Photography

[Eric The Viking]

If this is for your archive, DIY is fine.

But anyone can snap interiors. Doing classy ones, like these is a lot more difficult than you might think. There are all sorts of tricks of the trade, from 'dressing' the shot, through to issues of lighting, the right perspective and planes of focus. It's a lot harder to get classy shots than it appears. For a day's shoot I'd expect less than ten good images.

If it's intended to sell for you, either on your web site or in brochures, I'd get a pro to do it, someone whose portfolio you've seen and like. If they get a prominent credit on your web site, and a link to their site, and the potential for lots of repeat business, it shouldn't be hugely expensive.

Using a pro means you have comeback if it's not right, they can get the 'look' you want (or suggest one), and you don't have to embarrass yourself in front of customers by fiddling around with the kit to get a result. Yes, you pay, but it does make a difference.

For furniture and closeups, you can have a standard setup for the workshop (if you have the room), so that it's just a matter of putting the item in place for a few secs. Even then there are a lot of variables.

There are other advantages too: decent photographers often get the better society weddings etc., and are in touch with the sort of people who can afford bespoke work. If they showcase your work on their site, it may be reaching a whole new group of people.

Me? I've been shooting for commercial use on and off for 20+ years. I don't do it enough to be really good at it, and I resort to the pros for difficult things.

One final quick thought: When I've time, I do 'immersive' panoramas, usually in Quicktime VR. They're brilliant for interiors, as the viewer can spin around on the spot. There's a good one here, and here, and one of mine (exterior) here.
Note that you need Quicktime (free from Apple) for the full effect with some of these pages (you navigate by clicking and dragging the mouse on the picture).

 

[petermillard]

Here's a few extra thoughts:-

I wouldn't invest in studio flash until you're sure you need them. One of the joys of shooting digitally is simple setting of white balance, so you can do a lot with simple (and cheap) halogen floodlights bounced off a white ceiling or large piece of polystyrene - just be aware not to mix light of a different colour balance e.g. tungsten with daylight.

If you're shooting smaller freestanding pieces then buy a continuous roll of background paper and a support system (or make one). The camera isn't really important - most modern digital cameras are more than 'good enough' to produce a quality image - but it's often best to have a degree of control over the exposure in studio situations, especially on a white or light background as the camera will always over-compensate for the background and under-expose the image.

Buy a tripod, if only to compose the shot accurately. Try and keep the camera as level as possible - minor converging verticals (or 'key-stoning') can be corrected in e.g. Photoshop, but it's best to get it as close as possible in the camera.

Clean the piece before shooting it - grubby fingermarks will show up!

A few pointers for shooting pieces in situ e.g. built-ins; this is where the camera becomes a little more important - particularly the lens. You won't find many compact 'point & shoot' cameras that have a wide enough lens for you to get everything in in tight spaces, as most of them only go down to a 24mm lens equivalent. If you do a lot of work in small rooms e.g. bathrooms then you'll probably have to buy (or rent) a super-wide lens and an SLR to fit it on - of find someone who has one. I also have the Sigma 10-20mm and find it invaluable.

Pay attention to where you stand - shoot from where your work looks its best - and don't forget to clear the tools out of the way! I'd try to avoid flash if possible - too many specular highlights, even off a bounced flash, can take your eye away from the work - but if you need to you need to; bounce it off the ceiling to soften the light, or use a diffuser as already suggested.

Again, buy a tripod; long exposures are a non-issue with things that don't move, and most modern cameras work well in low light situations.

FWIW I was a professional photographer for 20-odd years before coming 'on the tools' for the last ten, and I'm often amazed by how little thought or effort some guys put into presenting their work; in this business a few pictures are often all you have to show for a piece once the work's installed, and a little time and money spent on making the pictures as good as possible is a sound investment IMHO.

Anyway, hope the above is of some additional help. Pete

 

[Calpol]

I'm often amazed by how little thought or effort some guys put into presenting their work

That's exactly right, a quick run round the job taking every photo from eye level will never be very exciting! My advice would probably be have a good look at other folk's portfolios and see if you can see what they're doing... I've only been doing photography for a few years and certainly don't consider myself as a reputable source, but there's some very basic techniques that make an enormous difference to the end result... Lead in lines for example, rule of thirds, depth of field etc

My own opinion would also be go for a DSLR, I had a Nikon D40x to start off and the pictures from it were fantastic, my dad does weddings now (I do the candids) so we've upgraded but even an entry level jobby will do you fine, generally the body gets replaces as you feel necessary(sp?) and the lenses last as long as you want!

Also don't be scared of flashes, most pics are taken with a straight on flash which is almost always naff while proper flashguns let you tilt up for bouncing off walls/ceilings for much more even coverage. The Nikon SB400 flash is by all accounts very good for the price, doesn't swivel I don't think but does tilt back. Buy a couple and some brolly tripods for them should do you alright I would've thought...

Probably looking at maybe £500 - £700 which is a fair old wad, but try and use it elsewhere and you'll soon get the hang of it :wink:

Can definately recommend Nikon, look at reviews and don't worry if you don't understand most of the jargon

 

[bugbear]

A few pointers for shooting pieces in situ e.g. built-ins; this is where the camera becomes a little more important - particularly the lens. You won't find many compact 'point & shoot' cameras that have a wide enough lens for you to get everything in in tight spaces, as most of them only go down to a 24mm lens equivalent. If you do a lot of work in small rooms e.g. bathrooms then you'll probably have to buy (or rent) a super-wide lens and an SLR to fit it on - of find someone who has one. I also have the Sigma 10-20mm and find it invaluable.

(trick, obviously) question:

What lens was used for this image?

BugBear

 

[woodbloke]

Someone mentioned the F&C article early on but all this amounts to a lot of money. I went on a photographing your work course at West Dean some years ago and this demonstrated to me that it is not necessary to spend a lot on lighting. What the expensive kit does is make it convenient and cooler, but a very professional job can be done with just a couple of tungsten halogen lamps (the type used for security lighting) from B&Q, a plain white Ikea shower curtain as a diffuser and some white painted boards as reflectors and some ingenuity. Total cost; less than 25 quid. This lot is fine for individual pieces although kitchens are another matter.

What I would not skimp on is a decent DSLR and tripod.

Jim

I mentioned it Jim, and that's exactly the system I use. It's not perfect but I get acceptable results...good enough for the F&C articles. A roll of wide background paper would be very useful though - Rob

 

[petermillard]

What lens was used for this image?
BugBear

Dunno; there's plenty of depth of field and some barrel distortion on the house behind that would suggest something towards the wide end, but as to what exactly I've no idea - it could easily have been a phone camera or a compact or a kit lens on an SLR, or maybe just a standard lens used up close - or just a cheap lens that distorts lol. Thad said, there's very little distortion on the front wheel, so I don't think it's a very wide lens - though that could just be down to the cropping.<shrug>

If I had to guess, I'd say somewhere around a 35mm (or equivalent) lens, but as long as you're happy with it, it doesn't really matter does it?

Cheers, Pete.

 

[Joe]

Just wanted to a quick word of thanks to everyone for their contributions to this thread. I've found it a very useful discussion.

Joel

 

[pablopete80]

What lens was used for this image?

I would have to guess at a wide lens, not sure what one tho. about 14mm? is there a prize for correct lens :lol:

What i missed earlier was. Give it try before you buy anything and see if its worth the hassle? and cost effective as mentioned lots already.

oh and ask your friends and family if there are any keen photographers in the family as they will probably be happy to do it for you. Maybe free!!

Maybe post some pics once you have had ago.

 

[bugbear]

What lens was used for this image?

I would have to guess at a wide lens, not sure what one tho. about 14mm? is there a prize for correct lens :lol:

Well, it was actually taken with a 35mm (equiv) lens, but on a panoramic head...

I actually captured around 100° of the scene, in 6 separate photographs, before using Hugin to stitch them together and generate an accurate fisheye projection, which I cropped slightly.

BugBear

 

[pablopete80]

Should of noticed the "trick" part of the question.

 

[bugbear]

Should of noticed the "trick" part of the question.

It's just an alternative to owning a "real" wide angle lens.

The weighing up of cost vs convenience is a purely personal decision of course.

If I was doing kitchen shots for a living (say 3 a day) I'd buy a wide angle lens immediately.

But since I just wanted a "top gear" shot of my car, I faked it.

I used the same trick to photograph a large, low ceiling in a pub.

(is that visible? I'm not sure about facebook settings)

This one was also an HDR shot, 30 photographs in all; two rows of five images, each shot at "as metered", "+1 1/2 stops", "- 1 1/2 stops".

One of the more ineteresting issues was mounting my pano head as close to the floor as possible, so the distance from camera to subject was as far as possible, reducing the wide-angle needed as much as possible.

Benbo tripods *are* amazing.

BugBear

 

[petermillard]

Well, it was actually taken with a 35mm (equiv) lens, but on a panoramic head...

I actually captured around 100° of the scene, in 6 separate photographs, before using Hugin to stitch them together and generate an accurate fisheye projection, which I cropped slightly.

Hey, at least I got the lens right, if not the methodology!

That an amazing stitch-job; thanks for mentioning Hugin - they have links to some incredible samples on their website, well worth a look if like me you've never heard of it before. 100° angle of view is roughly equivalen to something like an 18mm lens in 35mm terms, so pretty impressive.

Back in the day, I had a Sigma 21-35mm zoom - one of the early 'superwide zooms' - that had something like a 92° angle of view at the 21mm end; when you were doing 'quick & dirty' interiors you could jam yourself into a corner and just about get the whole room in shot

Cheers, Pete

 

[Racers]

Hi,

I remember BB complaining about distortion when I posted this

So I took another shot at the 10mm end of my Sigma 10-20mm zoom (35mm equivalent 16mm)

I like that one better :wink:

Pete

 

[Eric The Viking]

What lens was used for this image?

I would have to guess at a wide lens, not sure what one tho. about 14mm? is there a prize for correct lens :lol:

Well, it was actually taken with a 35mm (equiv) lens, but on a panoramic head...

I actually captured around 100° of the scene, in 6 separate photographs, before using Hugin to stitch them together and generate an accurate fisheye projection, which I cropped slightly.

BugBear

OK. I get negative points for guessing the opposite (from a distance with fisheye distortion in Photoshop!).

How do you get on with Hugin? I've used Panotools for a while. I tried Hugin - the first attempt worked very well, and later ones were rubbish. Then some 'update' from MS killed it and I haven't got it to run reliably since

Also, which pano head do you use, and do you do full 360 panoramas? After a lot of humming and harring, and some home made attempts that were rather rough I eventually bought the latest Panosaurus, which is brilliant (albeit a bit bulky). The one of Clevedon pier here was 19 images, IIRC, and stitched really well - I rarely manage anything that good usually.

Regarding lens correction for general use, Bibble has a database, and usually does it automagically from the EXIF data. The latest version has been IDing my lenses incorrectly, but I doubt I'm the only one so there's probably a bugfix imminent.

Sorry - your mention of Hugin pushed a button...

 

[bugbear]

Well, it was actually taken with a 35mm (equiv) lens, but on a panoramic head...

I actually captured around 100° of the scene, in 6 separate photographs, before using Hugin to stitch them together and generate an accurate fisheye projection, which I cropped slightly.

Hey, at least I got the lens right, if not the methodology!

Yeah - you guessed right for all the wrong reasons!

Here's what 35mm actually looks like, from the distance I shot it - this is one of the "sub frames"

BugBear

 

[bugbear]

How do you get on with Hugin? I've used Panotools for a while. I tried Hugin - the first attempt worked very well, and later ones were rubbish. Then some 'update' from MS killed it and I haven't got it to run reliably since

Also, which pano head do you use, and do you do full 360 panoramas? After a lot of humming and harring, and some home made attempts that were rather rough I eventually bought the latest Panosaurus, which is brilliant (albeit a bit bulky). The one of Clevedon pier here was 19 images, IIRC, and stitched really well - I rarely manage anything that good usually.

Regarding lens correction for general use, Bibble has a database, and usually does it automagically from the EXIF data. The latest version has been IDing my lenses incorrectly, but I doubt I'm the only one so there's probably a bugfix imminent.

Sorry - your mention of Hugin pushed a button...

Hugin works fine - it doesn't have a lens correction database, but (due to the way it works) can actually deduce, and then save/reuse, the correction parameters for ANY given lens/camera combo.

My panohead cost around 50p, and is "on topic", since it's woodwork:

My stitches are normally withing a coupla' pixels when I use it.

I'd try Hugin again - it's being actively developed and improved, so it may (now) be a good deal better and easier than last time you tried.

And the price is right. PM for help if you need to.

BugBear

 

[Lons]

If all you want are "snaps" then you can produce decent images with almost any modern digital camera and and a bit of imagination and then photoshop them to produce quality images.

If you want better than that you need IMO a reasonable digital SLR with at least 8mp and capable of taking "raw" images which give the best quality and most flexibility for editing.

I personally use a canon 450d and have several lenses. Other decent makes are just as good but once you're "in" you tend to skick with that manufacurer as you can keep the lenses if you upgrade the body later.
You can also buy s/h lenses fairly cheaply.

The downside is that there is the possibility you'll become interested in photography as a hobby - then it can get expensive


Here are some of my sons' pics with same camera as me http://www.flickr.com/photos/stu82/ - STUNNING :!:

Bob

 

[jimi43]

I think that 43mm (on a 35mm system) is the optimum focal length for stitching panorama.

Also...keeping the main images centred on the vertical prevents most distortion...anything above bends up and below, down...

Here is a panorama of about 6 images and you can see distortion on the boat somwhat...

CLICK AS LONG IMAGE

Distortion is therefore minimised using these techniques..

CLICK AS LONG IMAGE

I use PANORAMA MAKER as it is free and easy to use...

Jim

 

[Eric The Viking]

I think that 43mm (on a 35mm system) is the optimum focal length for stitching panorama.

I think if you're doing ones to be viewed 'flat', then possibly.

I like doing 'immersive' ones - cylindrical and spherical projections. I normally use a 12mm rect. lens on an APS-size sensor. In pre-digital days I used 17mm rect. on a 35mm body, with very good results (even though the negs had to be scanned first).

These days, with cylindrical projections I aim for 50% overlap (widthways). It's about 19 images usually. It helps to correct for aberrations before going to the panorama tools (Bibble does this really well), but it's still a bit of a grind, as the file sizes end up rather big for a desktop PC of average horsepower. I haven't yet cracked spherical ones - I always seem to mess up the zenith and nadir bits, and it doesn't stitch for some reason.

I rarely get enough time, but we're off to the Alps soon. If I can fit the pano head in, I'll probably take it. I lust after a Canon 5D, mainly for this stuff - perhaps in another life...

 

[bugbear]

Here are some of my sons' pics with same camera as me http://www.flickr.com/photos/stu82/ - STUNNING :!:

Bob

The Exif says he's got a 400d, not your 450d.

But the shots are great - lovely locations, and well executed technique.

BugBear