Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Architectural / interior photography - best equipment?  (Read 73914 times)

Craig Lamson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3264
    • Craig Lamson Photo Homepage
Re: Architectural / interior photography - best equipment?
« Reply #120 on: March 20, 2013, 11:31:29 pm »

I am really sorry, I will never do it again, please forgive me but keep on the discussion. I don`t want to be arrogant, but is it really correct to make wonderful pictures of horrible architectural projects?


I shoot for commerce.  A dollar is a dollar.  I don't judge, I just shoot.  Then I cash the checks.  The guy who had this structure built is quite proud of it, spent a lot of money on it and it reflects his visions and feelings. Not my job to decide if it is good or bad.  Only to try and take a decent photo.

I'm not really an architectural shooter, I shoot product, mostly RV and boat interiors and I'll never be a C. Barrett.  Sorry if my work is not up to snuff.
Logged
Craig Lamson Photo

Craig Lamson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3264
    • Craig Lamson Photo Homepage
Re: Architectural / interior photography - best equipment?
« Reply #121 on: March 20, 2013, 11:32:32 pm »

Chris Barret Agreed!,

To Craig:
Just to help out
I've seen there's a small error on your site, simpel to solve..
on line 85 of your source code of the main page you have:
   <a class="style16" href="index.htm">ARCHITECTURA</a>L&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
it should be:
   <a class="style16" href="index.htm">ARCHITECTURAL</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

that way the "L" of architecturaL is also a "link" :)
and you can delete all the : "&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp"
that's only clutter and Google-bot does not like it :)

greets 

Thanks
Logged
Craig Lamson Photo

MHFA

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
Re: Architectural / interior photography - best equipment?
« Reply #122 on: March 21, 2013, 02:06:41 am »

Dear Craig.
I took your picture because it is really good. It is much more difficult to take a good picture of a horrible project...
This topic started "architectural photography - best equipment".
I only wanted to state my opinion that this is not all in architectural photography.

I also shoot for commerce. I also have to take pictures of bad projects, but I can`t avoid to judge.
Sometimes I would like to see it so professional like Craig.

Michael
Logged

Ken R

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 849
Re: Architectural / interior photography - best equipment?
« Reply #123 on: March 21, 2013, 07:56:35 am »

I fell relieved to hear all this. I thought it was only me having to photograph some ugly places..



 I and a lot of Professional Photographers get paid because we can make a mediocre space or building look great. That applies to people also  ;D

If it were easy, anyone would do it... In fact clients will often try to do stuff themselves and when they can't, they call a pro.
Logged

Jeffreytotaro

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 111
Re: Architectural / interior photography - best equipment?
« Reply #124 on: March 21, 2013, 10:02:57 am »

Some of my favorite shots from a creative point of view, are shots where we had to make something out of nothing. These really test your skills and are quite frankly harder shots to pull off. Stepping into some star-chitect's projects in my opinion is an easier day when great compositions fall in your lap due to the great design. These are obviously more fun to shoot, and can be easier to make a great photo. I respect the work my clients do, and if they want to shoot it I treat it like every other shot, even still working with the MFDB system. Might feel silly using that gear on an accessible bathroom shot, but that's what I work with for 99% of my work.
Logged
Jeffrey Totaro
[url=http://www.jeffreyto

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: Architectural / interior photography - best equipment?
« Reply #125 on: March 21, 2013, 11:01:08 am »

something out of nothing

that ability is what makes up a great photographer I think.
Logged

Harold Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 275
Re: Architectural / interior photography - best equipment?
« Reply #126 on: March 21, 2013, 12:24:11 pm »

Is it really correct to make wonderful pictures of horrible architectural projects?

I have had my share as well of photographing products of the "Eyesore" school of design. I sometimes shoot for manufacturers of materials that are used in construction, and they require photos of the finished project. A marketing manager explained to me that they sometimes do this for political reasons. A major customer might be offended if some of their projects didn't appear in the calendar, marketing materials etc.

The worst offenders are subdivisions which consist of a garage with a house attached to the rear. Might as well eliminate the garage, they are filled with junk anyway and the cars are still parked out in the weather.

Logged

Scott Hargis

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
    • Scott Hargis Photo
Re: Architectural / interior photography - best equipment?
« Reply #127 on: March 21, 2013, 03:07:49 pm »


"Is it really correct to make wonderful pictures of horrible architectural projects?"


I get this all the time: "Oh, Scott, you get the best places to shoot." And I'm always thinking, "No, it was actually kind of crappy, and I made it look good."

A couple of other thoughts, regarding the lights/no lights discussion:

First, I have to say I agree with CB. If you don't know how, then you're not really making the decision, are you?
Second, in my opinion, "good" supplemental light accomplishes the goal of rendering the reality of the scene into a dynamic range that the camera can actually capture. Saying things like "I want my photos to look natural," are really red herrings, because "natural" is meaningless when you compare your eye/brain combination to your camera. The camera will NEVER see things the way you do.
Unfortunately, learning to light things well is hard, and so you do see an awful lot of flashy, flat images out there. Gives lighting a bad name.

Guy Mancuso

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1133
    • http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/index.php
Re: Architectural / interior photography - best equipment?
« Reply #128 on: March 21, 2013, 06:24:38 pm »

Lighting is also one of the keys of making nothing look like something. Personally maybe I'm old school but photography is all about light. It simply dont exist without it, knowing lighting and being good at it is one of the major keys to successfull imagery.
Logged
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showt

Kirk Gittings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1561
    • http://www.KirkGittings.com
Re: Architectural / interior photography - best equipment?
« Reply #129 on: March 21, 2013, 07:21:33 pm »

IMO natural light is always superior to our lighting. Though it is fun to make something dull look soooo juicy. Maybe that attitude comes from my b&w landscape work where I only do natural light. I carry around a truckload of lighting for commercial jobs, gels, halogin and strobe, enough to light a seriously large building. But since I gave up film we use it allot less. Maybe half of our use of it with film was just to "clean up" mixed light sources to get it to match daylight or tunsten film. Digital is much more forgiving with mixed light (layering may be necessary oftentimes). So our lighting now is more about just accents and filling dark areas. Most of our clients these days, largely designers and magazines, want the lighting to be or at least mimic their lighting design. We find that making their lighting design work on the files is much easier than it was on film. In a very real way (for those who were around 20 years ago) we are approaching lighting minimally-much like European architectural photographers were doing during the film days.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 07:24:12 pm by Kirk Gittings »
Logged
Thanks,
Kirk Gittings

David Eichler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 823
    • San Francisco Architectural and Interior Photographer
Re: Architectural / interior photography - best equipment?
« Reply #130 on: March 21, 2013, 07:38:02 pm »

"IMO natural light is always superior to our lighting."

My feeling as well, for all sorts of subject matter. To me, supplementary lighting is primarily remedial or compensatory. That is, it is to help compensate for situations where the camera does not see the way the eye does, when there is not sufficient time to wait for the ideal ambient lighting, or when the ambient lighting is never really that great.  For commercial work, I feel that you are really limiting your options if you don't have the capability to use at least some supplementary lighting.

As to the comments about the quality of the subject matter for architectural photography, well...tastes vary. Some people don't like Modern design at all. Some people don't like nouveau-vieux mediterranean.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 07:43:02 pm by David Eichler »
Logged

Kirk Gittings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1561
    • http://www.KirkGittings.com
Re: Architectural / interior photography - best equipment?
« Reply #131 on: March 21, 2013, 08:50:10 pm »

Joe? I have actually no idea what you are responding to or what point you are making. I even read back a few pages.....
Logged
Thanks,
Kirk Gittings

Chris Barrett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 730
    • www.christopherbarrett.net
Re: Architectural / interior photography - best equipment?
« Reply #132 on: March 21, 2013, 10:43:43 pm »

I think you guys are oversimplifying what lighting can be.  When I light a scene, we're not just filling the dark areas so that the camera sees like the eye.  We add character to bring out the richness of materials and depth of dimension that never exists under the ambient lighting.  We're backlighting glass to make it glow, reflecting light into stainless and metallic finishes to make them sparkle, raking light across textured materials to make them feel more tactile, pulling out the color and grain of wood that would normally sit there lifelessly.

No amount of dynamic range will ever yield results similar to what can be done with fastidious and sensitive lighting.  For 20 years my clients have been telling me that my photographs look better than the actual architecture.  To me that means I did my job.  I'm not a journalist.  I'm not there to document the compromises that we're made during construction.  I'm there to make my client's work look vastly superior to their competitors.  Welcome to commercial photography.

/rant off

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Re: Architectural / interior photography - best equipment?
« Reply #133 on: March 21, 2013, 10:52:12 pm »

I think you guys are oversimplifying what lighting can be.  When I light a scene, we're not just filling the dark areas so that the camera sees like the eye.  We add character to bring out the richness of materials and depth of dimension that never exists under the ambient lighting.  We're backlighting glass to make it glow, reflecting light into stainless and metallic finishes to make them sparkle, raking light across textured materials to make them feel more tactile, pulling out the color and grain of wood that would normally sit there lifelessly.

No amount of dynamic range will ever yield results similar to what can be done with fastidious and sensitive lighting.  For 20 years my clients have been telling me that my photographs look better than the actual architecture.  To me that means I did my job.  I'm not a journalist.  I'm not there to document the compromises that we're made during construction.  I'm there to make my client's work look vastly superior to their competitors.  Welcome to commercial photography.

/rant off

This is great Chris.
Logged

Craig Lamson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3264
    • Craig Lamson Photo Homepage
Re: Architectural / interior photography - best equipment?
« Reply #134 on: March 21, 2013, 10:57:13 pm »

I'm there to make my client's work look vastly superior to their competitors.  Welcome to commercial photography.

/rant off

Amen....Sometimes available light looks pretty bad and the product is in a dirty old factory...

...and then you need to style and light it.  With the goal being to fit the mood required by the AD and making the clients work look vastly superior to the competition...



« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 11:13:31 pm by Craig Lamson »
Logged
Craig Lamson Photo

FredBGG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1630
Re: Architectural / interior photography - best equipment?
« Reply #135 on: March 22, 2013, 12:43:01 am »

Amen....Sometimes available light looks pretty bad and the product is in a dirty old factory...

...and then you need to style and light it.  With the goal being to fit the mood required by the AD and making the clients work look vastly superior to the competition...





Was the art director happy with the fake woods. Doesn't look real at all.
Logged

David Eichler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 823
    • San Francisco Architectural and Interior Photographer
Re: Architectural / interior photography - best equipment?
« Reply #136 on: March 22, 2013, 02:50:40 am »

I think you guys are oversimplifying what lighting can be.  When I light a scene, we're not just filling the dark areas so that the camera sees like the eye.  We add character to bring out the richness of materials and depth of dimension that never exists under the ambient lighting.  We're backlighting glass to make it glow, reflecting light into stainless and metallic finishes to make them sparkle, raking light across textured materials to make them feel more tactile, pulling out the color and grain of wood that would normally sit there lifelessly.

No amount of dynamic range will ever yield results similar to what can be done with fastidious and sensitive lighting.  For 20 years my clients have been telling me that my photographs look better than the actual architecture.  To me that means I did my job.  I'm not a journalist.  I'm not there to document the compromises that we're made during construction.  I'm there to make my client's work look vastly superior to their competitors.  Welcome to commercial photography.

/rant off


I was not only referring to dynamic range, but the quality of the ambient lighting, and I did not mean to imply that lighting such as you describe could not be highly creative and effective. I think your comment illustrates the point very well that the ambient lighting in a large majority of interiors is far from ideal if one is seeking very compelling results. And, if that is the case for the kind of stuff you typically seem to shoot, then that it is even more the case for more routine subject matter, or for more traditional architectural styles that make less use of high quality ambient lighting. However, as in the example I cited above, there are some architectural photographers working at a very high level who seem to be able to get by without any lighting and use extensive Photoshop retouching; but I suspect that they have to be more selective about what subject matter they choose to photograph. And, in the case of Scott Frances at least, subtractive lighting is another option, though it does not necessarily require expensive equipment.

All I am saying is that, when I can get it, my preference is for great ambient lighting when I can get it, not because it is easier, but because I like the way it looks and it because it is not possible to duplicate with any amount of supplementary lighting. Also, great ambient lighting, while it might make shooting and processing easier, can still require a lot of planning and waiting around, so it isn't necessarily easier.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2013, 01:40:12 pm by David Eichler »
Logged

stefan marquardt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 144
    • http://www.stefanmarquardt-architekturbild.de
Re: Architectural / interior photography - best equipment?
« Reply #137 on: March 22, 2013, 03:24:50 am »

Yesterday I got an interesting phone call from a big building company I work for before. The contracted me for an new book-project. He explained to me that (having my pictures from last year in mind as well as my images on my website) they now rather want images that are not so perfect/optimised. no perfect blue sky (something that is out of favour in germany since a while). No retouching of the surrounding grounds... . He said, they don´t want Images that look so perfect - he sometimes doesn´t know if he looking at a rendering or a real picture. they want picture more in this style (pictures quickly picked from my website):
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 04:47:03 am by stefan marquardt »
Logged
stefan marquardt
stefanmarquardt.de arch

yaya

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
    • http://yayapro.com
Re: Architectural / interior photography - best equipment?
« Reply #138 on: March 22, 2013, 04:01:57 am »

Some nice work on your site Stefan!

BTW I'll be in Frankfurt next month (12/4) for the PCP event...maybe you can come by to say hello?

BR, yair

Logged
Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Phase One - Cultural Heritage
e: ysh@phaseone.com |

FredBGG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1630
Re: Architectural / interior photography - best equipment?
« Reply #139 on: March 22, 2013, 04:25:49 am »

Yesterday I got an interesting phone call from a big building company I work for before. The contracted me for an new book-project. He explained to me that (having my pictures from last year in mind as well as my images on my website) they now rather want images that are not so perfect/optimised. no perfect blue sky (something that is out of favour in germany since a while). No retouching of the surrounding grounds... . He said, they don´t want Images that look so perfect - he sometimes doesn´t know if he looking at a rendering or a real picture. they want picture more in this style:


That is a very interesting point. So much work is so over processed and retouched that it totally loses that special touch of photography.
More and more smart clients are realizing this. it's happening more in Europe and the US is a little slower to follow, but this is the land of cosmetic plastic surgery.
personally I dislike so much of that fake looking skin in portraits and fashion. "Working files deep" and ending up with fake people and skin tones that would have a doctor worried.
Imperfection is character and there is no substantial beauty without character.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9   Go Up