Does this sound like a good plan? - With sample pics

[Parker219]

Ballistics - ok, thats for $479. Lets say I wanted to go a step up, up to $1,000. Then what?

 

[Ballistics]

Not necessarily flash, could be a very well lit house with very reflective items. If he is using flash, the placement doesn't make sense anywhere and it's so faint that it's not doing much.

 

[Ballistics]

Ballistics - ok, thats for $479. Lets say I wanted to go a step up, up to $1,000. Then what?

For the lens? The best made UWA lens on the market is said to be the Tokina 11-16mm. I've never shot with an UWA, so I can't say if there is a dramatic difference between 10 and 11mm.
That's around $500. I don't think there are any lenses, for $1000 for DX that you would benefit from.

 

[Parker219]

To you guys, his photos look fair to poor it sounds like, but they are way better than mine, thats for sure. My p510 is NOT good at controlling highlights, and the dynamic range seems crappy.

Here is the link to 11 that I took. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2b2g5txlrh5g5ft/55Yp_H2yZ9

This will give you an idea of all natural lights, since I didnt use any flash. Most are SOOC, so I'm sure they will look pretty bad, the last 2 have been processed by me.

 

[Ballistics]

To you guys, his photos look fair to poor it sounds like, but they are way better than mine, thats for sure. My p510 is NOT good at controlling highlights, and the dynamic range seems crappy.

Here is the link to 11 that I took. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2b2g5txlrh5g5ft/55Yp_H2yZ9

This will give you an idea of all natural lights, since I didnt use any flash. Most are SOOC, so I'm sure they will look pretty bad, the last 2 have been processed by me.

Pgriz is dead on, he's using OCF. Could it be that he's moving 1 OCF around and bracketing the shots?

 

[Parker219]

Manaheim on your www.impeng.com, if you click on Gallaries, then Real estate, on the photo on the bottom row, 3rd one over, do you remember from start to finish everything you did to make that image? It looks really comforting and both the inside and outside are seen nicely.

 

[pgriz]

They are actually not bad - but you need to look carefully at the reflections, and tone some of them down with a CPL filter, or careful light/angle placement. You also need to see the shadow spots that the house lights cast - some fill from a gelled flash will be good to reduce (but not eliminate) those shadows. The photographer I referenced earlier, told us that sometimes he could use the warm light of the setting sun to give a more pleasing colour match with the interior lights. Our eyes see the lights in the photos and assume the light is coming from them, but the shadows (and their colour) will tell us whether that is true or not.

 

[Ballistics]

Could it be that he's moving 1 OCF around and bracketing the shots?

 

[Parker219]

Cool, just looked up CPL filter on amazon and saw some sample shots. Definetly going to add that to the list. There is one for $15 dollars and one for $139 dollars....?

 

[pgriz]

Could it be that he's moving 1 OCF around and bracketing the shots?

He could be bracketing, but moving one OCF is kinda inefficient. If you look at interior shots in mags such as Architectural Digest, you'll note that there is very careful light placement, so that it never shows up in a mirror, or the glass in picture frames. However, semi-reflective or glazed object will often reveal the location of the OCF, assuming the highlights are not photoshopped out. Also things such as polished wood (floors, counters, furniture) all have reflections that need to be controlled.

 

[pgriz]

Cool, just looked up CPL filter on amazon and saw some sample shots. Definetly going to add that to the list. There is one for $15 dollars and one for $139 dollars....?

They may be for different filter sizes - but note that with an ultra-wide lense you'll need a thin-mount filter to avoid significant vignetting. Also, buy the most expensive filter you can afford - because another piece of glass will make glare, reflections, and so forth worse unless it's really good quality.

The ultra-wide lenses will take a large filter size, 77mm and up and these are not cheap.

 

[Ballistics]

Could it be that he's moving 1 OCF around and bracketing the shots?

He could be bracketing, but moving one OCF is kinda inefficient. If you look at interior shots in mags such as Architectural Digest, you'll note that there is very careful light placement, so that it never shows up in a mirror, or the glass in picture frames. However, semi-reflective or glazed object will often reveal the location of the OCF, assuming the highlights are not photoshopped out. Also things such as polished wood (floors, counters, furniture) all have reflections that need to be controlled.

It just looks all over the place. And the shadows in some look like they are coming from the cameras direction. That and he's using HDR. I don't know.

 

[pgriz]

Could it be that he's moving 1 OCF around and bracketing the shots?

He could be bracketing, but moving one OCF is kinda inefficient. If you look at interior shots in mags such as Architectural Digest, you'll note that there is very careful light placement, so that it never shows up in a mirror, or the glass in picture frames. However, semi-reflective or glazed object will often reveal the location of the OCF, assuming the highlights are not photoshopped out. Also things such as polished wood (floors, counters, furniture) all have reflections that need to be controlled.

It just looks all over the place. And the shadows in some look like they are coming from the cameras direction. That and he's using HDR. I don't know.

The things I am noticing are inconsistent shadows, inconsistent colour temperature from area to area, reflections that give away his light presence, and moving fan blades. If you look up the Architectural Digest photos (like here: Inspiring Bathroom Renovations and Designs : Architectural Digest), the colour temperature is consistent, the shadows are consistent with the implied main source(s), the fill is unobstrusive, and the reflections are very well controlled. The distortions caused by the wide-angle lens, are well-managed, and are not obvious. That is the gold-standard for architectureal photography. Studying their images, and trying to reverse-engineer the light setup is very instructive.

 

[Designer]

^ link now working, and I dont know what PC means.

Oh, sorry, I linked to the Nikon site with all the yummy lenses.

"PC" stands for "perspective control". To adjust for converging parallels.

 

[Designer]

So d7100 with what ONE wide angle fx lens? I will worry about the rest later.

Wide angle and good for general use too.

This is the one I'd get: AF-S DX NIKKOR 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED