|
Search this group's discussions
|
Natural Versus Strobe
|
Ok, I have been watching the group for a while now, and have noticed a trend.
Some folks who are very good, if not masters, seem to lean toward the natural light approach, i.e. very few strobes, if so maybe one to punch up a near object or very dark area. Their pictures usually have a very warm, rich, and inviting feel.
Others who are also masters in my opinoin shoot way more lights. Their images tend to not be as warm, but clearer in defining the space and its objects and adjoining areas, as they are very well lit and leave very few shadows.
So my question is, which is more often wanted by the agent in the groups opinion. Both relate the space but communicate it in different ways? Is it a style point more than a practical one?
Originally posted at 10:06AM, 30 January 2008 PDT
(permalink)
dtruax edited this topic 53 months ago.
|
|
If you're shooting with bright sunlight outside, you don't have much of a choice IMO. In some cases you might get lucky, but I think you have to use strobes inside to keep the windows from blowing out (discounting HDR). The darker it is outside, the more ambient/longer shutter you can use.
Just my $.02 in trying to be helpful.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The agents I work with tend to like the brighter images. As number95 stated, if it is bright outside, I can't shoot without flash.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This is almost an imponderable.
Check out Aaron Leitz's portfolio for some brightly-lit, crisp images, almost all done with ambient only:
www.aaronleitz.com/
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I guess its not a very good question, sorry bout that.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
scott - that stuff is mindblowingly good!
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yep, he's a caution, Aaron is.
He's the one who originally got this forum going.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Broadly speaking, how he do dat? Just broadly...not giving too much away...just a hint...
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I actually think its a very good question and one that Scott and I have tossed around quite a bit. Do realtors want the overall, brightly lit shots (or bright and crisp) or the more intimate, moody (maybe underlit) shots? I go back and forth with this one all the time.
When I first started doing this, the main complaint was that my shots were too dark. So I started pumping in a lot of light and overstaturating the image. Along the way I became discouraged with that, and slowly backed off from the more obviously lit photos to ones that had more natural lighting and color. Those are the images I have been posting to Flickr and hopefully they look good, but not overlit as in the beginning days. What I try to achieve is something that looks as natural as possible, but also takes into account the end use of my client.
I love what Ekday and Dave Palermo (and of course Aaron) are doing with their images, however I do think it takes a client with a mature eye and aesthetic to understand that those images are going to sell a property. Not in any way to demean Dave and Ekday, I LOVE their images. However if I gave a whole set of those to an agent, because of what they are used to, I would have hell to pay. Also the MLS trashes images, so ones that tend towards the dark or moody side really look like crap there. But this brings up another interesting question, with the usage of agent or property dedicated web pages, where images are represented almost exactly, should we be so concerned about MLS translation? I'm not sure but interesting to ponder.
So for me it has been an ongoing education of the agents, giving them the bright, crisp images they want for the overall marketing (whether lit by ambient only or 10 SB800's) and always trying something moody or a cool detail, throwing it into the batch and seeing if they use it or not.
There are many ways to skin a cat...
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think Thomas hit the highlights pretty well there. I shot almost everything with an onboard flash 3 years ago - sometimes did not even bother with that. My images were more intimate somehow and showed the character and feeling of the room. As I moved forward I brought in lights and the images got very light and bright - RE agents loved them - they liked the old way but always requested the new way. In the last year I have experimented with various techniques in an effort to be able to fit lighting to what I want - sometimes I feel like baking things a bit others I want something subtler. This year I am going to really work on using more ambient again. I also think that uses require different lighting of sometimes the same room - Southern Living probably would not want my RE work but they like softer more intimate - elegant lighting. Having the skills to effectively and qucklu do should be the plan.
Great Question,
M. James
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
RE agents tend to prefer bright images. So that's what I give them. If you shoot on a bright day, it is impossible to fight against the exterior lighting without some strong strobes. I wish I can shoot in the evenings and use ambient lighting only.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I also agree this is a great topic. Especially as I view the excellent work with both techniques. I generally fall in the middle with a bias towards ambient using the flash more for fill. As we critique and praise each other's work we may have a different eye for what we like than that of our customers. In the end, the mls mangles our greatest shots. So it's important to keep in mind the end use of our photos. When I first started doing this I would reduce the image size to get an idea of what it would like on the mls. But mls softens the images even more be reducing the image to a ridiculously low resolution. My images are probably not as bright as they were initially. But I know that realtors want light so I give to them any way I can. They also like contrast, color... and for most, but not all, realism.
The kind of lighting that one might do for a realtor may be very different for a builder, architect, interior designer, magazine, etc. But I think it is useful, at least for me, to understand how to work in both domains and in the middle. As much as I enjoy real estate photography, it's not where I want to spend the rest of my career and I'm always interested in learning different styles of interior photography and the skills to accomplish them.
Wow, this is such a great topic. Yeah, Aaron's ambient work rocks. But remember, he lives in the Northwest where there is rarely any light outside those windows anyway. Well... at least for most of the year. : ) And then you folks in Florida, SoCal, Australia. That's a whole different world from my part of the world.
BTW, if you look at Eric Roths book on Interior Photography you will see that he doesn't care about burned out windows. And I think his photos are fantastic. I think his most recent work, as I see on his website has less of that look. Maybe he's doing more digital work now.
www.ericrothphoto.com/
Originally posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
Underexposed7 edited this topic 53 months ago.
|
|
|
The blown out window, indeed the blown-out ROOM, is certainly in vogue currently in shelter magazines, and I've gone for that look myself at times, although sometimes I think I'm too far ahead of myself when shooting; I have this pre-conceived notion of what the image will look like and I single-mindedly go for it and never consider what would happen if I changed gears completely and let an area go dark, or bright, or whatever.
On the other hand I have about 7 minutes per shot, max.
But I think the real issue is whether we should be optimizing for MLS or not -- most of my clients are doing property-specific websites, and agency-run websites. But are the buyers going there first, or still cruising MLS?
We need statistics.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Great thread, I too am curious about the MLS vs. Property Specific web sites. Anyone have data on that, it seems that they are becoming more and more common.
Is shooting for the MLS going to become shooting images for the Broker Tour where no one that is really looking at it gives a @^$% about the quality?
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
In addition to the lighting, the compositions are much tighter and simpler in many of Aaron's images. I think this is a complimentary skill. I spend too much time crammed in corners shooting at 10mm with no place to hide lights because I think brokers want the rooms to look large. I can see how the quality of my images suffer from this and I am making my job harder.
Sounds like the evolution from onboard, to multiple bright strobe, and then toward a simpler more subtle and artistic lighting is a common theme among photographers.
Seems like there is a parallel evolution from tight composition, (can't afford a wide lens) to super wide everywhere (new lens), to cropping back down and getting more artistic.
Anyone else see this in their own work?
H
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@H--
I hadn't really taken the time to articulate the process, but I think I fall into this category. I am just now emerging from that crammed corner, looking for a tighter shot that will showcase the best feature of the room. Of course, I'll still take the corner shots in case the realtor isn't as interested in the art of the place. And, as everyone well knows by now, I've resisted the five strobe approach--but that's more because I'm cheap and scared. LOL! No matter how many lights there are, I prefer the light to at least APPEAR to be ambient.
I wonder if this same evolution would occur quite the same way if we didn't have each other's work to study and learn from. I know I have shifted my approach to composition by gleaning what I like from other photographers' work.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
There has been an age old battle as to the approach photographers take to photographing interiors. It is artificial vs. natural light photographers. I use nothing more than a Metz 54 on camera. In my opinion (and that's all that it is) is that overlit rooms look fake and unatural. If I were to step into the room as often photographed in this group, it would ultimatly look nothing like the picture because rooms in general are not lit that way. I approach my interior photography to capture the natural essence and ambiance of a room. I want the photograph to actually look like the room I was standing in just before I clicked the camera. I have had realtors and builders look at me funny when I don't show up with loads of lights but when they are delivered the final product they are amazed at what I am able to capture. Just my 2 cents.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hmmm I have thought about this and I have to agree with everyone! Yeah yeah i know... I am a Gemini so don't hassle me!
I lean more toward shooting just ambient but I am certainly not against using flash for fill or to accent something of interest.
I personally don't like the images that have been blasted with light UNLESS of course you need to do that to make the room look as if it has not been lit. Again that age old saying, "Light a room to make it look as if it has not bee lit." That saying holds up. (For me).
That is not to say I am against using lots of lights! The issue for me is not what is a better approach (both can look fantastic!). The issue is what do our clients want? After all we are making photos for our clients. If they are not happy we don't get more work!
I have two homes to photograph on Tues of next week. I only have one Flash for my 5D. I have a Sto-fen diffuser also. What I will do is shoot my usual way without the flash and will also shoot using the flash. Those of you who use flash a lot - can you tell me what the best way to use one flash is? Bounce up with the diffuser? Bounce toward the nearest white wall? My flash is a 580EX.
Thanks!
David
Originally posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
davidpalermo edited this topic 53 months ago.
|
|
|
Good reading. I'm a sponge soaking it all up.
I shot a small condo last night. It was fairly dark out so I used a lot of ambient and at most, two lights. Personally, I'd rather shoot ambient images. I think they have more feeling, but there's no question about the demand for strobe lighting to create clean, bright images. Master both, and you can deliver whatever the client wants.
Originally posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
number95 edited this topic 53 months ago.
|
|
|
with all due respect to Aaron's photos that looked stunning on his website what with the neat Flash tricks, I'm afraid when put through the MLS meat-grinder, they might look like crap. Too dark, too tight, too cramped.
WRT Scott's comment on MLS cruise stats, I would summize it would be the first stop for a majority of new home buyers. After that, they might follow the link to the realtor's website.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Wow! What a great discussion!
On the issue of the MLS meat grinder, I think this is the most compelling reasons for supplying a simple, inexpensive slide show with your images... that is it can show off how good the images real look. With Lightroom supplying this simple slide show literally takes only a couple minutes if you have your own site.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Gonna chime in on this one again. I also think that shooting real estate entails considerably more having to illustrate the relationship of rooms and spaces to each other. Once you start framing a shot with multiple rooms in it you are bound to have to bring the light up in the adjoining rooms with lights.
The shelter magazines typically show one space or if two then portions of both - they are portraying a mood, setting, feeling if you will, while RE work is to a degree illustrative in an almost technical aspect as well.
M. James
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thanks to all for your comments and insights. I am still finding my way in this wilderness but it looks like there are so many variables and audiences that it really depends on the moment and what the client is looking for. I agree it seems best to know how to shoot all ambient and also flash. Again thanks to all.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
On noooooooooo - this thread is not over..... TRUST ME.......... I had another thought - RE imagery is minuscule in the scheme of photography and growing quickly. Shelter Magazines have also proliferated over the last decade along with magazines dedicated to just areas of the home. Then there are countless books with the same themes as the shelter magazines - both use about the same caliber of photography. I know long winded and where are you going..... what is to say that RE photography as it grows in popularity, recognition and need won't eventually emulate what is hip with the Shelter Magazines. I can't tell you the number of those magazines I see around homes I shoot.
Of course the MLS would have to catch up along with several other things - but if RE is going in a more electronic visual direction MLS will have to accommodate the Imagery rather than the other way around.
M. James
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I just returned from a shoot for one of my favorite clients. While we were walking through the units I was shooting, I told him about the discussions we are having here about natural vs. added light, and about optimizing for MLS or shooting for a higher-end output.
This is a client who formerly used an ambient-only (or sometimes 1-on-camera light) photographer, but for whom I am now the go-to vendor.
There was ZERO hesitation on his part when he told me that MLS was their lowest priority. Property-specific websites, the Agency's own website, and the large-format flyers and brochures they print, along with Craigslist, were all higher on the list. MLS barely counts with them.
He then went on to say that the reason they like me is that my images are "so bright and crisp - they print really well".
I think MJ has it right, there's a BIG difference between shelter mags and RE work.
Not saying that there isn't a place for moodier images, but I make sure I'm delivering plenty of bright, wide-angle shots that convey the floorplan and architecture first, then I go back and make some darker, tighter emotional shots.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Interesting that you should say that Scott - MLS is about the last thing any of my clients consider. The images go into so many other avenues more important than MLS. MLS here is still only really for realtors - sure IDX feeds give the general public MLS access but most everything in MLS is written around other Realtors.
All my clients do high end brochures .... magazine spreads - feature articles with images..... etc.
Having said all that I shot a house today with one AB 1600 and a VIV285 - just for the heck of it. Used a listing from my largest client.
M. James
Originally posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
M James - jnorthen.com edited this topic 53 months ago.
|
|
|
OK, I also can't resist a gentle rebuttal to jthalmanphotography's statement:
"I want the photograph to actually look like the room I was standing in just before I clicked the camera."
Nothing personal here - I've browsed through his Flicker portfolio many times and there's excellent, top-shelf ambient photography there.
But the notion that you can deliver what the human eye sees when standing live in a room is a conceit. The camera isn't physically capable of it.
The human eye has a higher dynamic range than either film or digital sensors, and when combined with a human brain, which makes endless and instantaneous corrections for white balance and brightness, the dynamic range that you experience "live" is vastly greater than you can capture on film.
Thus, a faithfully exposed image of most rooms will appear dim and gloomy in parts, and overly bright in others -- the eye doesn't adapt in the same way, partly because the dynamic range has been compressed, and partly because the image is phsyically smaller and can be focussed on in it's entirety.
So my theory is, that to mimic the "Auto-Correct" feature that's built in to our eyes and brains, we need to even out the illumination in our images.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Agreeing whole heartedly with Scott ...... RE photography in most cases is about making it better than it really is. I am working up an ad campaign based on "Gone in a Click" if the first picture seen on the internet looks like "poo" then CLICK - it's gone until there is an image that grabs the viewer ...... I produce show me more images. Well we all do - but you get the point.
Even the coolest of homes when viewed amongst 3 others without a good starting image is a "Click Over" I am also starting my own RE - web lingo at the same time.
M. James
Originally posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
M James - jnorthen.com edited this topic 53 months ago.
|
|
I think both Scott and MJ know where I stand on this. I'm really partial to the bright, crisp, cool shots that are evenly lit.
That is what my mind's eye sees, and that is what I am attracted to when looking at interiors.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
potato - potahto, coke - pepsi, flathead - phillips, ya better know how to use BOTH lighting techniques & be prepared to use both as rooms and homes are all different, if you ask me.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
When I started doing this around 8 years ago ....(I know I have a slow learning Curve - the 70's and the Dead) my goal was to produce better than existing images. That was not much of a goal, Ray Charles could have done better. (I love Ray - so don't go there) A lot has changed over the years.
These days my goal is to actually show the Realtor that better images do so many things other than look good. They make the listing stand out from the others, the images can be confidently used in a multitude of venues and genres without concern. They make the agent look professional on the next listing appointment.
In the ever advancing RE market there is no question that strong images and the benchmark keeps getting higher and higher will draw the attention to a listing.
M. James
Originally posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
M James - jnorthen.com edited this topic 53 months ago.
|
|
|
RE - web lingo... I like it!
#1 Click Over
#2 Poo
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Mustn't forget Poo Lighting, and Reverse Poo Lighting.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Wow! What a topic!
I know agents who like warm rich images and others that like cool crisp images. There are even some who (I’m sure) have images that match their personal branding. I think all types of images can be successful. Let me explain…
If we were talking about the images solely as art, I think that the RE Photographer could limit their style as much as the wanted to. To me, however, I think that the different styles can actually highlight different things in the same room. If a RE Photographer could offer a broad range of styles well, they’d be more in demand.
The real question is what does your client want? To get there you’ve got to ask your client what they are trying to achieve. Are they trying to
1) Evoke emotions?
2) Define individual focal points?
3) Show the expanse of the room(s)?
4) Have a memorable photo on the MLS (or other web site)?
5) Make a great feature sheet or brochure?
6) …
Only when you've got the answers to these types of questions, can you really propose the style that you'd think should be used.
On the other hand, I may be completely wrong.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
You're not completely wrong - that's completely right!
Different clients want different stuff.
Taking it to another paradigm, I also adjust my style to the property I'm shooting.
The client I quoted above specializes in new construction, converted industrial buildings cum high-end urban lofts. Everything in there (staging, too) screams MODERN, URBAN, HIP. So I give them modern, urban, hip images.
Another client of mine does mostly small, quaint, bungalows in North Berkeley California. These are 100 year old gems with Craftsman and Art & Crafts architecture -- low ceilings, big fireplaces with wide mantles, box beam ceilings, narrow hallways.
She gets much richer colors, deeper shadows, and tighter detail shots. Matches the personality of the house.
At least, that's what I aim for -- whether I hit it every time.....dunno.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thought I'd throw my two cents in here regarding the importance of the MLS vs. single property sites. I believe it depends primarily on where in the country you are. West coast agencies seem to be the post progressive when it comes to marketing a property (Seattle and Phoenix come to mind right away). Sure, there are some shining examples in other parts of the country (read: forward-thinking agencies). However in my neck of the woods, northern New England (yes, there are states north of Boston...), we are still a looong way away from having any those agencies. My efforts to educate the agents have had to be remedial to say the least. There is a "photographer" in this area who has been shooting for a few years. His deal is for $99 he'll stay at the property all day if he has to, shoots snapshots with on-camera flash and no tripod and burn the photos onto a disc for the agent on site (no post processing).
I digress.... There are *very* few single-property sites in this area. The MLS is THE place to find a listing. Some agencies do a fair job with their sites, but none will become an example of how to do something well. My wife, who is an agent, is very progressive in her marketing. When she mentions the pros/cons of a flash-based gallery vs. an HTML/CSS gallery to other agents around here she gets the "deer-in-the-headlight" look. Point2? Vertical Response? Craigs List? Forgetaboutit! And the fact that she may invest 10-20% of her commission on marketing raises a lot of eyebrows.
I'm rambling/venting now, but you get the idea. In some parts of the country MLS vs. property sites is a very valid argument. Unfortunately, not everywhere.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Again I am going to concur with Scott ...... I try to shoot the home with a style that is going to suit the home.
M. James
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Feeling that I may have hijacked the post a bit with my previous entry: I feel that the space dictates whether I do strobe or ambient almost as much as the client's wants. Having said that, I never shoot a space completely one way or the other. I usually have a mix of both and find that the reaction I get from the client is always positive. A lot like what Scott and MJ mentioned above.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
As a photog who makes a living shooting things other than RE, let me just add that this exact discussion is had over and over again in my area of business - sports photography, and I don't just mean sports portrait lighting. Should I strobe or flash a basketball or hockey game? How about a night football game?
IMO, artificial lighting in photography is like spice and flavoring in cooking. You add enough to complement the dish (room) you are cooking (photographing) but not so much as to dominate and/or overwhelm the tastebuds (eyes). In lighting an indoor sports arena or gym, the objective is usually to properly light the athletes and their environment without the resulting shots appearing too "flashy". You still want properly exposed uniforms and faces, with saturated colors, and adequate highlight and shadow detail - no different than lighting any other scene, including lighting a room or building. Too much flash and highlights are blown, shots look too hot, and things end up looking way too artificial.
Personally, I almost always strobe indoor sports when I can, and the customers vote with their wallets (they're not sure why), far preferring the strobed shots to those shot ambient. They make better prints and much better enlargements. Used to be, the newspaper guys would all shoot ambient when their only end use was in newsprint, but in the past couple years, as the dailies have seen photo sales as a potential revenue source, I've seen more and more of their photographers at games with on-camera flashes and up. Might be a parallel to MLS use Vs. brochures and other higher-end use.
Posted 52 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Photography for Real Estate /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Photography for Real Estate discussion threads