|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
flfoxjr
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 8
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:48 am Post subject: Architectural Photography - Lighting assistance |
    |
|
Hello all - I'm new here, so I hope that this is a very helpful forum!  I am getting into Arch. Photography with my company, and am wondering a few things on the lighting/ eiditing issues that come with shooting.
First off, I shoot houses, both exterior & interior, as well as offices and such. I have recently purchased a SB-600 flash for my Nikon D70s, and it works great. I have seen other architectural photos of model homes, for instance, that have multiple highlights (from flashes) on the exterior. My assumption is that they are composed of multiple images that are then overlaid in Photoshop or something. That is how I do it, any way, by moving my flash around to highlight what I want, and then shooting each iamge seperately. I am wondering if there is another technique to this though. Anybody else do this kind of work?
Also, when I bring my images into Photoshop, I open each file individually, pick one as my base, and then overlay each image I want using the SCREEN blend option. I find, however, that I am getting a bit of digital noise in the blends, and my final product does not look as professional as I would like. Anyone have any tips/ pointers on how I could do this entire thing better, including my lighting/ shooting technique?
I would really appreciate the help! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1048
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
That sounds like some fancy Photoshop work! I guess maybe for marketing images, just about anything goes. Journalistically we try to keep our Photoshop on a tighter leash!
I'm not sure it holds up that multi-source supplemental architectural lighting is often done by assembling exposures in Photoshop. Another approach, if so much supplemental lighting is required, is be to use a multiple strobe (or non-flash 'hot light') setup. Multiple flashes can be synchronized with wires and from a common power pack, or using wirelessly. Available for rental, depending on your area (which may be billable to the client, depending on your arrangements).
Personally, coming from a journalistic photography perspective, my preference is to minimize supplemental lighting, especially for exteriors. Usually, by planning timing or taking more waiting time if necessary, there's a way to get good results outside in natural light and/or with the building's own architectural lighting.
It's sadly true that many interiors are hard to satisfy the client with, without supplemental lighting to "improve" how they look in pictures. Using hot lights tends to give maximum control for these situations, and electric power is usually available.
Here's an article with some examples of photographing commercial exteriors with extensive supplemental lighting:
Working with a Photographer
http://www.architectureweek.com/2003/0205/culture_1-1.html
This overview page at Photo.net has a nice section on "Careful with the Light":
How to Photograph Architecture (Interior)
http://photo.net/learn/architectural/interior
And this book (which I haven't read) is said to have good coverage of interior lighting techniques at the heavyweight professional (view camera) level:
Professional Interior Photography
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0240514750/artificeinc/
I'd love to hear from other photographers, either on the specific Photoshop dimension you were mainly asking about, or on the broader issues of choosing when and how to apply supplemental lighting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rob C
Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 528
Location: Southern Connecticut
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you really want to invest the time and learn the principals, the best book I've read (from cover to cover) is "Light Science and Magic; An introduction to Photographic Lighting" by Fil Hunter and Paul Fuqua.
I've used my D70 with an SB800 for some small spaces, but usually, a more powerful light source and softbox are the necessary tools for interiors, and more than one at that. I've cheated by shooting multiple shots with the light source in different locations and merged them in Photoshop to look like I had multiple lights. The D70's commander mode can also be useful in getting your flash off camera and not see a sync cord in your picture.
_________________
Rob
www.robertcoolidge.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flfoxjr
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rob,
Thanks for the info! I do the same with my SB600 - and I have used it wirelessly to help me shoot small spaces, like the conference room at my work and such. I just hate merging in photoshop, because I always get a more 'noisy' grainy picture when overlaying. Do you have the same issue, or maybe I am doing it wrong?
Thanks,
Frank |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rob C
Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 528
Location: Southern Connecticut
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I generally haven't merged more than two exposures in Photoshop, so I don't know. Also, you might want to use layer masks to cut the picture into pieces that are effectively pasted together like a panorama. Using a gradient fill from white to black in the layer mask can make a better transition than a sharp edge at the (effective) past lines.
I'm not sure, but what you describe sounds a little like what I've heard called "painting with light"; a technique from film days of opening the shutter for a very long exposure, moving about the picture with a flash and popping it manually in many different locations. The result is a single exposure with multiple flash pops in it and no need to merge multiple exposures in Photoshop.
_________________
Rob
www.robertcoolidge.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Valerij
Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| There is always HDR technique. I use as many as 7 or 9 exposures. Tripod and remote. Bracketing in camera. Process in Photomatix Pro 2.4. And no need for additional lights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flfoxjr
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 12:50 pm Post subject: Graininess |
|
|
ValeriJ,
Does that kind of merging cause extra graininess? When I merge multiple photos like this in Photoshop, I get quite a bit of it. That's where my frustration lies....
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Valerij
Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi! I would not recommend using PS for merging several exposures. Use Photomatix Pro. Much better. Compare just one slider in PS with about ten in PM. By the way there is an extremely good RAW converter in PS CS3. I get better results with one RAW (Nikon D200) processed in CS3 then 5 exposures (5 stops) merged in Photomatix. Grainess is somewhat excessive even in PM when the night sky is too dark. I presume PS makes it real bad. There’s one manual method (PS). Sometime it gives very interesting results. And not very time consuming. This method does not add noise. If you are interested I’ll search the net for a link.
BTW – here you can see some of my nighttime HDR images - http://www.photochimps.com/pp/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/561 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flfoxjr
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
ValeriJ
Yeah - Let me know what you can come up with. I am using PS CS2 right now, along with Lightroom, though Lightroom is just for preliminary and post production lighting and color adjustments, on my part. I would be interested to find out what you come up with for this other method!
Thanks for the help! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Valerij
Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 4
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flfoxjr
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ValeriJ,
Thanks for the links - I'll check em out. You have some awesome shots on your pages, by the way. Also - I just downloaded the Photomatix trial version - THAT PROGRAM ROCKS! This is exactly what I've been looking for! Thank you so much!
Check out my website, if you want sometime.
www.frankfoxphotography.com
Thanks again! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
