Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: MarkoMijailovic on February 21, 2011, 12:41:21 pm
-
I'm primarily a portrait and fashion photographer, but when my dad completed work on a high end new restaurant he threw my name at the owner and said I'd be able to do the photography for the place without ever really consulting with me on whether or not I was competent in that area of photography. Reluctantly, I've agreed to undertake this task and am going in at 2:30 to meet the owner to talk specifics. From talking to him before, I know he wants portraits and action shots of his staff, but more importantly, needs great shots to show off the great piece of architecture. I've been to the place a bunch of times now and what I'm most worried about are the really high ceilings... I'd guess them to be about 20ft high... The main space features these ceilings as well as about a 2000 sq.ft. main dining area. Another thing that has me worried are the HUGE windows spanning from top to bottom spanning half the restaurant. Aside from that, I'm assuming he'd also like the kitchen and restrooms photographed.
I've been reading up on interior lighting and realize that it's all about the lighting, so I'm going to go rent out the gear needed... which is actually part of what I'm hoping you guys can help me out with.
I've got a some studio strobes at home as well as regular flashes/strobes and am willing to rent out as many as it takes to get great results. Which modifiers do you recommend for shooting interiors? I've got a big (100x140) softbox and some reflective umbrellas. I've also just read that setting up flashes around the area and bouncing them gets good results.
Any tips/advice would be GREATLY appreciated as I'm sort of jumping way off into the deep end with this one... I DO want to go through with it, so backing out isn't really an option.
Would most likely be shooting Wednesday or Thursday this week.
I'll post some pictures of the place in a few hours, when I get back; just rough snapshots.
Thanks in advance!
Marko
P.S. I'll be using a Nikon D700 with various lenses (widest will be 14-24).
-
Marko, it depends largely upon the lighting esthetic that the restaurant was designed with. Most restaurants feature moody, dramatic and sometimes rather dark lighting. This often makes photography a nightmare. I see a lot of guys go in with a pile of strobe just trying to combat the shadows who end up totally destroying the ambiance of the space. You need to be REALLY sensitive to the existing lighting. Tungsten "hot lights" would be a more compatible approach for most dining spaces, but again it depends largely on the architecture itself and if the window you mention usually fill the space with soft, bright light that would change my approach entirely. I can offer better advice seeing some scouting shots.
Another thought I have is, if you're not really familiar with architectural lighting, you're might be better off going with just the existing lighting and some judicious use of HDR.
CB
-
Chris had it right. Usually we shoot restaurants after closing-late at night-when they are empty and cleaned. That rules out having to contend with a daylight/halogen mix. Can't remember not using halogens as fill.
-
Like Chris and Kirk said, it depends on the architecture/design.
The big window(s) makes the challenge with regards to the lighting and the intent. Is it a great view out the window?
If "not so great" then maybe a twilight start working through the night after closing like Kirk said.
Window, hmmm what about from the outside looking in with people inside.
Just a thought.
- Rudy
-
For a good master class, check out Ashley Morrison's site, especially the before-after images and the time-lapse videos. In there you can see painstaking attention to detail in lighting and composition. He uses it seems between 5-9 strobes in many shots, placing the strobes in window areas to try to be faithful to the space as a naturally lighted space.
It's a lot of work, and takes a team of about 4-5 people, advanced work, a full day or more on set, and then post. It helps to show these things to your client so that they understand the range of costs involved in getting to incrementally better levels in the final product. If they want a less expensive approach, it will go easier if they understand the amount of effort that they are deciding to forego.
-
Maybe think about subbing out the project? This sounds like the type of project that needs someone with the knowledge of shooting architecture. To many photographers try to wear every size shoe, and end paying the price. If you hire someone, you can also live and learn how its done.
-
Just take some test shots and see how you go.
Show them to your client and with a bit of luck he might like them. :o
It's everyones game these days,since digital came in.
Forget about lighting,especially if you don't know what you are doing.
-
take some test shots? this is a paid gig! Not only is his name on the line, but his fathers name for recommending him. All the money he has to pay for rentals and time, just sub it out. I am sure you can work something out with another photographer in Toronto. I use to reshoot projects all the time that had been already photographed by the sister of the brother married to the uncle's sister who knew the owner.
-
"It's everyones game these days,since digital came in."
Actually some clients standards have been lowered to such a point that people THINK its anyones game.... I see full page ads in magazines that look like they were shot with an Iphone..... absolutely awful. If the client really cares about their image and business they are expecting professional results - not something everyone can produce. The OP says he does fashion and portrait photography so I would imagine he has more than enough
experience to produce a decent result with a little effort. I would rent a few lights, or at least take a few nikon speed lights which the OP may already own.
You can do some remarkable stuff fairly easily with nikon speed lights and the nikon "creative lighting system"
-
I've been reading up on interior lighting and realize that it's all about the lighting
NO, this is one big mistake - it is all about light not lighting.
European style architectural photography generally doesn’t use lighting at all.
American style architectural photography can’t get enough lighting.
I consider European architectural photography to be at least one or two levels higher than the American.
American architectural photography as seen on this site, is just as boring, as the American landscape photography you also can see on this site.
Now this will stir things up a bit....
My advice just shoot your interior as you shoot your models. It is all about the feeling.
Cheers
T
-
With all due respect, I don't know of any fashion/portrait photographers who can shoot an interior image to the standard of a specialist in interiors. Sure, it may look better then what the clients can do on his own, but the thought process is so different when it comes to shooting an interior then any other type of photography, as it is with any genre. Lighting a mood lit space can be very tricky, especially since the chances of it looking lit get so much greater. And does he have the right equipment? Fashion photographers tend to buy strobes, but if there is no sun to worry about, using strobes will be futile. Tungstens will be the way to go, specifically fresnel lighting. Does he have any?
And as far as I am concerned, photography is about painting with light, and a camera is nothing more (whether it be digital or film) than a device the records light. There ain't no Photoshop digital tricks that change this.
I know what I am good at shooting, and only shoot that. If I where to shoot a restaurant and the owner needed some food shots, I would not think twice about outsourcing that to a food photographer.
And as far as feelings are concerned, do you want your images to make you feel good when you look at them or do you want the prospects of your client to feel "I want to eat there" when they look at them? Which is more professional?
-
With all due respect, I don't know of any fashion/portrait photographers who can shoot an interior image to the standard of a specialist in interiors.
Perhaps a fashion/portrait photographer would create more interesting architectural shots with more feeling - just an idea.
Also the international trend of architectural photography are moving away from the clean sterile boring architectural style.
Iwan Baan is a good example. He is a photojournalist and perhaps the most successful AP worldwide these days.
-
Hi Joe -
First...Love your work ! ;D......I was saying i thought he could get a "decent" result with a little effort , i certainly agree that it would not be of the caliber of an interiors specialist.
Tesfoto - not gonna touch your post ! ;D ;D ;D
-
There are more than 100 different ways to shoot any subject...
With due respect, these are not architectural images, but commercial interiors.
These images will never make it to serious architectural magazines, as it is not about architecture or architects.
Hotel brochures and commercials – Yes
Lifestyle magazines like House & Gardens – Yes
Yelhsa being European shoots the American way, boring as hell from an architectural standpoint, but I am sure very commercial successful.
-
Good point. What is this being shot for?
-
While seemingly easier than trying to use a bunch of strobes for interior photography by the seat of your pants, I would say that using HDR well is no picnic either if you don't have a lot of experience with it. I like the idea of relying on hot lights if at all possible, so that you can easily see what you are doing, and maybe combining that with some HDR. However, some scouting shots would be extremely helpful (and, yes, the intended use of the photos, as Ashley points out). I would love to hear what these guys would have to say with some scouting shots to go by.
By the way, when referring to HDR, do people take that to mean strictly tonemapping, or are you also including exposure fusion and Photoshop multi-exposure layering and compositing as well?
-
I'm always surprised at how often a question like this is asked on internet forums (maybe I'm spending too much time reading internet forums ;-) and maybe even more surprised at the number and diversity of responses such questions get.
I don't have any technical or stylistic advice because I don't know anything about the project and more importantly: I'm not you. You're the photographer. Shoot the place how you want to shoot it. Ambient, strobes, hotlights, whatever who cares?
Here's some advice off the top of my head:
* have a rough shot checklist written out so you don't forget the shots that you really want to take
* make note of where electrical outlets are so you know what your power options are if you are going to use additional lights
* if it's dark bring some sort of constant light source (flashlight) to help you focus
* make sure someone is there who is familiar with/can control the installed lighting fixtures
* shoot from a tripod and make a "safety" bracket of exposures for each scene before you start messing around with lighting.
* drink plenty of water
* wear comfy shoes
* TAKE YOUR TIME
-
Also, when referring to HDR, do people take that to mean strictly tonemapping, or are you also including exposure fusion and Photoshop multi-exposure layering and compositing as well?
For me, one dominant theme of HDR is (i) supersampling a scene for (ii) manipulation in 32-bit floating-point space.
The 32-bit floating point space, call it HDR Space, is a practical approximation of the space of absolute magnitudes and literally astronomical dynamic range. Whereas 8/16 bit integer space is a space of relative magnitudes (as delineated by the artificial white and black points of a single shot capture). Mind you 16 integer stops is pretty good in a pinch, but nothing like 16 stops in HDR Space because of the potentially augmented precision of the lower tones.
By necessity, some method is needed to map from HDR Space into the space of the display medium, so we call that tone-mapping.
So technically, all of those methods you listed could be used to move into HDR Space. Simple compositing would be a "manual" HDR method, skipping deftly over the intermediates using scissors and paste tonemapping for real "local" processing.
-
* have a rough shot checklist written out so you don't forget the shots that you really want to take
* make sure someone is there who is familiar with/can control the installed lighting fixtures
+1 ( From personal experience ).
Good luck with the shoot ( will you show us the results? ).
Graeme
-
Cheers for the link Iwan Baan has a great style much more fineart and to my personal liking than the usual stock of dusky perfect shots.
Shaun
-
* drink plenty of water
* wear comfy shoes
* TAKE YOUR TIME
Through my experience I have found that those are very important. (Always forget about the water thing until after the headache sets in)
-
Sorry for taking so long to reply...
Hope you don't all get upset 'cause of this, but I went in to speak with the owner and turns out he just wants me to take lifestyle type shots of people (models) enjoying themselves at the bar, tables, etc. and of the kitchen staff at work. I was very relieved. He said he'd like architectural shots done in about a month, once everything's 100%. I'm thinking I'll just tell him that I don't specialize in that area of photography or maybe just give it a go (after taking the next month to read all I can and practice as much as I can). I'll post some (very rough snapshot) photos of the place later. He had these blinds installed that defuse the outdoor light very nicely for use in sunny conditions, so I'm thinking if I do shoot the place I'd use that to my advantage (IMO the view isn't the greatest). Ceilings are 13 ft.
Thanks, everyone, for the tips and info! Greatly appreciated.
-
Sorry for taking so long to reply...
Hope you don't all get upset 'cause of this, but I went in to speak with the owner and turns out he just wants me to take lifestyle type shots of people (models) enjoying themselves at the bar, tables, etc. and of the kitchen staff at work. I was very relieved. He said he'd like architectural shots done in about a month, once everything's 100%. I'm thinking I'll just tell him that I don't specialize in that area of photography or maybe just give it a go (after taking the next month to read all I can and practice as much as I can). I'll post some (very rough snapshot) photos of the place later. He had these blinds installed that defuse the outdoor light very nicely for use in sunny conditions, so I'm thinking if I do shoot the place I'd use that to my advantage (IMO the view isn't the greatest). Ceilings are 13 ft.
Thanks, everyone, for the tips and info! Greatly appreciated.
Since you have got a bunch of people going on this subject to help you, I think it would still be nice if you posted some scouting shots soon, just to get a bit of closure to this for the moment.
By the way, I think what you are talking about doing falls more in the "interior" photography category, rather than architecture, although there may be an architectural component to the shoot if shooting the exterior. For this purpose, you will almost certainly be shooting the interior to emphasize the decor and the ambiance of the space, rather than the overall design of the building. Others have already said that above, in one way or another, but this is an important distinction that I think warrants emphasis.
-
By the way, I think what you are talking about doing falls more in the "interior" photography category, rather than architecture, although there may be an architectural component to the shoot if shooting the exterior. For this purpose, you will almost certainly be shooting the interior to emphasize the decor and the ambiance of the space, rather than the overall design of the building. Others have already said that above, in one way or another, but this is an important distinction that I think warrants emphasis.
Architecture is not just exteriors, a common misconception. There are exterior and interiors aspects of all architectural design. Does anyone design a building without considering both the exterior and interior? Some refer to it as interior architecture and it overlaps with the work that interior designers do, but oftentimes there actually is no "interior designer" perse-with all the work done by the licensed architects. My AP practice is 99% architects (I prefer the way they think vs. interior designers) and I don't remember shooting just exteriors on a building except for the odd developer's portfolio. In AP photography there are people who specialize in interiors, but none that I know of that specialize in just exteriors. When I am shooting interiors, I am shooting part of the architecture.
Architecture:
the profession of designing buildings, open areas, communities, and other artificial constructions and environments, usually with some regard to aesthetic effect. Architecture often includes design or selection of furnishings and decorations, supervision of construction work, and the examination, restoration, or remodeling of existing buildings.
-
Architecture is not just exteriors, a common misconception. There are exterior and interiors aspects of all architectural design. Does anyone design a building without considering both the exterior and interior? Some refer to it as interior architecture and it overlaps with the work that interior designers do, but oftentimes there actually is no "interior designer" perse-with all the work done by the licensed architects. My AP practice is 99% architects (I prefer the way they think vs. Interior designers) and I don't remember shooting just exteriors on a building except for the odd developer's portfolio. In AP photography there are people who specialize in interiors, but none that I know of that specialize in just exteriors. When I am shooting interiors, I am shooting part fo the architecture.
Architecture:
Kirk, thanks for that. I know that, and I just gave kind of an incomplete explanation in the interest of brevity, and based on the immediate need of the OP. Anyway, it is better if the full explanation comes from someone with more authority on the subject, such as yourself.
-
Kirk, thanks for that. I know that, and I just gave kind of an incomplete explanation in the interest of brevity, and based on the immediate need of the OP. Anyway, it is better if the full explanation comes from someone with more authority on the subject, such as yourself.
I thought that might be true, a quickie oversimplified explanation that is.
-
Funny.
I was talking to a friend/photographer about this thread this morning. And I mentioned to him about the different opinions on this thread about the definition of an Architectural Photographer and how it differs around the world. I too, like Kirk, have never had an Architectural Client come to me and ask only to shoot the outside of their building. Never.
This came up on a previous thread from Lust4life as he was transitioning his career to Architectural Photography. His plan was to only concentrate on exteriors.
Hmmm, interesting....
The other aspect to think about is billing. You make more if you shoot more. It's just that simple.
- Rudy
-
We produce images for 'others' to use - so therefore, we only make more if 'others' want to use our images more.
Which is very different to shooting more, for the fun of it.
Ha! I knew Ashley was going to jump on that one ;-)
-
Oh Come On Ashley
Your going to make more if you license more than one image. Give me a break. We all need to make money to live.
And as far as Advertising. Its all for Advertising. It may may not end up in a magazine ad or a brochure, but as soon as that Architect shows off those images, It's Advertising.
Let's not stand on a pillar of "all-mightiness."
I enjoy what I do for a living and I get paid for it. I don't do it "just for fun."
Here we have guy that just asked for some help and we had to turn this into some thread about who should who shouldn't shoot Architecture.
Who's to say. He might just do a Fantastic Job and might just transition to shooting Architecture. I am not going to discourage him from shooting this job.
For everyone there is a first time.
- Rudy
-
American architectural photography as seen on this site, is just as boring, as the American landscape photography you also can see on this site.
Also the international trend of architectural photography are moving away from the clean sterile boring architectural style.
......boring as hell from an architectural standpoint, but I am sure very commercial successful.
Going through your comments it was really BORING to read all of them because they are so lacking in purpose or common sense.
-
Seems like there is allot of confusion here between advertising photography where buildings are a secondary subject and the primary purpose is to sell some use of the building verses traditional architectural photography where the building is the sole subject and the intent is to celebrate the creativity of the building designer. Some photographers do both but few do both well as they are completely different visual languages and mind sets. Few people are that versatile. Historically the former has been much better compensated than the later, but better money doesn't mean one is superior or more meaningful than the other. Nor does how many images you make in a day.
I have always been more comfortable and stimulated by the creative motives of traditional architectural photography, because I have a heartfelt love of light on form. Commercially that led me to a focus on architecture, which is essentially and simply just light on form. I believe I understand architects and what drives them and my better architectural photographs demonstrate a profound symbiotic relationship-creative interpretations of architectural design. For me personally there is no higher purpose and I find it immensely satisfying. Personally, I don't find the same shared purpose and comfort with ad agency creatives, though to pay the bills I have waded in that market off and on. But it is just not me and when I have enough architectural photography, I don't touch it despite the money. For those starting out, I personally think it is more important to find your aesthetic passion and that will lead to success however you choose to define it.
-
Seems like there is allot of confusion here between advertising photography where buildings are a secondary subject and the primary purpose is to sell some use of the building verses traditional architectural photography where the building is the sole subject and the intent is to celebrate the creativity of the building designer. Some photographers do both but few do both well as they are completely different visual languages and mind sets. Few people are that versatile. Historically the former has been much better compensated than the later, but better money doesn't mean one is superior or more meaningful than the other. Nor does how many images you make in a day.
I've noticed that when I do work for some developers, they tacitly want both kinds of things. Both the architect and the brokers are in the loop. The brochures I see in Tribeca seem to have a mix of images that say "behold our beautiful creation" with "you: buy now, live here". Style and fashion seem to be a big part of it.
Kirk, your work is quite amazing. Thanks for providing the side trip.
-
Why not shoot 30 images a day, or 50. Hell, they're all being used in advertising, right? Only I haven't seen many interior shots that took less then an hour get licensed that extensively, or at least demanded that high of a price.
So, which would you rather have, being know for producing amazing work that will be licensed extensively and repeatedly, or for creating okay work that never gets licensed beyond the initial contract?
I don't know about you, but I choose the former. No body has ever been given an award for being mediocre.
Wow I don't even know where that came from. All I was trying to say was why only shoot the outside when you can shoot the inside too and make more.
I have never been able to shoot 30 shots in a day. As I am sure you never have either.
I have been in business for 20 years because of my passion for photography. I certainly don't need a lecture from you with regards to quality vs quantity, and repeated licensing as opposed to one time use.
All he wanted was some help. I choose to help. Some of you obviously didn't feel he was worthy. Give me a break!
Kirk, your trying to be more diplomatic and I certainly respect that.
- Rudy
-
The other aspect to think about is billing. You make more if you shoot more. It's just that simple.
- Rudy
I took this to mean shoot as many as you can in a day with quality taking a second burner. If that is not what you meant, than I was wrong in what I wrote and sorry to offend you.
-
I've noticed that when I do work for some developers, they tacitly want both kinds of things. Both the architect and the brokers are in the loop. The brochures I see in Tribeca seem to have a mix of images that say "behold our beautiful creation" with "you: buy now, live here". Style and fashion seem to be a big part of it.
Kirk, your work is quite amazing. Thanks for providing the side trip.
Thanks for the kind words.
As to multiple client shoots, I insist on a couple of things if I sense disparate interests. First, I may insist on separate shoots. Second I only want one client represented at the shoot preferably who I consider to be my primary client. I don't work by committee.
-
I only want one client represented at the shoot preferably who I consider to be my primary client. I don't work by committee.
+1000