I don't have any sophisticated software. I just take usually three
exposures of the same room. One covers the shadows and brightens them
up a bit. One is a "normal" exposure for the mid tones. The third
covers the windows and attempts a near or slightly overexposed shot for
the outdoors if it's visible and leaves the rest of the room grossly
underexposed. Then I just layer them in Photoshop, add masks and start
painting on the masks (slowly) with black and white paint to blend the
three exposures into one.
If I was smarter I'd have some kind of fancy High Dynamic Range software
which would do the work for me (if it exists) I know that CS2 supports
HDR but I don't know how much of the work it does for you.
Even without the HDR, if I was smarter I'd probably be able to figure
some way of automatically generating the masks based on the luminance
channel or some such esoteric thing. But I don't know how.
Between setup and test exposures and final exposures I probably spent
about 15 minutes shooting each room. But I don't walk away with anymore
than three or, at most, four exposures per room. In any case I don't
use more than three and will discard one of the four after getting it to
the computer and comparing a couple. Merging the multiple exposures
probably takes 15-30 minutes per room. Windows and especially window
frames adjacent to the glass are the hard part but are simplified if you
don't have to produce more than a web image. Since I'm using natural
light I may have to move fairly quickly to avoid significant changes in
the quality of the light from beginning to end or from one side of the
house to the other. I don't claim complete success on that front.
Ah, yes. The barn.
<http://www.chucknorcutt.com/smith%20barn/group%20shot%20proof%20-%20img_0382.htm>
It's a wedding but I wasn't shooting the whole wedding. I was hired to
produce just this one shot. It took 5 lights and took about 2 hours to
setup counting hauling in all the lights. The time required was more a
function of the lack of an assistant and the arrangement of the stairs
up to the loft. The only stairs are on the right side near the back of
the barn. To get to the light at the back of the left side required
going up the stairs, coming all the way forward to the camera position
and then going all the way to the back down the left side. Adjust the
light, run back downstairs, fire the flashes and measure and then go
back up and adjust. Gets us old cardiac patients wheezing pretty fast
:-) Anyhow, the bride and main photog who hired me to make the shot
were happy.
Chuck Norcutt
Jeff Keller wrote:
> Thank you Chuck,
>
> Yikes ... for me, two hours best case to get in and out of the house,
> not per room. There's been times when the kitchen seemed to take 2
> hours though. Probably just over 3 hours in the house is typical.
> Often I will go back to get a couple more shots though.
>
> I almost always shoot over 120 pictures of a house. Probably my
> keepers are running about 1 out of 8. What I remember of my own shots
> are the ones that didn't work but I really wanted. Blue hot spots on
> ceilings haunt me.
>
> The barn that was used for the wedding(?) that you shot didn't have
> images of the ceiling, but a very large area was very nicely lit. The
> earlier pro photographer didn't create nearly as nice images. The tent
> which you've posted links to is very well done. The lighting in the
> recent example that you described as less than optimum (having side
> lighting) would work very well for selling a house. I think there was
> at least one portrait of yours I saw that had some interior
> background.
>
> One of the things I look for are odd shadows or bright spots that
> shout that the photograph had artificial lighting. I've never seen
> anything in your images that hint of a problem. On the other hand, I
> have used my own photos that have some odd sources of light. The
> ceiling above an open door that is brightly lit on the darker side of
> the doorway, a bathtub that has light coming out of it. For sure if
> someone thought about it for more than 2 seconds they would know they
> aren't going to see the same thing. However when people buy a house
> they want to show pictures of it to their friends and co-workers. The
> fixer-upper that growls at anyone stopping to look has to have
> pictures that the buyer will be proud to show. It can be fun.
>
> I love the street shot of your neighborhood. The most similar parts of
> Palo Alto have $2M to $3M+ homes. In one of the areas, what appeared
> to be essentially just a large lot judging by the description, sold
> for $5M (I think the lot was about 20k sq ft ). Most architects tell
> people to expect to pay $300 per sq ft. to build a house. Your
> pictures are at least as good as anything I've done. I definitely have
> to put some time into learning about software.
>
> Clearly we live in different worlds but in my world the best real
> estate agents will generally increase the sales price significantly
> higher than what their commision costs. I do know of at least one
> buyer though who years ago thought he was getting a deal by buying a
> "for sale by owner" directly without an agent. He overpaid by roughly
> $100k on a $600K house. Going to the opposite side of a street can
> change the price of a house by 5%, in part because of the school.
>
> -jeff
>
>
> On 11/2/06, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>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
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|