett.net/GLP/091201_002.jpg)
(http://christopherbarrett.net/GLP/091201_003.jpg)
(http://christopherbarrett.net/GLP/091201_004.jpg)
(http://christopherbarrett.net/GLP/091201_005.jpg)
-CB
-
Lovely.
-
Really nice Chris.
-
Nice work Chris.
IBM Building? That marble floor and wood color looks familiar.
-
Nice work Chris.
IBM Building? That marble floor and wood color looks familiar.
Sears Tower (which I will always call it) 61st floor, dawn to dusk last saturday.
-
Superb Chris, especially the 2nd and 4th.
-
I believe this topic started out with the asking for advice in what kind of lighting equipment to get. Well I just thought of something overlooked here, and that is light stands. For the person who started this topic, if you are still reading it, don't go cheap with light stands. I got a couple of cheap ones when I started and they suck. The legs don't open wide enough given little stability and some of the screws are made of plastic. Now I opt for calumet brand air cushioned light stands, 10 ft mostly.
-
I believe this topic started out with the asking for advice in what kind of lighting equipment to get. Well I just thought of something overlooked here, and that is light stands. For the person who started this topic, if you are still reading it, don't go cheap with light stands. I got a couple of cheap ones when I started and they suck. The legs don't open wide enough given little stability and some of the screws are made of plastic. Now I opt for calumet brand air cushioned light stands, 10 ft mostly.
I like these (http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/MF6030/) for most everything. I don't have much need for heavy duty stands. I do also have two of these kits (http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/MF6095/) that I mostly hang silks from, or use the stands when I need to get way up there.
No complaints with Calumet stands in 15 years.
-CB