Strobe vs. Continuous for Architectural shots

[marc_compton]

I am new to photography, but have taken some classes and practice quite a lot. I have a friend who was the interior

designer on a large home out here in California. The home is large and architecturally quite stunning. It is around

15,000 square feet in what is basically a spanish style... think red tile roof and lots of off white plaster interiors with

some dark wood beams thrown in. My question / comment is I have two days to shoot it, much of it will hopefully be

by availible light to take advantage of the large windows, bright white walls and rich finshes. Do I go strobe, or

continuous to accent and fill in the shadows or would strobe be the way to go? I will be renting the lights, so I have

options there. I have heard some opinions already but would love to get more input from people who have been in

this situation. I am familiar with strobes, but have limited studio experience, and none on location. Do I need an off

camera light meter or can I try to use my digital camera meter and trust my eye?

If strobes are the way to go, any suggestions as to a specific brand/type to look for to rent? I know I want to get

some relfectors, and nice bright lights to fill in on the larger spaces, but specifics would be appreciated.

 

Thanks.

[richard_quindry]

I'd go with strobe in daylight. If you're shooting towards windows, you'll mainly want the strobes to reduce the contrast of

the scene. Think soft fill light. You can use umbrellas or softboxes. Umbrellas are cheaper and easier to move around. Watch for

reflections of the lights in windows and glass over artwork. The brightness of the strobe is affected by the power you give them and your

aperture. the brightness of the sunlight outdoors and the available light from it is affected by the aperture and the shutter speed. So... if the

outdoors if too bright, increase your shutter speed. Aperture make both inside and outside get brighter or darker at the

same time.

 

One or two 1200 w/s packs with 3 heads should suffice. That way, if you are looking through a doorway into another

room, you can have a light in there also. You'll need to either use a slave that picks up the other flash's light to trigger

the second flash or a radio slave.

 

Brand doesn't matter much - get something small and light - you'll be dragging them around all day. Dynalite is good.

You can probably trust your eye on exposure - just watch your histogram. Watch you don't blow any important highlights.

Since you don't already own a light meter, you probably wouldn't know how to use it properly anyway.

 

It's best to take a laptop if you have it to evaluate images on.

 

Sometimes it's hard to see reflections of you flash in window areas since they're already so bright. Taking an exposure

where the outdoors is purposely underexposed makes it easy to pick up if anything is happening.

 

Rich Quindry

 

www.Quindry.com

[model mayhem gallery]

I had to shoot some interior dezigns for an architecture firm a few months ago. I used a ring flash and had great

results. My goal was to not introduce new shadows with my strobes being off camera axis. The ring Flash makes

very soft shadowless lighting. This works great beacuse I only wanted one set of shadows comming from the

windows or existing ambient light. As an alternative since you are renting, I would loking to FLOs (Floresent Lamps)

esentially cool hot lamps.

 

If you still decide to use Strobes I would recommend the Photflex Whitedomes which give 360 degree light. Great for

lighting large open areas.

 

http://www.photoflex.com/Photoflex_Products/WhiteDome_-_Medium/index.html

[abouddweck]

If you are shooting residential interiors on digital, you can shoot with existing light by shooting bracketed exposures and

layering in CS3. In high contrast lighting situations HDR layering is quite effective with bracketing at 2 f stop increments.

In most normal situations, a home, apartment, office, etc. I bracket in 2/3 f stop increments, up to 7 frames and use

masking to make the final image. It is a time intensive process done on the computer but the results are fantastic.

Considerations for light balancing are easier to solve with digital. You can customize your white balance to the different

light sources, e.g. daylight, tungsten, fluorescent and blend the final images for the best reproduction. You may want to

use some continuous light to fill the darkest shadow areas, like woods and dark carpet, but you can keep your

supplementary lighting at a minimum if you use layering techniques. I used to use strobe when I was shooting film.

Strobes always cause logistical problems, like keeping them out of the way. I still use them with digital in open

commercial applications where a good amount of ambient daylight is present, but they are a hassle, and if you are

renting them, a considerable expense. If you are going to pursue architecture as a strong interest, it would be better for

you to learn HDR and the rich layering techniques and options available in Photoshop CS3.<div></div>

[marc_compton]

Thank you all for your input and great insight into my situation. I love seeing everyone's take on the situaion and

different solutions people have come up with.

 

A Aboud Dweck, I have CS2 and Utilize a DNR convertor, to enable me to import RAW images into CS2. Can I use

CS2 to accomplish what you are doing with CS3? Is it a comparable solution, or is CS2 that much different from

CS3?

 

I would prefer to shoot availible light as much as possible on this shoot, but I think having the option of some fill light

will help in large rooms with multiple adjacent halls with shadows in different connecting rooms and differing intensity

of window light. I am new with using strobes, so your solution is a good one. The stobes will complicate my life

somewhat to be sure... but I'll feel better knowing it is an option. That being said, please let me know what you think

of using HDR with CS2 and if I could accomplish results similar to those with CS3.

 

Thanks.