Re: Recent Professional Works 2

[Kevin Gallagher]

Personal message to all the Big Pros:

Since this thread (version 1) first started, this is one that I have always thoroughly enjoyed. Being an amateur myself, I never wanted to put in my two cents when the Pros were discussing things.

But I've decided it's time to give a big Thank You to Simon, Bcooter, Kirk, Chris Barrett, Mr. Smith, and many others who have not only showed amazing stuff over and over again, but have been willing to share so much information about what they do and how they do it.

Perhaps best of all is the fact that while working for clients, you all seem to really enjoy what you are doing and continuously demonstrate imagination, creativity, and all that good stuff.

So again: Thank you all!

Eric M.

Hear Hear!!

Kevin in CT

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Hear Hear!!

Kevin in CT

Almost five years later, and I'll say the same thing again.
Thank you to all you pros willing to show the rest of us what is possible!

Eric M.

[JoeKitchen]

A few from recent interior design shoots.

How do you fight the mixed lighting?

Haven't tried Oloneo, but doing HDR for each lightsource would multiply number of HDR brackets... My last project required processing of 33 GB of overall image data, while delivering only 11 final images.

Nice compositions Michael, the lighting though is a little flat.  You should consider adding some cross light using soft boxes (with cloth grids, perhaps) to add some light and shadow.

Insofar as dealing with mixed lighting, lots of layers in C1.  I typically pick a color balance that works in the center of the images, which usually has windows in it and is closer to daylight.  I then add 4 gradients around the edges of the image, color correcting them to the interior cast.  Then with the advanced color tool, I will create masks based on selections to fine tune the color even more. 

For my interior shots, I could have up to 10 layers in C1 just for color correction, especially in kitchens, which usually have 4 different light sources (besides my own). 

[JoeKitchen]

Joe, that watch is outstanding!! I just came across this thread guys so I need to go back and check out the other great shots that are sure to be in there!!


 Kevin in CT

Thanks Kevin. 

[MichaelEzra]

Joe, great to hear from you!:)

All these images were made using only the available light and the exiting light sources in the interior - I did not add any lighting during capture in these sessions. Naturally, lifting up the shadows in HDR would flatten the look, and that is what is happening, although I aimed to minimize that effect while trying maintain natural rendering.

I also fix the mixed lighting in post with multi-layers, and was curious if anyone had an insight whether Oloneo is worth the effort in comparison. Supposedly one can adjust the white balance of every light source but that is at the expense of significantly more input images.

Here is a few more. The vanity shot required me to get inside that bathtub along with a tripod, never had to do that for studio nudes:)

[JoeKitchen]

Joe, great to hear from you!:)

All these images were made using only the available light and the exiting light sources in the interior - I did not add any lighting during capture in these sessions. Naturally, lifting up the shadows in HDR would flatten the look, and that is what is happening, although I aimed to minimize that effect while trying maintain natural rendering.

I also fix the mixed lighting in post with multi-layers, and was curious if anyone had an insight whether Oloneo is worth the effort in comparison. Supposedly one can adjust the white balance of every light source but that is at the expense of significantly more input images.

Here is a few more. The vanity shot required me to get inside that bathtub along with a tripod, never had to do that for studio nudes:)

The problem with relying on already existing light when shooting interiors is that, usually, the light is very flat.  Remember, interiors are designed to be practical and comfortable, not to photograph well.  Comfortable light is even soft light, and, practically speaking, it is most easiest to have the light sources in the ceiling. 

This, though, creates a dead lighting situation that has little contrast.  Any light and shadow that is created are vertical; our eye responds better to horizontal light and shadow. 

[David Eichler]

The problem with relying on already existing light when shooting interiors is that, usually, the light is very flat.  Remember, interiors are designed to be practical and comfortable, not to photograph well.

There are some very prominent architectural photographers who use no supplementary lighting with excellent results. However, they will wait for the time of day when the ambient lighting is optimum and may spend considerable time controlling and shaping the ambient lighting. Also, they may often spend hours doing post processing for each image (or pay someone else to do that for them).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

HDR architectural photography is generally frown upon by the old pros, and Joe explained why well. Working with natural light then involves a lot of screening (e.g., a diffuser outside a window) or shading the sunlight, in addition to waiting for the right time of the day.

[David Eichler]

"I also fix the mixed lighting in post with multi-layers, and was curious if anyone had an insight whether Oloneo is worth the effort in comparison. Supposedly one can adjust the white balance of every light source but that is at the expense of significantly more input images."


I don't see the point of this. Using a good RAW processor and Photoshop should give you all the control you need. You can adjust white balance of the component exposures in the RAW processor and refine further if needed in PS. I use HDR occasionally for architectural/interior photography, but only as one of several techniques for dealing with very high-contrast scenes, not for color-balance challenges.

[MichaelEzra]

I am simply not satisfied with the noise level of D800e sensor, as I like a cleaner image. I am using HDR to expand the dynamic range of the capture, improve resolution and color rendition in extreme shadows and highlights and to reduce noise in shadows, so the resulting image is perfectly *clean*, without any noise reduction smudging. I also wouldn't like to use HDR to create haloed and over-processed images:)
 
Generally, I do see that the localized color corrections (in the raw processor or Photoshop) work to compensate for the inconsistencies of the interior lighting or that with the ambient light temperature and this does feel as a good-enough method, but I was contemplating on a "perfect" method to be able to really control the white balance of any light source, in isolation. Oloneo PhotoEngine claims to give this capability, though I am afraid at significantly greater effort during capture - the scene would need to be captured for each light source and that is multiplied by the HDR brackets. I suppose it is practical if anyone pays for this effort:)

[David Eichler]

I am simply not satisfied with the noise level of D800e sensor, as I like a cleaner image. I am using HDR to expand the dynamic range of the capture, improve resolution and color rendition in extreme shadows and highlights and to reduce noise in shadows, so the resulting image is perfectly *clean*, without any noise reduction smudging. I also wouldn't like to use HDR to create haloed and over-processed images:)
 
Generally, I do see that the localized color corrections (in the raw processor or Photoshop) work to compensate for the inconsistencies of the interior lighting or that with the ambient light temperature and this does feel as a good-enough method, but I was contemplating on a "perfect" method to be able to really control the white balance of any light source, in isolation. Oloneo PhotoEngine claims to give this capability, though I am afraid at significantly greater effort during capture - the scene would need to be captured for each light source and that is multiplied by the HDR brackets. I suppose it is practical if anyone pays for this effort:)

While HDR can have its uses, it is not a panacea. It is simply one tool among several, and its usefulness is pretty limited in my experience, if you want really high-quality results. My sense is that, most of the time, most architectural/interiors photographers deal with extreme contrast situations by controlling the existing lighting, blending different exposures together in Photoshop, using supplementary lighting, or some combination of these.

By the way, when I do use HDR, I prefer to do that with Lightroom, which I find gives a result very free from artifacts and funky looks, as long as I don't try to push the tonal compression too far.

Most novice interior photographers do not appreciate the technical challenges involved and typically seem to assume that HDR is the all-purpose solution. It is not, at least if you are serious about consistently high-quality results.

[MichaelEzra]

You are right, HRD is heavily misused, but the way I look at it - it is just placing a better camera in your hands, simply widening its dynamic range, many times.
For HDR image tonemapping is certainly not a Swiss army knife and exposure blending can produce a more refined rendering with smaller artifacts.

[David Eichler]

You are right, HRD is heavily misused, but the way I look at it - it is just placing a better camera in your hands, simply widening its dynamic range, many times.
For HDR image tonemapping is certainly not a Swiss army knife and exposure blending can produce a more refined rendering with smaller artifacts.

There is some confusion about the definition of HDR. Most photographers use the term to encompass all processes that automatically combine multiple exposures, which is the way I use it here. The strict definition of HDR is a 32-bit- moving-point process and does not include tonemapping which is a separate process that can be applied to any image, though major tone mapping is integral to turning the base HDR output into a useable image. Really, any process by which you move tones around is tonemapping, be that with a digital tone curve layer or the Zone System.

[JoeKitchen]

There are some very prominent architectural photographers who use no supplementary lighting with excellent results. However, they will wait for the time of day when the ambient lighting is optimum and may spend considerable time controlling and shaping the ambient lighting. Also, they may often spend hours doing post processing for each image (or pay someone else to do that for them).

Sure, but what if it is cloudy? 

Of course sunlight comes through the windows and can increase the contrast, but that does not always happen.  More often then not, the weather just does not cooperate, or the windows face north.  Instead of direct sunlight, you get indirect, which is just as flat and shadowless as ambient interior light.  Or, lets not forget, that direct sunlight is usually so strong it drowns out all the nuance of the interior ambient light, which produces almost just as flat an image as without it. 

So should someone hope to be lucky and relish when he/she is, but accept that more often then not he/she won't be?  That does not sound very proactive to me, nor something to build a reputation on. 

I look at so many interior images nowadays, that rely solely on ambient light, and they are simply flat and dead.  Yes, they are exposed well with nothing over or under, but that does not make a great image.  Light and shadow and contrast does, and if your light is flat there ain't nothing you can do to fix it. 

Although it may be part of the style of some photographers, I admittedly disagree and oppose telling those whom are just starting out to rely on it and use it as a substitution for lighting. 

Really, it is beyond my comprehension.  No serious (table top) still life photographer would ever agree that one could survive on ambient light alone.  However, many (large scale) still life photographers, aka interior photographers, somehow think you can get away with only using ambient light. 

[MichaelEzra]

Its so ironic, when I started working on nudes, about 20 years ago, I immediately turned to studio lighting. Every photographer proudly declaring using natural light sounded strange to me, as if anyone has to eat it and not get poisoned with toxins. Having a full control over the light, predictably and repeatedly mattered to me most and I relayed the improvisation and adaptation efforts which natural light would have required to working with the model and inventing poses.

Now, getting my feet wet with the interior work, I am a bit with the mixed feelings. I can see exactly how and where I could enhance the appearance with additional lighting, but I sense a possibility of a conflict with the interior that has been designed. I beleive that lighting inherently is a part of the interior design and redesigning it may not be a function of the photographer. It is likely not as black and white as I put it, but this is on my mind, frankly.. I understand that photographing someone else's work ultimately requires respect to their intent. I am looking to find that fine balance where all this falls in place, so the lighting enhancements would be fitting naturally.

[David Eichler]

Sure, but what if it is cloudy? 

Of course sunlight comes through the windows and can increase the contrast, but that does not always happen.  More often then not, the weather just does not cooperate, or the windows face north.  Instead of direct sunlight, you get indirect, which is just as flat and shadowless as ambient interior light.  Or, lets not forget, that direct sunlight is usually so strong it drowns out all the nuance of the interior ambient light, which produces almost just as flat an image as without it. 

So should someone hope to be lucky and relish when he/she is, but accept that more often then not he/she won't be?  That does not sound very proactive to me, nor something to build a reputation on. 

I look at so many interior images nowadays, that rely solely on ambient light, and they are simply flat and dead.  Yes, they are exposed well with nothing over or under, but that does not make a great image.  Light and shadow and contrast does, and if your light is flat there ain't nothing you can do to fix it. 

Although it may be part of the style of some photographers, I admittedly disagree and oppose telling those whom are just starting out to rely on it and use it as a substitution for lighting. 

Really, it is beyond my comprehension.  No serious (table top) still life photographer would ever agree that one could survive on ambient light alone.  However, many (large scale) still life photographers, aka interior photographers, somehow think you can get away with only using ambient light.

Do you see any flat, boring light here? http://scottfrances.com/

[David Eichler]

Now, getting my feet wet with the interior work, I am a bit with the mixed feelings. I can see exactly how and where I could enhance the appearance with additional lighting, but I sense a possibility of a conflict with the interior that has been designed. I beleive that lighting inherently is a part of the interior design and redesigning it may not be a function of the photographer. It is likely not as black and white as I put it, but this is on my mind, frankly.. I understand that photographing someone else's work ultimately requires respect to their intent. I am looking to find that fine balance where all this falls in place, so the lighting enhancements would be fitting naturally.

Depends upon what you are shooting. If it is an interior where they have had to make compromises on the lighting design or the design of the structure in a way that affects the ambient light adversely, then it might be perfectly fine to compensate for that in some way, with the client's permission. Also, supplementary lighting can sometimes help to overcome some technical limitations of the photographic process. I am not necessarily advocating not using supplementary lighting for interiors. I use it often, to varying degrees. I am just pointing out that some have been very successful without it.

[bcooter]

Fallen Angel


BC

[bcooter]

Heroes are made



BC

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I love these, bcooter. Your images always have real impact!