Some thoughts on architectural interiors, and then a short vent.
> One of the big challenges with interior work is colour reproduction.
> Building interiors use fluorescent lights and these are hell to colour
> correct, yet if an interior designer has used a particular shade of
> green for the walls they sure expect it to be accurately reproduced in
> the photograph.
I'm reminded of an old saying: beginning photographers talk about equipment,
intermediate photographers talk about composition, and truly accomplished
photographers talk about light. There's some inaccuracy to this, as most
photographers are gadget nuts, but you get the point.
Architectural interiors are one of a group of exceptionally time consuming
photographic pursuits. Others include aircraft interiors, and automobile
studio shots. It is not uncommon to spend several days in preparation for a
single shot. Of all this work, most is spent in lighting. I remember reading
a magazine article a year or so ago about one series of office building
lobby interiors that had seriously mixed lighting. Any fixture that was not
tungsten was filtered. The photographer had rolls of a variety of filter
media to place in ceiling troughs, around fluorescent tubes, in special
fixtures, and over windows. If I were going to try this, my first stop would
be a theatrical supply shop. The filter media is made by the same folks that
make lighting gels, and informative swatchbooks are widely available.
Architectural interiors were one of the last pre-digital refuges of hot
lights. Most can be generally divided into two categories, focusing lights
and broads. The Lowel company is a good supplier of affordable location
lighting (I think Mr. Lowel has a background in movie location work), and
their products are common in this use. For starters, I recommend the Lowel
Tota-light. These can take up to 1000 watt bulbs, although it's probably
better to stop at 750. They can be found used frequently for just a bit over
$100US. They cover a wide area. and are light in weight, so really expensive
stands are not necessary. A friend in the architectural business uses two of
these and two fresnel spots for all his work.
Some new emulsions (Fuji?) are meant to be better in
> this regard, and the first thing I'd do is start finding a suitable
> film. (Of course, b+w solves the problem, but clients mostly want
> colour.)
I find the four-layer Fuji films good for mixed light, but see above...
A lot of interior photographers go to the trouble of changing
> all the fluro tubes for special daylight-balanced photographic lights
> and adding key-lights, so it starts to look like a movie set. *This* is
> the tine consuming part.
Unfortunately, this is what it takes for this task. That's why I found
myself in the industrial end of commercial work. Still, these complex shots
are still easier than dealing with models!
>
> Probably the best thing is to buy a few architectural and design
> magazines and dissect the images in there. Phone up the photographer and
> chat with them -- start of the conversation with "Your photography is
> excellent" and you'll be right.
Great idea! There are also probably some books in your local library that
will help. Remember, though, 35mm really isn't the thing. Used view cameras
and lenses are amazingly inexpensive, although the film holders can get
expensive, but that's a subject for another list.
>
> It's worth remembering that exterior architectural photographers are a
> dime-a-dozen because the entry fee is so low: no studio needed, just a
> camera. Interior work is much more demanding.
>
> Good luck.
Ditto. And now my vent.
Although my working life has been mostly in photography, it took a little
over six years in school to discover a career in music wasn't for me (remind
me to tell you sometime about that warm spring afternoon that I walked out
of grad school), so the whole concept of intellectual property has been with
me for a lot of years. Now the subject of software has joined we
photographers and musicians.
Software companies are often targets, and it's not entirely undeserved.
Thanks to frequent visits to congress with large sums of money, they have
relieved themselves of any legal responsibility for the performance or
suitability of their products. The same can be said of ASCAP, and the PPA.
Still, this is intellectual property, and the producer deserves
compensation. Hire a carpenter to build a bookcase, and you expect to pay
him. Why would you expect free music/photos/software? Ask a musician
sometimes about people who expect them to play for "exposure."
I have left this subject alone each time it comes up, but a certain person
will not let it drop. I'm not wealthy, like another member seems to be
(wealth is subjective), but I don't blame anyone but myself. If I wanted a
Corvette, I would go out and get a job that would compensate me
sufficiently. As we know, that person has some adversity in his life, so why
deny him the right to sit in his office nude (ugh!), or ride all over Texas
in an expensive car? After all, many of we group members have been treated
more than fairly by him. Why the venom?
>
> And when these things get into the esoteric, and by downloading photoshop,
I'm
> preventing some guy relaxing in his bathing suit at his home office from
mailing
> off the monthly brand new Corvette payment, I realize that just because
society has
> decided lower income equals lower-level life, (or else the rich wouldn't
have
> anyone to have a better life than), doesn't mean I won't enjoy the fun
image-making
> travails of that program, or others. However anyone may flame me here, I
will not
> see it as the same as walking up to some software guy, and ripping his
original &
> only copy disk of the new whizzbang program he just wrote out of his
hands.
>
> Happily for those wanting to keep the social classes as they are ("should
be")
> ..... I didn't post any web addresses for that program.
>
These repeated comments are always laced with bitterness. I'll forego the
psycosocial analysis, as I thought this group was for the discussion of
photography and fine equipment, not SUV's, guns, or crackpot socioeconomic
theory/politics.
Well, I feel better!
Bill Pearce
< 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 >
|