Hi there. Shared a specimen image for the following discussion.
I do not feel it appropriate to have the light fittings with burned highlight halo around them. Tried many PP things in my knowledge but am missing it. When i see other professionals images as case study, the light fittings are always without so called burnt halo around them. They are always crisp and light glow is mild. Not talking about light colour cast aspect for this discussion and restricting to highlighted halo part.
I have progressed mainly in digital era. Though read many respected professionals talking about covering the light fittings and other things for each frame. But in todays time and age, I assume that flexibility would not be given.
Requesting fraternity to share and help with their knowledge. Am prepared to try out valued advises on site and at PP table.
Thanks.
Vijay my 2c’s, you should get hold of Mike Kelley’s tutorials on architectural photography for the insight you need
Hi Marius. Sure, will look at.
As possible I will shoot with lights off and on - so I can "add" the lighting as I prefer. if not possibile you should try braketing a lot to the extreme to gain more control (except the sun)
Hi Michele. Thanks for taking time out.
I tried bracketed images and then exposure stack. But so far even if i manage replacing the light fitting by masking through other layer, find it difficult to deal with the halo part on the ceiling surface. Obviously am not right somewhere.
Is there any other way or some tips on doing your suggested way correctly/differently?
Thanks again.
I will suppress the ambient by using a lot of flash lighting in the space.
This is much harder in large spaces as one can rarely light an auditorium or lobby easily in that manner.
In those cases I bracket and brush in the detail with a luminosity layer.
I also use the dehaze brush in Lightroom which helps but is no panacea.
High end results in interior photography are an exercise in careful composition (of course), judicious lighting choices if possible and often long periods at the computer.
"Getting it right in the camera" is always the goal but clients demand the magic only retouching can really give us.
Hi Indy. Thanks for reverting back.
Interesting take aways. will surely try using flash/strobe at site. will need to figure out by trial and error, the changed workflow of images for particular frame.
At PP working with luminosity mask for light fitting is interesting. will try that.
I already spend a lot of time at Mac for the workflow i have chosen so far. sometimes i wonder if am missing the train and not seeing easy obvious. Each focus has brackets, which is stacked. extremely lengthy work.
This may sound idealist but your note (getting it right in camera) is absolutely valid and is the starting point. But dealing with more of miracle demanding clients now a days.
Thanks for sharing.
What I do is use the darker layer in luminosity mode. I mask the layer and brush back detail using a soft brush with low flow (5%). Often the color is wrong so I add a color layer and brush in the desired color from an area that l sample from.
I spend a lot of time thinking about these issues too. The challenge is to get a high quality result with minimal work.
Sometimes there is no short cut. Endless experimentation is useful.
Hi Indy. Will try these aspects as well. Thanks for sharing.
Demanding clients have 3 choices.
Fast.
Cheap.
Or Top Shelf.
Can't have all 3.
Everybody's worked with them.
Sometimes your sanity is worth more than cheap, demanding clients....
Hi T Van. Sure.
When doing your initial walk through/location scout in advance of the shoot,you'd want to note the watts, type, output and configuration of each light source and bring lower output lamps for each fixture that is higher than the desired luminance.
Also ND film, or other light modifiers would be applied to windows and light sources that cannot be easily changed otherwise.
That's how big budget productions control the lighting.
Yes except even in big budget architecture shoots one cannot cover 8000 sq/ft of glass in film. Large spaces are lit with LEDs and proprietary connectors and often there are so many it just isn't going to happen.
If you reduce output of practicals it assumes you are lifting the scene with additional lighting. Many are not doing this at all any more but are bracketing for the details while centering on the main subject/talent. This, again is particularly true with large spaces.
Homes are easier where bulbs can be changed and windows gelled but generally not done because of time and budgetary constraints.
I've done it in large commercial spaces. Where bulbs can't be easily changed ND film and if necessary gels can be applied. Even when doing all the practical changes of bulbs and film, a certain amount of bracketing is still going to be necessary. Where there is so much glass we don't correct that, we correct the indoor color temperature and increase the lighting required to match the outside lumens and color temp. I've wrapped almost 3500 ft of glass once, but only because it was on the ground floor.
Time of day is critical when there is that much exposure from the outside.
And then there are budgets. :)
This group's header photo makes me cringe with the mixed color temps...
Indeed. Even budget RE shots generally do better.
Doing practical lighting changes is way faster than doing it exclusively in post and the results are better.
Hi Indy. Learning about Matching light with outdoor as another purist way. Thanks.
Hi T Van.
LOCATION SCOUT: Am usually metticulous and organized in my approaches. But many a times get overwhelmed and lost during recconissance. Good take away of including lighting survey and go prepared for the same. Though addressing each light be a matter of balance and choice for the nature of work and payments.
ABOUT CHANGING LIGHT SOURCE: So far, my photo-shoots were fast paced. Good to know that even this too is attempted. However, will need to analize about its practicality in given time. But thanks.
COVERING GLASS: I had read about it earlier as well.
MATHING LIGHT WITH OUTDOOR: Learning about another purist way.
Thanks.