Kitchen Photography

<p>Hello!<br>

I work for a kitchen and bath company and it has become part of my job to take all of our final photos.<br>

This job has actually come to interest me and I want to get better at it.</p>

<p>I use a Canon t4i rebel with a Sigma 10-20mm, but my images aren't hitting that beautiful clarity and depth I am looking for.<br>

I shoot on a tripod at ISO100 and f8. I do HDR blending and have made drastic improvements over the past few months.<br>

Now, I am looking to take the next step. I have heard of some people using telephoto lenses to flatten the area a little more? Any help would be great. Even product recommendations for a hobbyist would truly be welcomed.</p>

<p>Thank you in advance!</p>

<p>Nick</p>

<p>Welcome to Photo.net.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"my images aren't hitting that <em><strong>beautiful clarity</strong></em> and <strong><em>depth</em> </strong>I am looking for."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably, it will be the LIGHTING, that primarily needs addressing.</p>

<p>Post a couple of sample images, with your specific critique attached.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>I have no first hand experience with kitchen/bath photography but when looking for LR/Enfuse I came across this: <a href="http://photographyforrealestate.net/2013/09/22/why-bother-with-photomatix-or-lrenfuse-for-real-estate-interior-photos/">http://photographyforrealestate.net/2013/09/22/why-bother-with-photomatix-or-lrenfuse-for-real-estate-interior-photos/</a> site. I still have to read all this myself but perhaps that site gives you a good starting point for real estate/interior photography.</p>

I'm not by my laptop right now, but here is my facebook for work.

Www.facebook.com/dreamkitchens

 

I use Lightroom and Enfuse. I take 7 shots for each blend.

 

For certain jobs, I have multiple speed lights and radio triggers.

I run into most of my problems when photographing lots of light wood.

<p>What you're talking about shooting is architectural photography, which can be a pretty advanced specialty when you're after "beautiful clarity and depth." HDR and Lightroom can help but as with most photography, it's largely about the lighting. At the very least, find a book or two on interior architectural photography and plan to invest in at least a couple of lights.<br /><br />It sounds like you're doing pictures to document the completion of a job rather than photos to be used for advertising. If that's the case, learning a few basics is probably enough to make the difference between a picture that looks like it was taken by a contractor with a camera (no offense) and one taken by a photographer. But if you get good at it, it sounds like you've got a good connection in the industry to find yourself some clients down the road.</p>

<p>Your pics are fairly good right now. Improved lighting will help, but right now I think you might benefit from a little better post-processing. On your Facebook page they look a little flat and dark. Of course everyone's monitors are different, so they will never look perfect to everyone. Do you have a calibrated monitor? My monitor hasn't been calibrated in awhile but I tried to adjust one with light wood to demonstrate my position. Mine may be a little too light and contrasty when side-by-side with yours.</p>

<p>http://ipaforme.com/ArchiPhotos.jpg</p>

<p>Peter</p>

 

<p>I agree that you need to give a specific image and what it is you want to improve upon. As with others, I think the largest improvement will be the lighting. But I am wondering if you are running into a negative cost vs benefit. Meaning, the images look solid right now. Not that there isn't room for improvement, but that improvement will come at quite a cost (so far as I can see). For an insight into lighting, read the book Light: the Science and Magic. You will learn a great deal about lighting, surfaces, reflections and so on.</p>

<p>I have bought books and read them. I also trained with a real estate photographer and have 4 speedlights on triggers, umbrellas and all of that stuff.<br /><br />It's my family's company and pictures are very important to us. I spend a lot of time on Houzz.com which is like pinterest for home remodeling and see such beautiful pictures.<br>

I had to do a quick shoot at a natural cherry kitchen before my normal appointments. I have included a picture and how it looks after my post processing.<br /><br />If you have any ideas on what I may be doing wrong, please let me know!<br>

Also, I haven't read any lens recommendations for doing better architectural photography and I would love to hear them if you guys have any. <br /><br />I truly do appreciate all of your advice!</p>

<p>https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B0vTNxDSJHfHSUxXQ1labWc0Zmc&usp=sharing</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“I had to do a quick shoot at a natural cherry kitchen before my normal appointments."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> <strong>"QUICK SHOOT" ≠ CONSISTENT HIGH QUALITY OUTCOMES</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>“I have included a picture and how it looks after my post processing.<br /> If you have any ideas on what I may be doing wrong, please let me know!”</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> <strong>Specific to the sample images of the "Natural Cherry Kitchen":</strong><br /> I expect that one of the elements (if not the main element) that you want to present in that image is the “natural cheery” colour of the timber finish?<br /> I don’t know what exactly that colour of the timber is, because really, the only references in the shot are the ceiling (I assume white) and the window frame (again I assume that is white also). <br /> If my assumption that you want to display the cherry tones of the timber is correct, then the majority of the COLOUR BALANCE issues which present in your image will be managed by correct lighting techniques to address the OVERALL COLOUR BALANCE (COLOUR TEMPERATURE) of the scene. <br /> (Note the variance across the ceiling, there is a red to yellow cast as the eye moves from right to left – not all of this is reflection of colour - much of this hue change I believe is a change in Colour Temperature).<br /> Also another comment, the timber in your finished version, (as seen on my calibrated and in studio monitor) I would describe as “Natural Light Honey” and not “Natural Cherry” – so that makes me think that what I am seeing is NOT the colour of the wood. <br /> <br /> Anyway –<br /> To achieve an even temperature light (or close to it) for that scene, one could Gel the Flash Heads to match the Colour Temperature of the in ceiling lights. Then that still leaves a minor problem with the outside (sunlight), which is coming through the window. – ideally one would gel the window light by a scrim holding a gel and set back from the window out of shot – this lighting set could be cumbersome.<br /> On the other hand to get an even colour temperature, one could buy and install DAYLIGHT bulbs in the ceiling light recesses and gel the FLASH HEADS to DAYLIGHT (maybe just slightly warmer to pick out the wood grain) and leave the natural window (daylight) light stream through the window glass. <br /> One can place a PHOTOGRAPHIC GREY CARD and a set of REFERENCE COLOUR PATCHES in the scene and make a picture with those reference charts in the first frame of each Lighting Set. Doing so should allow a much easier (quicker) Post Production path, especially regarding the ACCURACY of the Colour Balance and the CONTINUITY of the Colour Balance between different Lighting Sets or when making images of the same Subject, in different Lighting Sets. <br /> One could invest in a COLOUR TEMPERATURE METER, but I suspect that would be an over-zealous use of your funds: I hardly use a CT meter at all now. Another good way of interpreting the shot shoot for static scenes is to shoot tethered and/or frame in Live View to a CALIBRATED MONITOR.<br /> One must also remember that - if your final images are being viewed <em>on a computer by the Client</em>, then you really have little control over what colours that client is actually seeing; or for that matter what degree of quality they seeing, also.<br /> However if you are PRINTING brochures to convey as close to the ACTUAL item as possible, then <strong>the quality control of and the consistency of COLOUR BALANCE throughout the process and the initial control of the COLOUR TEMPERATURE at SOURCE are both of an high importance.</strong> <br /> *<br /> Also specific to this image, the exposure is not balanced between the OUTSIDE and the INSIDE. If you used FLASH for this shot, then probably the APERTURE chosen was too larger - OR - the ISO chosen was too HIGH. <br /> Using a smaller aperture or lower ISO (or both) would have allowed you to choose a SHUTTER SPEED within the limits of your MAXIMUM FLASH SYNC SPEED and thus make an AMBIENT EXPOSURE suitable to have a perfect exposure outside, through the window. <br /> I suggest that you research "Dragging the Shutter"<br /><br /> *<br /> My opinion is that improving your Photographic Capture Techniques (as outlined above, but not limited to the above) - rather than you focussing on developing your Post Production Skills - will do much more for advancing a quality result for that particular sample image and situations similar, that you might encounter. I have not looked at your other images. <br /> *</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“Also, I haven't read any lens recommendations for doing better architectural photography”</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Specifically for Digital Single Lens Reflex Cameras:<br /> A selection of (maybe two) Tilt Shift Lenses would arguably give you THE MOST flexible lens kit.<br /> On a 135 format Canon DSLR camera (aka “Full Frame” camera) a Canon TS-E 17 and TS-E 24 would fare well: perhaps adding a TS-E 45 for the ballroom sized indoor spaces or outdoors.<br /> One is talking big money for these nice, niche lenses and I am not sure that investment is required: but you are the only one who can answer that question.<br /> *<br /><br /> Please note that this response exceeds the usual basic detail that one would expect on a "beginners forum" and you should take that as a compliment in so far as your images are of a good quality to begin with. <br /> I advise that you move slowly before you spend money on gear (except for buying and experimenting with gels) and get a good management and knowledge of your existing lighting and your lighting skills and techniques before buying any new lenses.<br /> One element of the learning curve in the genre is a given - you MUST set aside time to progress your technique and your knowledge - so in this regard, if you and your family business are striving for excellence - <strong>you should never, ever do "a quick shoot", again</strong>. <br /> Good luck with your endeavours. <br /><br /> <br /> WW</p>

<p>I really appreciate the time you spent in your response!<br>

We are a multi million dollar company and I run all of the projects, so I don't always get the time to set my lighting up. As for that kitchen, it is about the smallest we go and there was nothing special about it to make me want to spend the time.<br>

Would you recommend lighting the scene over HDR blends?<br>

And would you say constant lights or flashes?<br>

And yes, I do need to try gels. It's something I haven't dabbled in yet, but need to try<br>

Thank you again!</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>"We are a <strong>multi million dollar company</strong> and <strong>I run all of the projects</strong>, so <strong>I don't always get the time to set my lighting up</strong>. <strong>As for that kitchen</strong>, it is about the smallest we go and <strong>there was nothing special about it to make me want to spend the time</strong>."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then that kitchen as a sample image, arguably was not the best example to give up for a detailed critique of your work?<br>

Another option would be to spend on an experienced Photographer (who arguably would be quicker) to do the smaller jobs for you. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"And would you say constant lights or flashes?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would only use Flash Heads: I suggest that you do the same: if you do choose Continuous Lighting, then the low heat output modern lights would be best - you need to source good quality consistent Colour Temperature Lights. </p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>We are a multi million dollar company and I run all of the projects, so I don't always get the time to set my lighting up. As for that kitchen, it is about the smallest we go and there was nothing special about it to make me want to spend the time.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>When looking for help to improve you need to post an image you think is your best work, not one you didn't bother to spend the necessary time over. Otherwise people are wasting time correcting errors you know about/aren't making with your best work. Do you have a shot you can post that you feel shows your best work?</p>

<p>"We are a multi million dollar company and I run all of the projects..."<br /><br />Nick -- I'm supportive of your wanting to improve your photography skills. But at your company would you hand a hammer to a guy who has maybe done some work around his own house and say "go remodel that kitchen. If you don't know how to do it to professional standards, go ask on the internet." I don't think so. Since a picture of your work might very well be the first impression a potential client receives of your company, good photography might come in a very close second to good carpentry. If you are busy running the company and don't have time to focus (no pun intended) on the photography, it might be better to delegate and farm this out to a professional.</p>

<p>We did 120 kitchens and master baths last year alone and there is no way I will hire someone to take pictures for them. We are a small company who is very involved with our customers and even if they are small projects, I go and take pictures because they like to know that their kitchen or bath is beautiful and picture worthy.<br /><br />I did not post on here for you to tell me to hire a professional. I posted on here because I enjoy taking the pictures and was asking any helpful critiques. I also posted in the beginner section because I am learning and if you don't think my post is worthy because I am busy working my job and can't focus on photography, I would appreciate no post at all. Thank you.<br /><br />To everyone else who has been supportive and helpful, thank you for your comments! I have a lot to work on and am excited to try new things.</p>

<p>Hi, looking through a handful of your photos, here's some things I notice. Many of the specular reflections on wood floors or countertops have a bluish tinge. They look like reflections from the outside, which, unless there is direct sunlight, tends to be bluish (it's lit by the blue sky). A lot of your white cabinetry is also getting a bluish cast. I don't like the effect, so I'd suggest try to get these things whiter.</p>

<p>I think all of the points made by William W regarding color are important, so you should pay attention to those.</p>

<p>I also notice that a lot of shiny surfaces (counter tops) have mostly direct lighting, so the glossy effect is lost. If you want something to look shiny, the best way is to let it show reflections. That is, rather than trying to light the shiny object, try to light objects that are REFLECTED in the shiny object.</p>

<p>To get more info on the color issues, read up on "color temperature." The general rules are that incandescent lamps will be in the range of 2800 K, flash units in the range of 5500-6000 K, similar to "daylight" (where the sun is present), and outdoors shade can be in the range of 8000-10000 K or higher. You should try to get your color temperatures closer together, and set the camera's "white balance" close to the predominant light source. It is possible to shift color temperatures around by using so-called "gels," colored filters, over the light.</p>

<p>To learn more about lighting objects, how to make them appear shiny and the like, there is a pretty decent photo book titled "Light Science and Magic," also mentioned by John Deerfield, which I think might be very helpful.</p>

<p>One other thing I notice is that a lot of space in your photos is used up on the ceilings (which often looks bluish-gray, although I suspect they're really white). This (large space) is a side result of your camera height, which I presume is for the purpose of keeping vertical lines straight (which you are doing a good job of). But I think many shots would benefit from a higher camera position; this would better show the counter-top layout as well as reduce the ceiling area in your photos. Unfortunately this means the vertical lines will tilt, as a result of tilting the camera down. This where the expensive "shift lenses" William W mentions would come into play. Alternately you can correct this in a program like Photoshop.</p>

<p>Hope this is somewhat helpful.</p>

<p>I agree with the other comments on lighting and processing, you might also want to check out the interior kitchen lighting setups on POTN and maybe use a better wide lens (Canon 10-22)</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>We are a multi million dollar company and I run all of the projects, so I don't always get the time to set my lighting up.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then you have to accept what you get. I'm not trying to be rude, but what if a client wanted work that would take 2-weeks and told you it had to be done in 2-days?<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p> As for that kitchen, it is about the smallest we go and there was nothing special about it to make me want to spend the time.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The first day of a composition class I asked the students to take a picture of a rose I had brought to class. At the end of the class, I had a student tell me: "you didn't tell me to take an <em>nice</em> picture of the rose". And this person was being serious. And I said that right there is a huge mental roadblock. If you want better images, you have to want to make them better!</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />Would you recommend lighting the scene over HDR blends?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course. HDR isn't even really part of the same conversation. HDR is for capturing scenes with more dynamic range than what the camera can natively record. The color of the light has nothing to do with dynamic range.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />And would you say constant lights or flashes?<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, flashes are the easy answer. But there really aren't any easy answers. The flash is simply a light source. It isn't the source of light that is the issue as much as learning about lighting. Again, I know you said you have read some books but have you read "Light: the Science and Magic". All of these issues are covered.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />And yes, I do need to try gels. It's something I haven't dabbled in yet, but need to try<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And more importantly is understanding <em>why</em> you are trying the gel.</p>

<p>Nick,<br>

<br />Nothing really to add here other that to summarise by saying what you could do for the best effect, lowest cost.</p>

<p>My efforts would first go into buying a better lens and then doing a series of shots with it to find the 'sweet spot' for your application. I would also get hold of a 18%/25% grey card, better still buy a copy of one of Scott Kelby's books that gives you a composite card in the back. My experience is that for interior shots with a mix of lighting, windows, fixed halogen or LED and then flashes, the White Balance is going to be all over the shop and most automatic methods will be wrong 99% of the time. So shoot a sample with the card in and use that to set the white balance.</p>

<p>To make the images really 'POP' then you will have to spend time learning more about post processing. Get the white balance right, then use selective sharpening to make the image come alive. You will get better and faster at this the more you do. As a general rule my preference is to get the WB right processing from the RAW and then sharpen once I have the image I want, but experience will tell you what works best for you.</p>

<p>As to gels, my opinion is that for now they could cause you more grief for little benefit. In film photography there was no option, but digital is a whole other ball game. The last job I used a gel on was to adjust the temperature of the outside light that I was using through the window as the daylight was not bright enough to balance the interior lighting, but quite frankly if you can avoid it then do. My personal thoughts are that a better lens will make a big difference to your images. On balance though, don't beat yourself up too badly, by the time the pictures get compressed and mangled by the web and the viewers horrible monitor and improvements you make could well get lost. The real benefit is in showing images in a controlled environment on a computer that you control. </p>

<p>Best of luck<br>

Jim</p>