Dean Collins photographed a Hyatt hotel with a 4x5 Sinar P2 averaging 12 rooms per day.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...F6B74DB529E262
Low quality video but his words resonate. Good stuff.
Dean Collins photographed a Hyatt hotel with a 4x5 Sinar P2 averaging 12 rooms per day.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...F6B74DB529E262
Low quality video but his words resonate. Good stuff.
"Sex is like maths, add the bed, subtract the clothes, divide the whoo hoo and hope you don't multiply." - Leather jacket guy
I have shot some interiors with 4x5 using corrective filters for each type of light bulb. Correcting for incandescent and fluorescent bulb color temperature. I have a daylight balanced light I use to even out the interior lighting. I used daylight film. I knew a professional photographer that would shoot the interior as I do, at night and wait for morning to shoot the daylight portion coming through the windows.
Did you ever see "All The President's Men"? If so you would see that the WaPo news room was properly lit and properly color balanced even though there were movie lights, overhead fluorescent lighting and daylight lighting through the windows.
To accomplished this they used Rosco light balancing gels on the windows and Rosco light balancing gel tubes to slide over the fluorescent tubes in the ceiling lights. ND Rosco gels were also used on the windows to balance the daylight exposures to the room light.
No Photoshop required.
That's a great example Bob. I noticed that too the very first time I saw it and subsequently viewings too. When I saw it I also thought about the budget necessary to do that lighting right. A budget I had never seen for an interior shoot.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
But the OP didn't indicate what his budget is and his lenses are not inexpensive. Plus, if you are careful, the gels would be reusable.
And, time is money, both for the shooter and the client. So this may be the most economical way and the fastest way to get to the desired result. As long as the subject isn't the inside of The Pantheon.
This is an example where digital is vastly superior.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
The OP doesn't seem to know much, as he is looking to do light-painting. Not a technique that I would recommend, especially to start with. The big deal is how you would proof your lighting set up on location and make it repeatable. With film it would require polaroid to do it right. Learning how to light interiors isn't going to happen without a lot of trial and error - especially with film when you have to go back to reshoot once you see your mistakes day(s) later.
+1 to both Kirk and Luis-F-S. The OP should look up Norman McGrath's "Photographing Buildings Inside and Out" to find out how it was done in the film days.
Hi Bob.
I am an architect and looking to take photos of my projects myself. So budget is pretty low considering that I would be paying for it myself. I would call for a few hands but that would mean pulling my own staff to the site to help me out :-) it was really a question on whether or not it was still cost effective to try to do this on film or just go on (for this type of work) with digital.
Bookmarks