Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Architectural / interior photography - best equipment?  (Read 24902 times)
julienlanoo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228


« Reply #120 on: March 20, 2013, 04:56:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Chris Barret Agreed!,

To Craig:
Just to help out
I've seen there's a small error on your site, simpel to solve..
on line 85 of your source code of the main page you have:
   <a class="style16" href="index.htm">ARCHITECTURA</a>L&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
it should be:
   <a class="style16" href="index.htm">ARCHITECTURAL</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

that way the "L" of architecturaL is also a "link" Smiley
and you can delete all the : "&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp"
that's only clutter and Google-bot does not like it Smiley

greets 
Logged
MHFA
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


« Reply #121 on: March 20, 2013, 05:03:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I am really sorry, I will never do it again, please forgive me but keep on the discussion. I don`t want to be arrogant, but is it really correct to make wonderful pictures of horrible architectural projects?
Logged
Chris Barrett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« Reply #122 on: March 20, 2013, 05:09:27 PM »
ReplyReply

is it really correct to make wonderful pictures of horrible architectural projects?


LoL...  If I had a dollar for every time I've said this to my assistant.
Logged
MHFA
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


« Reply #123 on: March 20, 2013, 05:19:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I hope Craig forgives me also...

Architects have a similar position, their clients often want to have a spectacular building, doesn`t matter the city around.
Logged
rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 780


WWW
« Reply #124 on: March 20, 2013, 07:11:09 PM »
ReplyReply

90% of the stuff I shoot,doesn't get posted my website.

Potential clients only want to see the "good" stuff!
Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
ACH DIGITAL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 373



WWW
« Reply #125 on: March 20, 2013, 08:07:36 PM »
ReplyReply

I fell relieved to hear all this. I thought it was only me having to photograph some ugly places..

Logged

Antonio Chagin
www.achdigital.com
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 773



WWW
« Reply #126 on: March 20, 2013, 10:31:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I am really sorry, I will never do it again, please forgive me but keep on the discussion. I don`t want to be arrogant, but is it really correct to make wonderful pictures of horrible architectural projects?


I shoot for commerce.  A dollar is a dollar.  I don't judge, I just shoot.  Then I cash the checks.  The guy who had this structure built is quite proud of it, spent a lot of money on it and it reflects his visions and feelings. Not my job to decide if it is good or bad.  Only to try and take a decent photo.

I'm not really an architectural shooter, I shoot product, mostly RV and boat interiors and I'll never be a C. Barrett.  Sorry if my work is not up to snuff.
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 773



WWW
« Reply #127 on: March 20, 2013, 10:32:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Chris Barret Agreed!,

To Craig:
Just to help out
I've seen there's a small error on your site, simpel to solve..
on line 85 of your source code of the main page you have:
   <a class="style16" href="index.htm">ARCHITECTURA</a>L&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
it should be:
   <a class="style16" href="index.htm">ARCHITECTURAL</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

that way the "L" of architecturaL is also a "link" Smiley
and you can delete all the : "&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp"
that's only clutter and Google-bot does not like it Smiley

greets 

Thanks
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
MHFA
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


« Reply #128 on: March 21, 2013, 01:06:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Dear Craig.
I took your picture because it is really good. It is much more difficult to take a good picture of a horrible project...
This topic started "architectural photography - best equipment".
I only wanted to state my opinion that this is not all in architectural photography.

I also shoot for commerce. I also have to take pictures of bad projects, but I can`t avoid to judge.
Sometimes I would like to see it so professional like Craig.

Michael
Logged
Ken R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 492


WWW
« Reply #129 on: March 21, 2013, 06:56:35 AM »
ReplyReply

I fell relieved to hear all this. I thought it was only me having to photograph some ugly places..



 I and a lot of Professional Photographers get paid because we can make a mediocre space or building look great. That applies to people also  Grin

If it were easy, anyone would do it... In fact clients will often try to do stuff themselves and when they can't, they call a pro.
Logged
Jeffreytotaro
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 111


« Reply #130 on: March 21, 2013, 09:02:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Some of my favorite shots from a creative point of view, are shots where we had to make something out of nothing. These really test your skills and are quite frankly harder shots to pull off. Stepping into some star-chitect's projects in my opinion is an easier day when great compositions fall in your lap due to the great design. These are obviously more fun to shoot, and can be easier to make a great photo. I respect the work my clients do, and if they want to shoot it I treat it like every other shot, even still working with the MFDB system. Might feel silly using that gear on an accessible bathroom shot, but that's what I work with for 99% of my work.
Logged

Jeffrey Totaro
http://www.jeffreytotaro.com
IQ260 Alpa MAX & SWA
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1587


« Reply #131 on: March 21, 2013, 10:01:08 AM »
ReplyReply

something out of nothing

that ability is what makes up a great photographer I think.
Logged
Harold Clark
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


« Reply #132 on: March 21, 2013, 11:24:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Is it really correct to make wonderful pictures of horrible architectural projects?

I have had my share as well of photographing products of the "Eyesore" school of design. I sometimes shoot for manufacturers of materials that are used in construction, and they require photos of the finished project. A marketing manager explained to me that they sometimes do this for political reasons. A major customer might be offended if some of their projects didn't appear in the calendar, marketing materials etc.

The worst offenders are subdivisions which consist of a garage with a house attached to the rear. Might as well eliminate the garage, they are filled with junk anyway and the cars are still parked out in the weather.

Logged
Scott Hargis
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 194



WWW
« Reply #133 on: March 21, 2013, 02:07:49 PM »
ReplyReply


"Is it really correct to make wonderful pictures of horrible architectural projects?"


I get this all the time: "Oh, Scott, you get the best places to shoot." And I'm always thinking, "No, it was actually kind of crappy, and I made it look good."

A couple of other thoughts, regarding the lights/no lights discussion:

First, I have to say I agree with CB. If you don't know how, then you're not really making the decision, are you?
Second, in my opinion, "good" supplemental light accomplishes the goal of rendering the reality of the scene into a dynamic range that the camera can actually capture. Saying things like "I want my photos to look natural," are really red herrings, because "natural" is meaningless when you compare your eye/brain combination to your camera. The camera will NEVER see things the way you do.
Unfortunately, learning to light things well is hard, and so you do see an awful lot of flashy, flat images out there. Gives lighting a bad name.
Logged

<a href="http://www.scotthargisphoto.com">Website</a>
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #134 on: March 21, 2013, 05:24:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Lighting is also one of the keys of making nothing look like something. Personally maybe I'm old school but photography is all about light. It simply dont exist without it, knowing lighting and being good at it is one of the major keys to successfull imagery.
Logged

Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550


WWW
« Reply #135 on: March 21, 2013, 06:21:33 PM »
ReplyReply

IMO natural light is always superior to our lighting. Though it is fun to make something dull look soooo juicy. Maybe that attitude comes from my b&w landscape work where I only do natural light. I carry around a truckload of lighting for commercial jobs, gels, halogin and strobe, enough to light a seriously large building. But since I gave up film we use it allot less. Maybe half of our use of it with film was just to "clean up" mixed light sources to get it to match daylight or tunsten film. Digital is much more forgiving with mixed light (layering may be necessary oftentimes). So our lighting now is more about just accents and filling dark areas. Most of our clients these days, largely designers and magazines, want the lighting to be or at least mimic their lighting design. We find that making their lighting design work on the files is much easier than it was on film. In a very real way (for those who were around 20 years ago) we are approaching lighting minimally-much like European architectural photographers were doing during the film days.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 06:24:12 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
David Eichler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 340


WWW
« Reply #136 on: March 21, 2013, 06:38:02 PM »
ReplyReply

"IMO natural light is always superior to our lighting."

My feeling as well, for all sorts of subject matter. To me, supplementary lighting is primarily remedial or compensatory. That is, it is to help compensate for situations where the camera does not see the way the eye does, when there is not sufficient time to wait for the ideal ambient lighting, or when the ambient lighting is never really that great.  For commercial work, I feel that you are really limiting your options if you don't have the capability to use at least some supplementary lighting.

As to the comments about the quality of the subject matter for architectural photography, well...tastes vary. Some people don't like Modern design at all. Some people don't like nouveau-vieux mediterranean.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 06:43:02 PM by David Eichler » Logged

Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550


WWW
« Reply #137 on: March 21, 2013, 07:50:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Joe? I have actually no idea what you are responding to or what point you are making. I even read back a few pages.....
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Chris Barrett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« Reply #138 on: March 21, 2013, 09:43:43 PM »
ReplyReply

I think you guys are oversimplifying what lighting can be.  When I light a scene, we're not just filling the dark areas so that the camera sees like the eye.  We add character to bring out the richness of materials and depth of dimension that never exists under the ambient lighting.  We're backlighting glass to make it glow, reflecting light into stainless and metallic finishes to make them sparkle, raking light across textured materials to make them feel more tactile, pulling out the color and grain of wood that would normally sit there lifelessly.

No amount of dynamic range will ever yield results similar to what can be done with fastidious and sensitive lighting.  For 20 years my clients have been telling me that my photographs look better than the actual architecture.  To me that means I did my job.  I'm not a journalist.  I'm not there to document the compromises that we're made during construction.  I'm there to make my client's work look vastly superior to their competitors.  Welcome to commercial photography.

/rant off
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #139 on: March 21, 2013, 09:52:12 PM »
ReplyReply

I think you guys are oversimplifying what lighting can be.  When I light a scene, we're not just filling the dark areas so that the camera sees like the eye.  We add character to bring out the richness of materials and depth of dimension that never exists under the ambient lighting.  We're backlighting glass to make it glow, reflecting light into stainless and metallic finishes to make them sparkle, raking light across textured materials to make them feel more tactile, pulling out the color and grain of wood that would normally sit there lifelessly.

No amount of dynamic range will ever yield results similar to what can be done with fastidious and sensitive lighting.  For 20 years my clients have been telling me that my photographs look better than the actual architecture.  To me that means I did my job.  I'm not a journalist.  I'm not there to document the compromises that we're made during construction.  I'm there to make my client's work look vastly superior to their competitors.  Welcome to commercial photography.

/rant off

This is great Chris.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad