HDR for Interior Architectural Photography

[john_t]

Hi all,

I have been taking interior photographs of houses using HDR and I wanted to run my methodology by you all, since I often get mixed results. After using a Nikon D40 for years, I have recently invested in a Nikon D7100 and I am using a 10-20 mm Sigma lens.

Here is what I do for a typical indoor HDR shot:
-Turn all lights on (I don't have lights or strobes)
-Set up camera on tripod
-Use Aperture priority mode at F8, set up auto bracketing to 5 shots (+/- 1 step increment)
-Take the photo with self-timer, which automatically takes the 5 autobracketed shots
-Use Photomatix Pro to merge the shots, but I get lost in the various preset options. Anyone have a recommendation or settings file for indoor arch. photos?

I am also not sure if F8 is the right value. Should I be setting ISO to a fixed setting, like 100? I also noticed that parts of the scenes in some photos are not in focus. I wonder if this is due to the autofocus points set in the camera or the aperture.

Anyways, any input, help, or personal experiences would help. Thanks.

 

[Ido]

Or the short version:

 

[Designer]

Why f8?

Why not f22 or even f32?

That way most of your room would have at least a chance of being somewhat sharp.

And it's not the ISO that I'd worry about, when you haven't mentioned the white balance.

 

[Lucryster]

Id use a different program for the HDR merging. Most of my photography is HDR, and I have to say that Photomatix creates the most unrealistic shots. For realistic Id recommend the program HDR expose.

 

[vvcarpio]

Hi, John.

I, too, do HDR for an architectural firm. I (or the architects that hire me) also turn on all the lights. We don't bring or use artificial light sources. Without having to haul lighting equipment from room to room, the architects tell me what used to take at least an hour just to set up each room now takes, well, no time at all. I just plop my tripod and start shooting. So it's big savings for them in terms of time and money. What used to be a whole day of shooting is turned into 2-3 hours. In addition, room lighting in the finished product is just how the architects envisioned it.

I shoot at f/22 for overall sharpness. It would probably solve your out-of-focus problems. I do remember reading, however, that lenses have sweet spots, and that for my ultrawide I think it was f/8. I think, however, that the "sweet spot" advantage is minimal, if at all, especially with the HDR workflow which is heavy on the post-processing side.

One thing I like about shooting at f/22 is that light sources gain that star-like effect -- ceiling and track lighting become starbursts. But shooting open windows at noon at f/22 is, um, disastrous. Because instead of a pinpoint source of light like a lightbulb, you have a big rectangular window trying to generate the star-like effect so fat rays shoot out causing the window to look foggy.

So I guess both f/22 and f/8 (or in-between) have their uses -- just be aware of the pros and cons of each.

My Sony A77 goes as low as ISO 50. But I rarely use it because it takes forever (OK -- a minute or so) to shoot my overexposed images in the bracket. So I use ISO 64, 80, or 100. I don't go higher because I want minimal grain.

As Lucryster above mentioned, I don't use Photomatix. It creates the most eye-popping effect (hence its popularity) but I find it not realistic especially for architectural work. (I own Photomatix, too, because it has its strengths, and have played around with its settings to remove its "smoky" quality, but so far have been unsuccessful.) I use Dynamic Photo HDR.

Here's an example of my work:

 

[vvcarpio]

I just noticed your question about autofocus -- I think you should turn it off. HDR mantra (or at least from what I've read) means turning off all auto functions on the camera. AWB, autofocus, steady-shot (or anti-handheld-camera-shake), etc. Because there's the possibility that the camera might meter differently across the shots within the bracket. In my case, before I shoot my bracket, I turn autofocus on, depress my shutter release button halfway to allow the camera to focus on the center of the image, then turn off autofocus when I begin shooting.

But since you're using self-timed, auto-bracketed shots, hopefully the camera will meter just once.

 

[Lucryster]

Nah alls you need to do for hdr is keep it in aperture priority and dont change iso between shots.

 

[KmH]

You might want to look through the HDR Discussions forum down in the DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY section of the forums.

 

[john_t]

Thanks, everyone - this is very helpful. I had picked out f8, just because it was mentioned on the web as a good starting point for indoor shots. Good point on white balance, which I leave on photo and then post-process hue.

Vvcarpio - very nice work and thank you for the feedback. I thought you photoshopped in the exterior view, but I realized from the reflection that it's the actual view.

 

[Designer]

Thanks, everyone - this is very helpful. I had picked out f8, just because it was mentioned on the web as a good starting point for indoor shots. Good point on white balance, which I leave on photo and then post-process hue.

You probably meant to write "auto".

Since it is easy to calculate the DOF it seems odd that you would just select some arbitrary aperture based on somebody else's experience.

 

[vvcarpio]

Hi, Designer. Regarding taking somebody else's experience, that would actually make sense wouldn't it? In time one comes up with one's own but for now maybe not "reinvent the wheel" as some would say would be the way to go.

Hi, again, John. Thank you. I actually did two HDRs for my sample image (and some of my other renders, too) -- one for the interior and one for the exterior. Both HDRs are from the same bracket of shots. For the exterior view, I used mostly the darker (underexposed) shots. While for the interior, I used the whole gamut from bright to dark. So in a way you're right -- I photoshopped one HDR image into another.

Also, my walls, door, and ceiling -- and other flat, textureless surfaces for that matter -- aren't HDR. I lifted them off one of my shots in my bracket. I find that HDR software no matter the brand tends to dirty up flat, textureless surfaces I suppose by trying to bring detail where there is none resulting into something like white walls smeared with charcoal. So my HDR images aren't pure HDR but rather a combination of HDR and LDR.

 

[Designer]

No.

 

[407370]

Have a look at this THREAD.

Lots of versions of the same shot.

Post up some of your results or a set of pics to be worked on and we can have a proper look.

 

[vvcarpio]

Thank you, 407370. I will have a look at the thread.

I'll post when I have something particular to solve and hopefully someone can help. I often do.

 

[Designer]

[QUOTE="vvcarpio]Hi, Designer. Regarding taking somebody else's experience, that would actually make sense wouldn't it? In time one comes up with one's own but for now maybe not "reinvent the wheel" as some would say would be the way to go.[/QUOTE]

Here is what is wrong with your "reasoning":

The concept of depth of field has been known for as long as photography has been, so it is hardly "reinventing the wheel".

Your approach, namely; taking a stab in the dark along with trial-and-error is much more like "reinventing the wheel".

Regarding the photographer who suggested f8, was he shooting the same depth of subject, with the same focal length, at the same distance? How were his photographs? Was everything in focus?

I wish you good luck with your quest.