Size of Home Studio

<p>I'm just wondering what the minimum size is to run a home studio? I have a room in my basement that I just finished that I'm thinking of using as a studio (as I start to develop my skills and gather some equipment). The room is about 10ft x 12ft. It seems kind of small, but I guess you don't really need all that much room right? Do you think that would be enough space to run a typical studio out of the house?</p>

<p>Steve,<br>

There are a few things to consider...</p>

<ol>

<li>Obviously, what type of photography that you'll be doing will be a major factor. If you're shooting product/stock, then that may be enough space. If you are wanting to shoot models, 10x12 is very small. Once you put a light on a stand with some form of modifier, assume that you will require 3' of space. With a key and a fill light, you are coming in 3' on either side for a total of 6' being used for lights. Not much space left there. BUT, you can always mount the lights to the ceiling; you get more floor space back but the trade off is that your lights are fixed in one position.</li>

<li>The other main factor that, I believe, most people overlook is the ceiling height. Yes, you can get a hair light to do a decent job even if you are only able to raise it to 7' or so. But, having a higher ceiling will give you a lot more options.</li>

<li>Make sure your electrical can handle it - you may need to run some new lines.</li>

<li>Don't forget that other props can encroach on the space (chairs, love seats, fans, etc.)</li>

</ol>

<p>So, 10x12 is doable but I think you will quickly find it limiting if you are wanting to shoot people.<br>

If you want to do fine art/stills, that is plenty of space to set up a beautiful studio space.<br>

Cheers</p>

<p>As a relative beginner in studio lighting, I can tell you I was amazed by how much space is needed for a photograph. In general, you tend to have much more room AROUND the space you actually frame, than the "photographed space" itself...</p>

<p>I would say that 12x10 is maybe usable for head&shoulders portraiture... But consider you might want to use a medium-tele for more natural rendering. That needs some space between camera and subject...</p>

<p>So I agree with the previous poster: don't expect it to work for portraiture. Still life is feasible, I guess, but I'm not into that, so I'm leaving that to more knowledgeable answers.</p>

<p>:-)</p>

<p>My studio is 10 X 14 and I can barely do small product/still life work in it. My ceiling is 8-1/2ft and it's almost too low for table top.</p>

<p>Remember that modifiers take up a lot of room, and you need room between the subject and the lights, and you need room between the subject and the background. It all adds up.</p>

<p><Chas></p>

<p>Since I don't disagree with Rob, Marco and Charles, I'll play the role of contrarian just for the sake of suggesting alternatives.</p>

<p>Even portraiture can be done in a very small space. Consider the photo booths that have been available for decades - hardly larger than a phone booth. Some of the recent variations of the digital era are fairly sophisticated, with very even, flattering illumination.</p>

<p>However you'll need to adapt your approach to suit the space. This can be useful if it prompts you to explore and develop your own unique technique as a result of this adaptation. I'd suggest just using what you have available now and see what develops. It will be the equivalent to using a single prime focal length, or a square format aspect ratio, for everything. Yes, it's confining. No, it's not a good idea for diversity in photography. But it's a good exercise.</p>

<p >Moving aside of the technical requirements of dimensions: If Portraiture is part of the endeavour, then the physical dimensions of the space is more than a just technical prerequisite to accommodate equipment and allow acceptable shooting distances, etc. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The environs need to be "large enough" for the Subject(s) to be sat / posed and still allow for the Photographer to work i.e. <strong ><em >comfortable and conducive</em></strong>.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Negating ceiling height / equipment requirements etc: a 12 x 10 set is relatively tight for a two person portrait session, but doable, IMO, but you might forget shooting the basketball team Photos however. . .</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>THanks for the input guys...looks like I'll be looking at using a different room of the house! You've confirmed my suspiscions so thank you!<br>

<br /></p>

<p>Steve, if full length portraiture is your intent, to get a handle on the size requirements, take the lenses you want to use and pace back from a wall til you can get about 6-7 feet of the wall in view in vertical format. That would be a minimum for camera to subject distance. Then add at least 6 feet to the background to provide the control of that plane. You will find zooms marked at 85, 105 and 135, frequently used for portraits to get a good perspective. You might consider shooting from the hall through the door to give you a few more feet. It may limit your light placement Or a pair of connected rooms, like dining room to living room may give you more length and a vaulted ceiling may give you more height for light placement. You might consider headshots to start. Good starting place to learn highlight shadow placement on the human head and posing head and shoulders before throwing in posing the body. How about the garage? It's probably at least 18 feet that would give you 6 from bkgd plus 12 feet working distance. Would be fine for head and shoulders or 3/4 shots. I know shooting inside is convenient not having to haul gear, but I'll bet if you look around your area, there are some fabulous backgrounds outdoors. Take a look at outdoor locations used by wedding photogs. My subject had 2 brides wanting to pose with him at this location. I'm sure the new grooms will cherish those photos.</p><div></div>