Interior architecture advice saught

[jhob]

Hi all,

My company has asked me to do some interior architectural shots of our building for use on their new website.

I'm looking for a bit of advice from any of you who have experience in this area.

I have already taken a few test shots around the place and found it quite a task to find good photographs.

I was asked to capture the 'light and space' of the building, and it is true that it's a light and airy place. Unfortunately there is a lift shaft slap bang in the middle which breaks it up a bit. It's also tricky to find foreground interest leaving a lot of the images looking 2 dimensional.

I'm also wondering which time of day is likely to be best as being indoors I don't see this as quite so important however on a day like today where it is a crisp and clear winter's day there are some very strong beams of light inside which I think could be useful as compositional elements.

Any advice you can offer me would be greatly appreciated!

 

[Chappers]

I don't know how much headroom you have but getting up higher than the normal viewpoint may help. A simple step ladder may be sufficient. Watch out if you are using a very wide angle lens as you can get problems with converging verticals, whilst on some shots it may look OK on others it may benot so good.

Are you shooting with people in the shot. If so you really need to pose them in the positions you need. Just hoping that'll they'll all be in the right place at the right time won't work.

Look out for mixed lighting.If there are odd light sources make sure they compliment the image not detract from it.

Can't help with the lift shaft, except to suggest you shoot sections of the building rather than all of it in one go. Better do one of the whole thing, just in case though.

Also try and get a bit more of a brief. Do they want the shots to show an open and "friendly" environment, or a more "architectural" one .

Also be careful with shafts of light. They can result in excessive contrast in the scene . Sometimes a boring light grey cloud cover can be your best friend.

Also remember the medium they are going to used in. If it's a web page then the images may be relatively small, so detail you can see on you screen when reduced to say a 1/4 of a web page may be very insignificant.

 

[oakwright]

Part of my job is to commission photographers to take external and internal architectural shots. Would love to do it myself but realise I'm not good enough. Having used photographers of varying quality we now use only the best (& most expenisve!) and talking to them I have realised that apart from their using high end equipment (haselblads usually), and their talent for composition, the most important thing that distinguishes them is their mastery of internal lighting. It would seem the trick is to light the space without making it look like artificial lighting has been used. They seem to be able to get the exposure so lhat any light from external sources (i.e. through windows) remains looking natural and is not bleached out.

Not sure if that helps but good luck anyway.

 

[timhensel]

I do some work taking photographs of (mainly residential) buildings. I often find it helpful to take a series of indentical shots at different exposures, or indeed make several conversions from the samw raw file, then combine them as necessary in Photoshop. The correct exposure for the windows will often be very different from the walls or the foreground. A good tripod is essential.

 

[dazzajl]

Oakwright speaks much sense here. Interior shots can be really tricky beasts and the best ones are usually those that have taken hours to get just right but look like they are off the cuff.

For larger spaces a little army of lights used to be almost a given but you can get away with taking several exposures and blending afterwards with some digital trickery now.

The most important part to me though has always been to "tell the story" of the space. For the most part if someone wants to spend a heap of money getting images made, it's because they feel there is something unique there and it's vital that your photographs show what that is.

The other point, that's been covered but bares repeating, is to watch out for converging verticals. Unless some distortion is part of the composition, make sure the camera is completely flat in both planes. Or use the real tool for the job, a view camera with full movements.

 

[jhob]

Thanks for the advice folks, this is exactly the sort of advice I was after.

Chappers - the brief is that they are to more background type images and will have text overlaid on them. They want to put across that it is a modern and forward thinking institution (a business school) and not at all stuff. The building is modern, although nothing much to look at from the outside. On the inside it has skylights right down the middle with an open area over two floors so there is plenty of room to work in and I should have plenty of scope with getting up higher. You've just reminded me that a fellow photographer who works in my office has left a little footstool in the office (he's a landscaper) so I can nick that.

I won't be shooting people at this stage but had suggested to them that I would like to do some with people in them as this is more of my forte and I think they would really benefit from having photographs with a real human angle. I am becoming increasingly comfortable with posing people and this would be really great for me to improve on that in a no pressure environment.

oakwright - I had thought about making the lighting look consistent and was going to cto gel my flashes, where used to work with the tungsten lighting (or might be fluo, can't remember, either way I will gel appropriately). Mind you that then leaves the problem of there being lots of natural light around in which case I might just kill the interior lighting and use only bare flash. As timhensel mentions exposure blending is a technique that I was intending on using.

dazzajl - As much as I love to use a view camera I'm afraid that I'll be stuck with my D200, 17-50 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8. It's a good point though about the converging verticals and will be mindful to minimise them. Of course I will be able to sort minor converging verticals out in photoshop if necessary.

My lighting kit consists of four flashguns all of which I am able to trigger remotely.

 

[Canon Bob]

dazzajl - As much as I love to use a view camera I'm afraid that I'll be stuck with my D200, 17-50 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8. It's a good point though about the converging verticals and will be mindful to minimise them. Of course I will be able to sort minor converging verticals out in photoshop if necessary.

Sorry, I have to speak Canonese here and don't know if Nikon have similar possibilities.
I have a 24mm Tilt-Shift lens which can be used for perspective correction such as the converging lines on tall parallel structures. 24mm is wide enough for most interior stuff on a FF body. I would guess that there is a similar option for you even if it's not a Nikon branded lens.

Bob

 

[joxby]

Nikon PC

85mm
35mm
28mm
Hartblei (Ukrainian) probably cheapest, there is another manufacturer but I forget..

 

[jhob]

As much as a might want a tilt & shift my meagre (read currently non-existent) budget won't stretch that far. Next on the lens list is a 10-20 anyhow.

I will have to use a combination of the 17-50 and photoshop to get my results.

 

[Chappers]

Getting the lighting right is going to be the tricky part. A flash meter would help get the daylight/flash ratio right.

As I suggested it might be easier to photograph portions rather than the whole.

I don't know if you shoot RAW, if you don't it might be a good idea to think about it. Many RAW converters have some tools that can help balance out difficult lighting conditions, such as "Fill Light". This option is available in Lightroom and Camera RAW for CS3. A useful tool but not one to be relied on to sort out all problems . It can help add that little lift when needed.

 

[W.Smith]

the brief is that they are to more background type images and will have text overlaid on them.

That text could easily become illegible. So how about getting a lot of floor in the image foreground to put text on?

But TBH I can't think of a duller image than an office or building devoid of people. Whoever designed that printwork? And that's supposed to enthuse...?

My lighting kit consists of four flashguns all of which I am able to trigger remotely.

I'd use a tripod and ambient light as my main lighting.

If you want black windows just setup your cam on tripod at night, no lights! Then open the shutter (lowest ISO setting) and walk around the center of the office in a circle, in pitch dark, flashing your flashgun outward and slightly downward in your outstretched arm every 7th step. Then go back to the cam and close the shutter.
It's called "painting with light", and used a lot to expose churches and such. Of course, with high ceilings, you point the light upwards, not downwards.

But a tripod is essential in any case.

Have fun!

 

[jhob]

Getting the lighting right is going to be the tricky part. A flash meter would help get the daylight/flash ratio right.

As I suggested it might be easier to photograph portions rather than the whole.

I don't know if you shoot RAW, if you don't it might be a good idea to think about it. Many RAW converters have some tools that can help balance out difficult lighting conditions, such as "Fill Light". This option is available in Lightroom and Camera RAW for CS3. A useful tool but not one to be relied on to sort out all problems . It can help add that little lift when needed.

I do shoot exclusively raw and use lightroom and photoshop for post production. I think I will be exposing a little above the meter in most instances to give it a lighter airier feel.

 

[jhob]

That text could easily become illegible. So how about getting a lot of floor in the image foreground to put text on?

I've seen the designs and it can be done in such a way that the text isn't illegible but does make for harder composition - trying to have lower contrast, lots of space, generally goes against what you would normally look for.

But TBH I can't think of a duller image than an office or building devoid of people. Whoever designed that printwork? And that's supposed to enthuse...?

Agreed whole-heartedly! Hence my suggestion to do some with students adn people after the first batch. Not only is it more my forte, but I also think that it will look a lot better. The building is not grand enough or spectacular enough to work really well without people imo.

I'd use a tripod and ambient light as my main lighting.

If you want black windows just setup your cam on tripod at night, no lights! Then open the shutter (lowest ISO setting) and walk around the center of the office in a circle, in pitch dark, flashing your flashgun outward and slightly downward in your outstretched arm every 7th step. Then go back to the cam and close the shutter.
It's called "painting with light", and used a lot to expose churches and such.

But a tripod is essential in any case.

Interesting idea about the light-painting, I might give it a try. I've not played with that technique since my film days.

Agreed on the tripod - I would even think for one minute to do this without it.