Architectural Photography Advice
Discussion
Hi Guys,
I'm an Architect and a (very) amateur photographer.
My main photographic interest is landscape.
As an Architect I've found I'm a lousy architectural photographer, I think because I 'see' Architecture as an Architect and not a photographer - if that makes sense....
Anyhoo, I'm in need of some photos of some of my projects, I've had a go before, with limited success, and hence I'm after some advice....
I'ts quite subtle, and it's taken me a while to spot this, but if you look and any book/magazine of architectural shots, especially interiors - all the verticals are, well - vertical.
This is obviously not how a normal lens presents, indeed with a wide lens to capture an interior the verticals converge increasingly.
How is this effect achieved? Is it a particular type of lens, or is it post-processing?
All help greatly appreciated !
First one is mine (converging verticals)
Second one is professional (vertical)
![](http://thumbsnap.com/sc/AhKh7wxH.jpg[/img]</a> <a href="http://thumbsnap.com/KhZQoli7" Target="_blank">[img]http://thumbsnap.com/sc/KhZQoli7.jpg[/img]</a> <a href="http://thumbsnap.com/KhZQoli7" Target="_blank">[img]http://thumbsnap.com/sc/KhZQoli7.jpg)
I'm an Architect and a (very) amateur photographer.
My main photographic interest is landscape.
As an Architect I've found I'm a lousy architectural photographer, I think because I 'see' Architecture as an Architect and not a photographer - if that makes sense....
Anyhoo, I'm in need of some photos of some of my projects, I've had a go before, with limited success, and hence I'm after some advice....
I'ts quite subtle, and it's taken me a while to spot this, but if you look and any book/magazine of architectural shots, especially interiors - all the verticals are, well - vertical.
This is obviously not how a normal lens presents, indeed with a wide lens to capture an interior the verticals converge increasingly.
How is this effect achieved? Is it a particular type of lens, or is it post-processing?
All help greatly appreciated !
First one is mine (converging verticals)
Second one is professional (vertical)
Edited by Job38 on Monday 10th January 17:38
Edited by Job38 on Monday 10th January 17:46
Yes, to do it optically/properly at time of photographing is expensive. You also have to think of lighting.
That said, images with barrel or pincushion distortion can be 'hammered flat' in Photoshop using lens correction filters, and I think some lenses even have their own software designed to compensate for their shortcomings.
Be careful because I once saw a very expensive glossy kitchen brochure absolutely wrecked because they had decided to save money and intersperse the professionally-taken photos with snaps taken by the marketing assistant. Soft, noisy, crap lighting, barrel distortion, wrong white-balance; absolutely hideous and unforgiveable at that level!
That said, images with barrel or pincushion distortion can be 'hammered flat' in Photoshop using lens correction filters, and I think some lenses even have their own software designed to compensate for their shortcomings.
Be careful because I once saw a very expensive glossy kitchen brochure absolutely wrecked because they had decided to save money and intersperse the professionally-taken photos with snaps taken by the marketing assistant. Soft, noisy, crap lighting, barrel distortion, wrong white-balance; absolutely hideous and unforgiveable at that level!
The main issue with yours is that you are taking the shot from too high up and pointint the lens down.
This creates the converging verticles. Had you set the lens lower and kept it horizontal you would have avoided the large part of that issue.
As soon as you move the lens from the horizontal you will converge the lines unless you use a shift lens ( mostly tilt shift lenses).
The other issue is that every lens has some distortion. Primes usualy a lot less than zooms, so this kinda stuff is usualy shot with primes. You can correct this in post processing and a lot of stuff ( adobes raw convertor etc) has profiles to automaticaly fix lens distortion.
As said this stuff is usualy shot with tilt shift lenses on full frame SLR's using say canons 17mm or 24mm TSE lenses.
The photographer in the second shot has also waited for better light and took a correct white balance for the scene and exposed it properly , because the room is white the meetering system will be fooled and under expose it.
Tilt/Shift lenses :
Shift = correct for converging verticles.
Tilt = move the plane of focus.
This creates the converging verticles. Had you set the lens lower and kept it horizontal you would have avoided the large part of that issue.
As soon as you move the lens from the horizontal you will converge the lines unless you use a shift lens ( mostly tilt shift lenses).
The other issue is that every lens has some distortion. Primes usualy a lot less than zooms, so this kinda stuff is usualy shot with primes. You can correct this in post processing and a lot of stuff ( adobes raw convertor etc) has profiles to automaticaly fix lens distortion.
As said this stuff is usualy shot with tilt shift lenses on full frame SLR's using say canons 17mm or 24mm TSE lenses.
The photographer in the second shot has also waited for better light and took a correct white balance for the scene and exposed it properly , because the room is white the meetering system will be fooled and under expose it.
Tilt/Shift lenses :
Shift = correct for converging verticles.
Tilt = move the plane of focus.
Edited by RobDickinson on Monday 10th January 19:26
Interior architectural photography is a very complex and difficult disipline; yes you've spotted that usually it looks best to have verticals, vertical but there's SO much more to it than that.
Some months ago on PistonHeads, somebody in marketing asked for advice on how to develop a Listed building - your advice to them was; "get a good architect!"
You need more than a good photographer to deal with all aspects of the job,
you need a specialist in the field (and they are probably hopeless at photographing weddings
).
Some months ago on PistonHeads, somebody in marketing asked for advice on how to develop a Listed building - your advice to them was; "get a good architect!"
You need more than a good photographer to deal with all aspects of the job,
you need a specialist in the field (and they are probably hopeless at photographing weddings
).Pah - you youngsters and all your talk of shift lenses. When I were a lad, we had shift cameras. 
Still do, in fact - I was using the one on the right earlier today.
To keep verticals vertical on any camera, just keep the film / sensor plane vertical. This may mean you can't get the viewpoint you'd like, and that's where shift is necessary.
As for the creative side of it, that's going to be harder to learn. At the moment you're seeing the building, but you need to be looking at the light.
Still do, in fact - I was using the one on the right earlier today.
To keep verticals vertical on any camera, just keep the film / sensor plane vertical. This may mean you can't get the viewpoint you'd like, and that's where shift is necessary.
As for the creative side of it, that's going to be harder to learn. At the moment you're seeing the building, but you need to be looking at the light.
Edited by S. Gonzales Esq. on Monday 10th January 21:35
dibbly dobbler said:
Simpo Two said:
You'd be better off hiring me to do it for you!
EFA 
Medium format with quaint bellows that resemble a U-Boat periscope is the proper way to do it, as per Mr Gonzales, but at big cost.
Elderly said:
Some months ago on PistonHeads, somebody in marketing asked for advice on how to develop a Listed building - your advice to them was; "get a good architect!"
Top searching!Elderly said:
You need more than a good photographer to deal with all aspects of the job,
you need a specialist in the field (and they are probably hopeless at photographing weddings).
They would run a mile you need a specialist in the field (and they are probably hopeless at photographing weddings
).Edited by Simpo Two on Monday 10th January 22:50
S. Gonzales Esq. said:
S. Gonzales Esq. said:
Pah - you youngsters and all your talk of shift lenses. When I were a lad, we had shift cameras.
Still do, in fact - I was using the one on the right earlier today.
I assume you're not still using film, so what back are you using on the P2? Sliding back with GG or Live video? And what flavour Digitar/Digital lens/shutter?Still do, in fact - I was using the one on the right earlier today.
Sorry, gone off topic...
Bacardi said:
...gone overboard on storage...
Can you ever have enough storage in the studio? I always enjoy surprising clients with the obscure contents of my cupboards...The P2, F2 and Hasselblad are all used with a Phase One P20. I use a sliding / stitching back, but the P2 rail clamp can't cope with all the weight in portrait format - hence the much lighter F2.
It's now getting on a bit but the P20 back does pretty much everything I need and works really well with my old lenses. I've only ever needed to produce a larger file once, and hiring a P45+ just made my Mac feel slow and my lenses look soft - I'd still like a P25+ though.
If you are just doing this for fun, you can cure a lot of the converging verticals in Photoshop using either the lens correction or the distort tools. I often flick on the grid view as well to help. The lens correction tool in PS4 is under the commands "filter" then "distort" then lens correctino and you'll see the slider for moving the vertical plane. i think to get to the distort tool itself in PS4 you would do "Select" "All" and then "Image" "Transform" and it's one of the options under there, am sure it is called something different, I think it's "Skew". Then click and drag on the top corners of the image to straighten up the converging verticals
If this for a brochure then I echo the comments above to get a professional in and they will either have the tilt/shift lens or the more flexible view camera (as per Mr Gonzalez) or they have the PS skills already plus you get their knowledge of lighting and composition.
Chris
If this for a brochure then I echo the comments above to get a professional in and they will either have the tilt/shift lens or the more flexible view camera (as per Mr Gonzalez) or they have the PS skills already plus you get their knowledge of lighting and composition.
Chris
S. Gonzales Esq. said:
Bacardi said:
...gone overboard on storage...
Can you ever have enough storage in the studio?.S. Gonzales Esq. said:
The P2, F2 and Hasselblad are all used with a Phase One P20. I use a sliding / stitching back, but the P2 rail clamp can't cope with all the weight in portrait format - hence the much lighter F2.
It's now getting on a bit but the P20 back does pretty much everything I need and works really well with my old lenses. I've only ever needed to produce a larger file once, and hiring a P45+ just made my Mac feel slow and my lenses look soft - I'd still like a P25+ though.
Interesting about the P2 not handling the weight. I tried a P1 sliding adaptor on my F2 back in Lightphase days, but found chip area to small and my Sinarons to long and soft. Since then I've moved up to P25 and have acquired a P3, currently sitting in a cupboard. I want to get it into action as I miss swings and tilts on front and back but have decided the route for me is live video. I just can't get on with GGS with that small area and find it virtually impossible to see anything once swings and tilts have been applied. It's now getting on a bit but the P20 back does pretty much everything I need and works really well with my old lenses. I've only ever needed to produce a larger file once, and hiring a P45+ just made my Mac feel slow and my lenses look soft - I'd still like a P25+ though.
The sticking point for me is even to upgrade to the 25+, cost is difficult to stomach, just for the same res but with a tad more DR, live video and 1 hour exp (like I use that that all the time). So, for psychological reasons as much as anything (as you know, in the real world, gazillion mps are superfluous), I'd rather pay more and have more, so maybe a 45+ or a Aptus II 7. The upgrade prices seem screwy to me though, so I may keep P25 and for not much more just buy a refurb.
Not sure about a 45+ on my 500 blads with CFs. They are all razor sharp with the 25, even the 120 macro at 22. Although I've read I can expect to lose a stop, but then again, I mostly shoot wider. For the P3, plan to get a Rodenstock or Schneider Apo macro digital, ideally with a Rollei shutter (I believe you can still get them), but for cost will most probably just go old school compur.
Bacardi said:
For the P3, plan to get a Rodenstock or Schneider Apo macro digital, ideally with a Rollei shutter (I believe you can still get them), but for cost will most probably just go old school compur.
This could be your lucky day - I have this in stock:Schneider lens, old school Compur shutter, bellows... stick a digital back on it and off you go!
Edited by Simpo Two on Thursday 13th January 16:38
Simpo Two said:
This could be your lucky day - I have this in stock:
Schneider lens, old school Compur shutter, bellows... stick a digital back on it and off you go!
Lacking somewhat in movements front and back and those 135s never had much of an image circle on 4x5 so not much room for movements anyway. Should be fine with a small back chip though, but alas, it's not an apo macro, more like Unigate, with a modern sensor. Still, I'll give you £25 for the lot Schneider lens, old school Compur shutter, bellows... stick a digital back on it and off you go!
.Slightly back in topic .....
This link may be of interest - covers a Canon tilt and shift lens and its use for both internal and external architectural shots. It's a few years old now and the auther has other more recent articles and this sort of subject but I think this one covers more ground from an 'architectural interiors' point of view.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/t...
This link may be of interest - covers a Canon tilt and shift lens and its use for both internal and external architectural shots. It's a few years old now and the auther has other more recent articles and this sort of subject but I think this one covers more ground from an 'architectural interiors' point of view.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/t...
Elderly said:
Interior architectural photography is a very complex and difficult disipline; yes you've spotted that usually it looks best to have verticals, vertical but there's SO much more to it than that.
Some months ago on PistonHeads, somebody in marketing asked for advice on how to develop a Listed building - your advice to them was; "get a good architect!"
You need more than a good photographer to deal with all aspects of the job,
you need a specialist in the field (and they are probably hopeless at photographing weddings).
Well that told me I guess - fair point!Some months ago on PistonHeads, somebody in marketing asked for advice on how to develop a Listed building - your advice to them was; "get a good architect!"
You need more than a good photographer to deal with all aspects of the job,
you need a specialist in the field (and they are probably hopeless at photographing weddings
).(The project illustrated is £4M refurbishment and can justify a professional photographer, a smaller project can't).....
Think I'll try some PS correction first then perhaps hire a PC lens - they look a bit complex to use, much practice required?
Thank for the assistance....
I think that your biggest problem is going to be recreating the colours (on all surfaces) that you specified. The ambient light is probably a mixture of wildly different colour temperature sources which may not be totally under your control.
e.g. How are you going to deal with say a mix of daylight (blue) flourescent (green) and tungsten (red) sources?
e.g. How are you going to deal with say a mix of daylight (blue) flourescent (green) and tungsten (red) sources?
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff