I'm still confused about what makes you think I'm getting nice, evenly
lit rooms. I light people and the ceilings and walls fall where they
may. I think the only thing I've ever posted that even comes close to
the architectural stuff you do is the photos that accompany my house for
sale flyer on my web site. <http://www.chucknorcutt.com/house/>
But I cheat since there is no lighting involved here at all. It's all
natural light and multiple exposures blended HDR style. And laboriously
so as it's done without the advantage of HDR software. I didn't spend
anywere near two hours on each room in either pre or post-processing
but then I don't think it looks particularly good either. The tripod
was usually sitting on soft carpet and I didn't have a remote release at
the time. I think there are proabably pixel level alignment errors
between the multiple images which gives them a bit of a mushy look.
ps: I lowered the price. Y'all can call for an appointment now.
Chuck Norcutt
Jeff Keller wrote:
> Thanks Chuck,
>
> Last night I saw a "virtual tour" of a house. The company charged $80
> for it. I suspect they have some software to automatically balance
> exposure. The photos seemed too good for what they were charging.
>
> With a typical house having about 4 rooms needing a more than trivial
> amount of lighting assist, there would be probably an hour or more of
> effort to get the lights set up if I matched what you are doing. I'm
> seldom able to get the pictures in less than 2 hours if everything is
> easy.
>
> I suppose using 2 or 3 no frills incident flashmeters simultaneously
> could save a little time, but most of the time seems to be spent
> actually moving and adjusting the lights. I would rather play with
> lights than a computer but it looks like I'm going to have to also
> look into software.
>
> It's interesting that you move around to keep a constant distance for
> your flash and zoom your lens for framing. I was thinking about the
> list member who uses a fixed short tele. I would think she would have
> to move around to frame. I have to find the best places to stand and
> adjust the lighting to work. We are all just taking pictures but the
> requirements seem to be turned upside down from one to another. You've
> given me plenty more to think about, thanks.
>
> Best wishes,
> -jeff
>
>
> On 11/1/06, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>>The lights get balanced as close as possible to f/5.6 for the background
>>room light. I use a Sekonic L-358 as an incident flash meter and fire
>>the strobes remotely with a radio transmitter. ----- It can be
>>somewhat time consuming but I can generally get two lights reasonably
>>well balanced in 10-15 minutes. By reasonable I mean f/5.6 +/- one stop
>>over the areas where I will likely be shooting, and the dance floor in
>>particular. I sometimes think it would be really nice to have the radio
>>remote control of power output that Alien Bees offers. But it's
>>necessary to haul the lights down and adjust their angles almost as much
>>as changing the power and the remote control can't do that yet.
>>
>>With the room lights set I then determine how to set the on-camera flash
>>to provide a total exposure of, say, f/8 at a distance of 10 feet. I
>>may also determine flash power for a shorter distance, say, 6 or 7 feet.
>> I then try to stay that distance away from my subjects all the time
>>and zoom to frame.
>>
>>The ambient light is probably more than two stops down from the strobes
>>and it takes a fairly long shutter speed to pick them up and bring them
>>out since I'm normally shooting at f/8 and ISO 400.
>>
>>Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|