Shooting Restaurant Interiors

I've been asked by a local architect to photograph a restaurant

interior that she designed. The photos are for her portfolio

primarily, as well as for the client and her company. I've searched

here online quite a bit, and found some good information, and

corresponded with some that have tackled this.

 

I thought I'd bring up the topic here again, since much of what is

here is a few years back, and wanted to have a more interactive

discussion. I'm basically an amateur photographer, but this

architect is aware and familiar with what I've done before.

 

I plan to use my Canon 10D, and I'm planning to purchase the 17-40mm

zoom to use here. I would also plan on using natural light as much

as possible, I think that the long exposures with the 10D provide a

nice natural look. Besides, a ton of lights is beyond my means.

 

Is the 17 wide enough for interiors of this sort? Also, I've shot

some practice shots in a home, and one concern is where one light is

very bright relative to others, any tips for balancing light output

so that the exposure remains within the latitude of the camera?

 

I'm also thinking it might be nice to include some people, at least

for some pics. I think that the blurred motion during a long

exposure would bring some life to the pictures, while the blur keeps

focus on the interior.

 

Much thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Depending on the angles you choose and the size of the restaurant a 17mm (effective 27mm on the 10D) can possibly be too tight. Nevertheless I wouldn't invest on a super wide angle just for that assignment; live with the limitation and just change your perspective if the need arise. If you really need to shoot super wide for this time only it would make more sense to shoot film instead.

 

As for exposure you haven't much choice if you don't use additional lighting. Do some tests and bracket exposure to be sure. The best thing would be to use soft light (wait for the best time of the day) or to use blinds or diffusers over the windows. Keep in mind that with photo edition softwares you can correct underexposure more easily than overexposure.

 

Extreme exposure latitude in the picture can also work to great effect to compose a mood, so it is not necessarily bad.

 

Adding People is a good idea, as including kitchenware (plate, fork, glass, pots, etc.)

well, if you are shooting digital, there will be no guessing involved. I would normally say bracket 2-3 stops both ways (1/2 stop increments) (when shooting slides), but you will not have to. 17 x 1.6 may not be wide enough...........I shoot most interiors with a 20mm (film). A fisheye would be ideal but some people do not like that look. as far as hot spots or under exposures go, it is one or the other. To expose for the dark areas, you will no doubt blow the highlights out, and vise-versa............use a tripod, 100 iso, and bracket a few stops either way..I am assuming you will be using the in-camera meter........bring a lap top, that way you can see right away what needs correcting. good luck

oh yeah.........stop down to at least F11 or F16.....hell, why not F22...............exposures will be long but eveything should tack sharp.

If you are using a digital camera, and have a pan head on the tripod, perhaps stiching together two photos would be a useful way to get a panoramic effect. The Canon Photostich program works awfully well in my experience, if the two images are well aligned from a tripod that was level.

IMHO definitely people - but I've seen it done otherwise with pristine place settings and fancy angles - depends on the end user really. Given the limitations I'd be inclined to bounce flash around the interior and use the installed/designed light for t'glamour - that was a misspell but anything can be turned to advantage if you stay light on your feet. No one (outside of a camera club and that's the best place to be) is EVER going to ask how you set the lights or camera - digital enables you to play around in a disciplined way - play around in a disciplined way - worked for Picasso.

I think the right answer could be a very old one. Set your digital up for multiple exposure.....you will have to modify the meter reading...if you're good enough at it you can probably figure it all out ahead of time...........but with the digital, you could probably experiment until it looked right and then just use that as a baseline for the rest of the shots.

 

anyhow.........multiple exposure...........and then just start using you flash to fill light all the areas of the pic that the natural light doesn't handle to your satisfaction. Ansel Adams Negative book (i believe) explains how to do this with photofloods..........i've seen industrial photographers do the same with one light, just moving it around and sort of painting the light in with it. But, with one flash (remote off camera sync of course), a digital that shows you the pic instantly.........you should be able to nail down the set up it a 1/2 hour or so, and then just modify as you go along for the slightly different situations depending where you are in the room. Don't forget to keep the main light (the brighter light) direction the same if you should end up augmenting the natural light rather than just filling in, and the fill light exposure less bright so that they let the shadow direction of the main light(s) remain visible. It sounds harder than it is, and i'm terrible with the explanation............i'm sure someone else on here can say it better

 

just a thought

Since you plan to get the 17-40 f/4 L which is an ideal lens for your 10D for general shooting, I think your most needed other accessories will be a film body, tripod, spirit level and remote release. 17mm will just about give you a 90 degree horizontal angle of view on 35mm to allow capturing a room from a corner. Print film will also give you slightly more exposure latitude to play with if you're not going to be able to do much about the lighting. Using wide angles you should ensure that the camera is truly vertical to avoid converging or diverging verticals. I suppose you could try stitching panoramas on your 10D, but you would need a proper (=expensive and complex) panoramic mount on your tripod to ensure rotation about the lens nodal point (which will change as you zoom) as your subject distances are quite close. Maybe you should even try to get hold of an X-Pan.

 

Don't forget to plan some detail shots as well as broad views.

 

With regard to lighting, you'll need to avoid sunlight streaming in through a window giving you impossible contrast ranges to deal with. (Net) curtains may help with that problem. Either ask for additional table lamps to lighten dark corners or see if unscrewing a bulb in a multiple fitting reduces its dominance in lighting the scene. Other than that you could try experimenting with 2-3 $20 optical slaves (use clean handkerchiefs as diffusers if needed) which you can trigger by test firing a gun during multi second exposures without having to worry about triggering from the camera. Since it is the flash to subject distance that matters, their relative lack of power won't be an issue.

Tom Sulivan is on to something. If I had extreme contrast I would definately try multiple pops of a strobe to open up any areas that are dark.Painting with light works but you've got to watch where and how you do it you could end up a ghost in the image. It's been too many years since I assisted on doing a picture of the lobby of the Shoreham hotel in Washington D.C. Did it at about 4 in the morning on a 4x5 using multiple flashbulbs (my job ) did it on Ektachrome. They came out great. One last thing. I would try to do differnent approaches. Atmosphere might look great but perhaps the architect wants something that shows more detail. Good luck let us know how you make out.

David-

 

Lots of good comments above. If you will not bring in lights you might be able to wait until the outside light is dim enough not to overpower the facilities lighting. This is assuming there are windows in the scene.

 

With 35mm film I use a 28PC or 20mm, neither an option for a 10D. I would say a 17-35 Sigma or other might be nice on the 10D in the future and you could borrow/rent an EOS film camera if you have none for the that lens with this current project. Besides with film you can scan large enough to make a mural for the architects office, kind of beyond the limits of the 10D.

 

Stitching two images is easy in Photoshop. Overlap your images by 20 percent when shooting. Then use the lasso with a feather of say 30 with the images overlapped in Photoshop. The problem when shooting is you MUST have the lens nodal point over the rotation axis and your tripod head must remain perfectly level during rotation. The latter can be accomplished by using a rotation plate by Novoflex ($100 from B&H). The former means cutting a piece of 1/4 x 1.5 x perhaps 4 inch aluminum and drilling holes or slots so you can play with finding the nodal point. Here is how: stand up two pencils on a table, one near the lens the other directly behind it but at the other end of the table. When you rotate the camera the rear pencil should never be visible if you are rotating the lens over the exact nodal point.

 

Stitching most likely not an option if there are people in the scene but in my experience most architects do not want people in photographs.

 

Lastly, why not just purchase my Widelux 35mm ($750)?

 

 

Have fun-

 

Andrew

 

http://sfhost.com/pano/ (Gallery)

 

http://sfhost.com/fpa/ (Sale items)

For exposure you could always merge in Photoshop a picture exposed for the shadows and one exposed for the highlights (need a tripod).

That's a ton of advice in a short time, keep it coming. Some very basic and forgotten advice (bracket, bring laptop, doh!) will be taken to heart. I'm going to print this and highlight it...

 

FWIW, I uploaded some sample shots into my "Interiors" folder, would appreciate if you can take a look and comment. Just pics of my sister's house, getting a feel for slower exposures with natural indoor lighting.

 

Obviously, not overexposing the lights is key, and I'll be bringing grey cards to establish a proper white balance as well.

 

Is the 17-40mm, at it's widest (17mm) suitably free of distortion for this? Does anyone have examples of this lens, this FOV, of an interior? I'm really planning on sticking to the digital body, going to ride the horse that brung me, and all that... I guess that places the burden on me to balance the light sources as best as possible, proper time of day, etc.

 

Still need to scout the location... will report back.

 

Thanks,<div></div>

The 17-40 is a great lens, but may not be wide enough on a 1.6x crop for you to get everything you need in one shot. But don't let that stop you! Even if you're weak in Photoshop (like I am), you can use a couple of very affordable 3rd party packages to get you past both the field of view and dynamic range issues.

 

A plugin like the fredmiranda.com Dynamic Range Increaser will let you create a single 9-stop image simply by taking 2 tripod shots of the same scene, one underexposed, and one overexposed.

 

To simulate wider angle, use Canon's free Photostithc, or, for more control, a third party package like panoramafactory.

 

Regards,

 

Paul

If you still have a 35mm body and a lens that covers 28mm focal length you'll have a pretty good idea of the field of view of 17mm on a 10D. I think just about everyone expects you'll need to go quite a bit wider than that. And do realise that an interior panorama requires much higher precision of rotation about the lens nodal point than an exterior landscape. If this isn't done then each image in the panorama will have different parts of the background hidden by foreground objects leading to double imaging in the merged result. There are no short cuts in software that will properly sort out the image for you - especially since the defects will be in the areas that overlap i.e. prime areas of interest in the merged image.

Something that has not been mentioned is how the 10D is susceptible to blow highlights, specially in mixed lighting and long exposures. To avoid unsalvageable details in highlights, I would highly recommend shooting in RAW. You will thank me later.

<p>A dry run would be great if you can arrange it, so that if it turns out that you need an even wider lens or a different technique or more lighting or whatever, you have an opportunity to go away, find a solution, and come back for the real shoot.</p>

 

<p>If you live in a major urban area, you may be able to rent lenses. Canon has a couple of wider options - the 16-35/2.8 (admittedly, only slightly wider :-) and the 14/2.8, which corresponds to about a 22mm lens on 35mm; that's a fair difference from the 27mm equivalent of the 17-40. Rentals aren't terribly expensive; the 16-35, for instance, rents for about CAD40 (~USD30) per day in Toronto.</p>

 

<p>If you're thinking of going with panoramic stitching software, give it a whirl beforehand - shoot some pictures of the interior of your house, the view out your window, whatever. That way you'll know if you need any technique adjustments, how much overlap to allow, etc. Or, in the worst case, you may discover that you can't figure out how to get good enough results and then you will know, before the real shoot, that you need to get a single shot that's wide enough.</p>

 

<p>Film is cheap. Digital gives you the option of trying a whole bunch of shots and erasing the ones that don't work. Either way, shoot a lot. Different heights, different camera locations, lighting, without people, with people moving, with people not moving, everything you can think of. Better to go home with more images than you need, than to discover that you didn't get what you were looking for.</p>

 

<p>Look for examples of other people's interior photography if you can (and I suspect you've already done this) - not to try to imitate them, but to get ideas on things you might not have thought of, or maybe even to see some pictures that make you think "Hmm, don't like that one" so you avoid doing it yourself :-)</p>

Good ideas here... I did try 28mm on a 35mm body (unfortunately dead EOS 650..) and I can see where the FOV is going to be. Wider, but not as wide as I'd hoped. Alot will depend on the layout of the room; whether it needs to be shot from fully within, or if there is a foyer or adjacent area to shoot from.

 

RAW mode, yes, I'd always do that, but you did prompt me to go back and play with the image I posted earlier above. Here is a version where white balance is set in the Canon File Viewer, along with some digital exposure setting. 12 bits at that point clearly makes a huge difference. Earlier, I couldn't get the white balance right because the light on the wall was already blown out to white, so adjusting the darker part of the wall colored the brighter light. This one is much better.

 

I've looked at the work of Adrian Wilson, another photo-netter that commented on a thread I'd come across. His are natural light interiors, great stuff...<div></div>

Thinking more... the idea of renting a 14mm f/2.8L for the day makes a lot of sense. Put the issue to rest... I'll have to check around and see if/where it's available. Anyone know what they typically rent for?

 

Also, I'm sure some have used it for interior shots, any examples? How is the distortion? That's my only concern.. you can see some barrel distortion in the pictures I've posted already...

 

Thanks,

This may be heresy, but have you considered either renting a decent film body, or just

buying a Rebel G? By all means, use the digital for most of the shoot. The instant

feedback is great, and you won't regret it. But for the cost of a couple days lense

rental, you can buy a film body, burn through a few rolls of film, get true wide®

angles off the lenses you already have, and get a new toy to play with all at the same

time.

My thought on distortion in architectual photos is to find out what the client expects.

Many architects request 4x5 just for the camera movements that can straighten out

perspective. At the same time an ultrawide can be very effective at showing the full

ambience of an interior.

 

My rule of thumb when using ultrawides such as 19mm or more is to actually

emphasize the distortion as needed so that it becomes obvious that the photographer

wanted that look. I think a lens such as a 28mm that have only very slight distortion

can sometimes get you into trouble with vertical lines on the edges of the shot that

bend slightly. In my mind this is more troublesome than a 19mm that is obviously an

ultrawide. Watch the lines on the edges or use angles that skew the perspective on

purpose to avoide this. This is just my opinion of course.

Heresy? Never! Any good advice is appreciated. Actually, I could borrow my girlfriends Rebel, which I might do. Of course, you lose the feedback, and I'm much more comfortable with the 10D and it's controls.

 

Maybe I should rent a 1Ds... :)

 

I think my real next step is to get back with the architect and figure out exactly what is expected.

yes, figure out what is expected;

 

A thought or two not posted before:

 

You think the lights may cause hot spots on the image?

 

Hey: Can you change a few offending bulbs? Also, since it is a fixed setup, you can always bring a few LAMPS with you to add more light to the room.

You can still use your 10D as a sort of Polaroid back to test your film shots. And of course you can still use it for the shots that don't need the wide angle.

 

Your plan to check with the client and check out the venue is a good one - take a few snaps to aid your planning if you can.