# HELP! How are these pictures taken??



## mikea

Hi. I do interior photography as one of my jobs. I use Photmatix to combine 3 bracketed shots(-2,0,+2 stops) and it usually works out OK. But I can never get my shots to look like these:
Värendsgatan 5, ÅSEDA - Svensk Fastighetsförmedling

How are these taken? The interiors are exposed perfectly, as well as the exterior, the incandescent lights, and even candles. And the colors are all neutral too!

Here are a few of shots that I would have a very hard time with.

*Please do not post images to which you do not hold rights.  You may post links.*

Looking at image Sample 3(the exterior of the building). As the arrows show, the area under the canopy which is in the shade, as well as outside which is in the full sun, are exposed perfectly. If this was a bracketed shot, there would be at least some movement in the leaves. Which makes this even more baffling for me.

Your advise would be appreciated.
Mikea


----------



## jeffW

Are the two interior photos your's to post or are you posting another photographer's work?


----------



## astroNikon

I've only done a little indoor real estate photography
but there's many ways of achieving this

You mentioned you only do a 3 bracket shot.  This may be a limit of you camera, but for instance my camera can do a 9 bracket shot thus giving more leeway in the extreme (outside brightness to dark closet) dynamic range of that image.

The Window, to me zooming in, looks like it may have been photoshopped it.   With that, you can take appropriate images of each section and stitch them together.

Of course another method is to bring off camera lighting to balance the lighting throughout the scene. In the closet the close ceiling you'll see a lot of light there, there may have been a flash set up in there pointing to the ceiling.

That is one White house.


----------



## tirediron

Astro's pretty much nailed it.  There are a number of techniques in use here.  Some of the windows are very definitely pasted in (set the camera on a tripod, shoot for room exposure, shoot again, for window, cut & paste), the photographer is also using supplemental lights; in the case of the walk-in closet shot, the use of a speedlight camera left, just inside the door is obvious.  Most of all however, the photographer is someone with experience and skill.


----------



## mikea

I don't see how some of these windows can be photoshopped in. One or two of them maybe, but all, I doubt it. There are windows that are partially covered by a semi transparent curtain. The exposures are perfect through the curtain, as well as next to it.

If there were any flashes used on the interior, there'd be some kind of shadow, either harsh or soft. But there's none. Also some of the shots cover too much ground to have lighting set up for every part of the shot. Have another look on the page. Some of the spaces with perfectly even light are way too small to have a soft box squeezed in them, and using a speedlight would have cast a harsh shadow.

There are also no reflections on any of the shiny surfaces.


----------



## astroNikon

Shouldn't outside light create shadows?  Or does the sun equally come in through all the surroundings by windows creating a perfectly even light with some hotspots on the ceiling even in the closet?

I don't know about you but my speedlights can push out a paltry 1/128th light perfect for "filling" in such as one in the closet pointed up and in the right corner  just looking at the ceiling you see that.  Without affecting the little lamp in the far corner.

I recommend you get a book about lighting ==> https://www.amazon.com/Light-Scienc...476195441&sr=8-1&keywords=science+light+magic 
and another about photoshop.

And/Or maybe get a camera that can bracket more than 3


----------



## webestang64

mikea said:


> I don't see how some of these windows can be photoshopped in. One or two of them maybe, but all, I doubt it. There are windows that are partially covered by a semi transparent curtain. The exposures are perfect through the curtain, as well as next to it.



As a retouch artist who does this kind of work, yes, they could all have been pasted/blended in.


----------



## tirediron

mikea said:


> I don't see how some of these windows can be photoshopped in. One or two of them maybe, but all, I doubt it  There are windows that are partially covered by a semi transparent curtain. The exposures are perfect through the curtain, as well as next to it..


  It's do-able, but I'm not sure it's practical from the point of view of the time it might take.  That said, if you look carefully most of the currents have a lot of white behind them, even where the window is perfectly exposed. 



mikea said:


> If there were any flashes used on the interior, there'd be some kind of shadow, either harsh or soft. But there's none.


  There wouldn't necessarily be any shadow if the work had been down with some care, but again, if you look carefully, you can see the signs in some of the images.



mikea said:


> I Also some of the shots cover too much ground to have lighting set up for every part of the shot. Have another look on the page.


  Not at all; you might need six or eight lights, but it's very doable. 



mikea said:


> I Some of the spaces with perfectly even light are way too small to have a soft box squeezed in them, and using a speedlight would have cast a harsh shadow.


  A speedlight with appropriate diffusion material can easily be totally shadowless.



mikea said:


> IThere are also no reflections on any of the shiny surfaces.


  Sure there, just look carefully.


----------



## Scatterbrained

mikea said:


> I don't see how some of these windows can be photoshopped in. One or two of them maybe, but all, I doubt it. There are windows that are partially covered by a semi transparent curtain. The exposures are perfect through the curtain, as well as next to it.
> 
> If there were any flashes used on the interior, there'd be some kind of shadow, either harsh or soft. But there's none. Also some of the shots cover too much ground to have lighting set up for every part of the shot. Have another look on the page. Some of the spaces with perfectly even light are way too small to have a soft box squeezed in them, and using a speedlight would have cast a harsh shadow.
> 
> There are also no reflections on any of the shiny surfaces.


There is absolutely supplemental light being used.  It's very obvious once you know what to look for.  The outside exposure are certainly blended in as well.  As a matter of fact, it's entirely possible that there is no HDR work being done here; rather, it's more likely flash mixed with ambient with supplemental exposures blended in for the exterior.  While I don't do RE work myself, I do have two rentals so I've had to figure it out, at least enough to get images to list my properties.   To give you an example of supplemental light, this image has three strobes in use: 



For Rent: Kitchen by tltichy, on Flickr

This is a single exposure, no HDR, no blending.  I could have blended in an extra exposure for the window, but from that angle the window looks out over my neighbors garage, so I decided against it.   

You could try out this book for technique: http://photographyforrealestate.net/lighting/


----------



## dennybeall

I've spent time on the Real Estate Photography forum and some of the photographers that do large expensive homes/ estates use as many as 6 and 8, or more, external light units for a shot. They charge many hundreds of dollars and spend a lot of time in set-up and in post processing. One shot for a multi-million dollar property the photographer detailed how he had set up lights hidden behind furniture and he had over 25 different lights in his stock to choose from.


----------



## mikea

Thank you all for your answers. It certainly helped. Since I posted this thread I decided to experiment with HDR a little more, using 7 or more bracketed shots. I use my camera that brackets only 3 shots, but do a +3 exposure and -3 exposure and eliminate the duplicate shots. THis way I can get from +6 all the way to -6 stops in however increments I choose. 

This works pretty well for me. I don't like to use artificial lighting on my shoots as it almost always kills the mood. So HDR is the way to go for me.


----------



## tirediron

mikea said:


> ...This works pretty well for me. I don't like to use artificial lighting on my shoots as it almost always kills the mood...


Then you're doing it wrong.  Pure and simple.  Light is light, pure and simple; while the sources may differ, the physical properties of individual photons are identical.  It's all in learning how to control light.  HDR is a great technique for a lot of this sort of work, but it might not cut it when you have to you work at night, or in windowless rooms...


----------



## mikea

tirediron said:


> mikea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...This works pretty well for me. I don't like to use artificial lighting on my shoots as it almost always kills the mood...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're doing it wrong.  Pure and simple.  Light is light, pure and simple; while the sources may differ, the physical properties of individual photons are identical.  It's all in learning how to control light.  HDR is a great technique for a lot of this sort of work, but it might not cut it when you have to you work at night, or in windowless rooms...
Click to expand...


Thanks for your input Tirediron. But you're wrong about  HDR not being an effective tool at night or a windowless room. See attachments. I shoot a lot of high profile locations which can be made available only for a couple of hours in the middle of the night. Using artificial lighting is simply not an option. That's why I shoot only with available light. There's more than one way to skin a cat.


----------



## Scatterbrained

mikea said:


> Thank you all for your answers. It certainly helped. Since I posted this thread I decided to experiment with HDR a little more, using 7 or more bracketed shots. I use my camera that brackets only 3 shots, but do a +3 exposure and -3 exposure and eliminate the duplicate shots. THis way I can get from +6 all the way to -6 stops in however increments I choose.
> 
> This works pretty well for me. I don't like to use artificial lighting on my shoots as it almost always kills the mood. So HDR is the way to go for me.


It's not the artificial light that kills the mood.  It's an inability to use it properly.   The images you posted, that you aspire to, are lit artificially.  High end RE photography is done with artificial lighting precisely because you can "set the mood" with photographic lighting in a way you can't when you rely on just the room lighting.


----------



## mikea

Scatterbrained said:


> mikea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you all for your answers. It certainly helped. Since I posted this thread I decided to experiment with HDR a little more, using 7 or more bracketed shots. I use my camera that brackets only 3 shots, but do a +3 exposure and -3 exposure and eliminate the duplicate shots. THis way I can get from +6 all the way to -6 stops in however increments I choose.
> 
> This works pretty well for me. I don't like to use artificial lighting on my shoots as it almost always kills the mood. So HDR is the way to go for me.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the artificial light that kills the mood.  It's an inability to use it properly.   The images you posted, that you aspire to, are lit artificially.  High end RE photography is done with artificial lighting precisely because you can "set the mood" with photographic lighting in a way you can't when you rely on just the room lighting.
Click to expand...


Scater, you seem pretty sure that they are lit. You must see something that I can't. How about this one? Seems a little too large of an area to be lit by flash. What do you think?


----------



## tirediron

mikea said:


> Thanks for your input Tirediron. But you're wrong about  HDR not being an effective tool at night or a windowless room. See attachments.


Well, to be strictly accurate, what I said was, "_it might not cut it_", NOT that it *wasn't* and effective technique.  IMO the images you attached prove this to be the case.  Note the front edge of the seats of the chairs in the first image:  A large, blown highlight along each.  In the second image, you have blown areas around the perimeter lighting in the ceiling tray, and some pretty nasty mixed colour temperature issues.  In the third, there are really large blown areas in each sink bowl....  The last one isn't bad for highlights, but again, mixed temperature lighting is, IMO, hurting the image.  



mikea said:


> I shoot a lot of high profile locations which can be made available only for a couple of hours in the middle of the night. Using artificial lighting is simply not an option. That's why I shoot only with available light. There's more than one way to skin a cat.


You're right.  There is.  I'm not saying you're doing it wrong, but I am saying you could be doing it better.  Using supplemental light is ALWAYS an option.  Let's assume that in the last image you posted both you and I were tasked to go in and get the same shot.  I am willing to bet that the one I produced using fill flash would be a more appealing image.  

Given that people can and do light indoor arenas with flash, a room this size is hardly a challenge.  I could light that with little more than the gear I carry in my vehicle on a regular basis.  Since your 'Edit' preference isn't set, I won't mark up your image with my lighting plan, but assuming that was the shot, my initial set-up would start with six lights, and probably expand to about 8 for the final shot.  Assuming that I was allowed access in advance to recce, and take a few measurements, I would say that from the time I got the last of my gear on-set until the shot was in the can would be somewhere in the hour-thirty - hour-forty-five range.


----------



## Scatterbrained

mikea said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you all for your answers. It certainly helped. Since I posted this thread I decided to experiment with HDR a little more, using 7 or more bracketed shots. I use my camera that brackets only 3 shots, but do a +3 exposure and -3 exposure and eliminate the duplicate shots. THis way I can get from +6 all the way to -6 stops in however increments I choose.
> 
> This works pretty well for me. I don't like to use artificial lighting on my shoots as it almost always kills the mood. So HDR is the way to go for me.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the artificial light that kills the mood.  It's an inability to use it properly.   The images you posted, that you aspire to, are lit artificially.  High end RE photography is done with artificial lighting precisely because you can "set the mood" with photographic lighting in a way you can't when you rely on just the room lighting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scater, you seem pretty sure that they are lit. You must see something that I can't. How about this one? Seems a little too large of an area to be lit by flash. What do you think?View attachment 128787
Click to expand...

You want to know the first thing I saw with this image? Look at the small partition walls in the middle with the skulls, as well as the large skull behind the bar.  They are lit with strobes (or speedlights).  It's a common technique to walk the room (or around the house) firing off a speedlight at areas you want to highlight.  Then take these exposures and blend them in.  That shot may be a combination of both techniques, as an easy way to control the highlights of the many exposed light bulbs in the room, but to my eye it looks like there is still supplemental lighting going on in the scene.


----------

