Chuck wrote:
> A neighbor of mine suggested that, since I'm out of work at the moment,
> I should start a sideline of photographing interiors. He does
> architectural drawings for many building contractors who frequently have
> before and after pictures made of remodeling work. He says, in his
> opinion, that most of this photography is simply awful and he "knows"
> that I could do a much better job. He'll be happy to put in a good word
> for me with these contractors.
A lot of builders & architects think they can do it all themselves with a
P&S !
> He "knows" I can do a better job after seeing some portraits that I've
> done including one of his wife. Now, I know (even if he doesn't) that
> interiors are a far cry from portraits. In 35 years of casual
Yeah, but in many respects simpler.
> photography I've never attempted interiors other than what's
> accidentally caught taking photos of people indoors. I also tend to be
> a telephoto type of guy. My view of the world is generally at 70 mm or
May be appropriate for some *really* big buildings !
> longer. While I own 24/2.8, 28/3.5 and 35/2.8 lenses they're almost
> never mounted on the camera unless it's outdoors for some sort of scenic
> view.
>
> Anybody have some suggestions here? Looking at my own kitchen through
> the 24 mm shows some not so wonderful perspective effects. It also
> tells me that 24 mm might not be short enough. And, of course, shorter
> is going to be (besides expensive) even worse on the perspective front.
> A 24 mm shift is out of the question.
The "perspective effect" caused by some things being close to the lens with
others further away is unavoidable. What you specifically need to avoid is
the vertical "keystoning" effect caused by not having the camera level.
This effect gets worse as the lens gets shorter in focal length, so
levelling becomes *critical* - hope you've got a good tripod.
I did this type of photography for a while, started with a 24mm but found it
was not wide enough for a lot of interiors I was photographing (many
Victorian terrace houses), so I bought an 18mm f3.5 which made a huge
difference. I don't think you need a shift lens for interiors (though you
would probably use it sometimes), just crank the tripod up high and stand on
a chair.
> I do have a scanner. Is this a place where I should be looking to
> software for some perspective control. I have Photoshop 5 LE which came
Better to get it right in the camera than stuff around with software later.
> with the scanner. It looks like the "LE" part means no perspective
> control. I also have various other low cost software packages (Corel
> Custom Photo Special Edition, MGI Photosuite) which do various degrees
> of hideous distortion but nothing that I can see that would apply the
> trapezoidal squeeze or stretch that I think would be required to correct
> the perspective. Is there some low cost alternative to the full-blown
> $600 Photoshop that will allow for perspective control?
Dunno, I know the control you get with Paintshop Pro in that area is very
limited. Where software may be useful is in "stitching" several images
together to give you a wider view.
> I think that using two flashes and a little practice will allow me to
> evenly illuminate even a very large kitchen but this business of focal
> length and perspective control has me concerned. Even the 35 mm gives
> the nearest cabinets a bit of a keystone effect. I haven't asked my
> neighbor why he thinks most of the interior shots he has seen are simply
Ask him, he may be able to show you examples of what he does & doesn't like.
Borrow a few architecture magazines & books from your local library and have
a look - these are generally loaded with good images as architects tend to
like "their" buildings to be presented well in photographs.
I always prefer to shoot with the existing light, if it doesn't look good
you can blame the architect ! You will probably need to "improve" the
lighting, however it is not easy to pre-visualise the effect of flash
(shadows, reflections, etc.), probably reflectors are a better solution.
> awful but my guess is that the perspective problem is probably
> uppermost. Or, maybe most of it is done with a point-and-shoot and the
> angle of view is not very wide and also poorly illuminated.
All of the above I would guess.
> Any suggestions (including reasonable rates) greatly appreciated.
When I was doing this regularly, I would charge about 1/2 to 2/3 the hourly
rate of an architect (for time spent on-site and any other time consuming
stuff, like stitching) plus any expenses (film, processing, etc.).
Take a few rolls of film of your own house for practice and experimentation.
...Wayne
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|