Interior Photography Height?

[edo_t]

<p>I'm planning on tackling some interior photos, empty rooms with furniture and stuff. I admire some of the architectural and commericial photography i've been seeing lately so I want to play around with it, particularly the retouching (adding lights, removing clutter etc). (sadly i have no wide angle at the moment...)</p>

<p>Anyway there isn't an interior photography section so I am posting here, what would one say is the optimal height for taking a photo indoors? Would it be the tops of the chairs, down low, or somewhere else? I'm going for a really clean, realistic look, but I was also wondering if anyone has any exposure tips or should I just go HDR?</p>

<p>Thanks Everyone<br>

~Edo</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>There is a photo.net thread <strong><a href="../digital-camera-forum/00Eg5M">here</a></strong> which presents the right and the wrong approach to question. Pay particular attention to the work of John Bellenis, one of the contributors to that thread, which is <strong><a href="http://www.johnbellenis.com">here</a></strong>. Bellenis is a first class photographer, who I'm sure could shoot anything well, but he specializes in this kind of work.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Just a scatter of random thoughts spurred by your post:<br>

You can do interiors without a wide angle lens, just use one of the 'panorama' stitchers available or built into various programs. These can stitch not only horizontally but vertically, by the way.</p>

<p>What height the camera should be at depends on what you are trying to do with the picture. If your goal is to present a human view of the room, then I would suppose normal eye-height or close to it would be good. If you want to exaggerate the scale of the room, a low angle view might be best--the sort of thing done in pictures of Mussolini's office. And so on.</p>

<p> </p>

[edo_t]

<p>Thank you Javkin and Weinberg! I've had fun reading that architecture thread and looking through Bellenis' portfolio, very excited to try my hand... As for the wide-angle, I know I can stitch it quickly in PhotoShop... I guess I was just letting my laziness go to my head. (My equipment had been stolen, and I'm rebuilding my gear on the cheap - but it has motivated me immensely).<br>

I will probably take a whack at it tomorrow morning when the light is right!</p>

[stinshoff]

<p>You don't need a lot of fancy gear. Like JDM von Weinberg states, a lot can be done with panorama stitching. Here's an eight shot panorama I shot the other day with my point and shoot camera.</p><div></div>

[edo_t]

<p>Nice, we'll see what I can hammer out, perhaps I'll post it if I am content enough!</p>

[Ray House]

<p>Edo T, a good stiching program is Microsoft ICE and its free. Post an image even if you're not content enough...you will most likely get lots of good advice. You might also take a look at magazines such as Better Homes and Gardens, lots of interior shots.</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>The standard height taught in most architectural photography texts, is 2/3rds of the bldgs height, this applies to both interiors and exteriors.</p>

[edo_t]

<p>Steve you are absolutely right, I shouldn't let my ego sway me. Here is what I got tonight at home just playing around. I'm not sure what height I ultimately used. It was just the 055Xprob Manfrotto's unextended height. I did some post work, removed the harsh shadows to the left of the TV as well as behind, and lightened the shadows under the end table on the far left. I also added faux lighting to both paintings just to get a feel for the method of post processed lighting.<br /> <br /> I used CS5 to do this, PhotoMerge set on auto, I'm guessing it used Cylindrical. It caused some akward distorions which i tried to correct, mainly the center of the image has barrel distortion while the rest suffers much less which makes it wierd to correct using just the Lens Correction filter. How do you guys combat this?<br /> <br /> Steve, would that that be two thirds down (ie the camera is 1/3 off of the ground [i would imagine so])? So here is the pano, pardon me if the aspect ratio is not up to par with whatever is considered "normal" for panoramas, i dont do many. ratio is like 2.XX:1.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11640951-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[steve_levine]

<p>As the above photo shows, unless you are at 2/3rds of the ceilings height. You get a nice picture of the floor.</p>

[edo_t]

Hm, my particular living room has a ceiling that is sloped on two sides, I wonder if it would be best to shoot based on the high side or the low side? Perhaps I am looking to capture too much within one frame, maybe this image can be broken up to feature one image featuring only the fireplace and LCD, and an alternative frame for the couch and rug. Any opinions on the matter?

[Ray House]

<p>Edo, have you tried shooting in vertical orientation?</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>My rule of thumb is that for domestic interiors I put the lens at eye-level to give the 'normal' view, but if shooting cathedrals, churches, concert halls etc., I try to find a high view point.</p>

[psbphotography]

<p>I think the best way to answer your question is to look at lots of interior design photography to get a feel for what is being done for composition. I have about 10 photographers bookmarked that I view regularly for inspiration.<br>

As far as camera height I look at it like this, I try to give my images a human perspective with most of my images between sitting and standing height. No special formula because I often go by the feel of the space and the way composition works. <br>

Personally I see HDR for fine art work but it's easily spotted and looks fake in most cases. I layer exposures in Photoshop to bring back certain details and this gives a realistic and credible image.<br>

Feel free check out my <a href="http://www.psbphotography.com">architectural and interior design photography here</a> and email questions.</p>

[edo_t]

<p>Hi guys, thanks for the new responses. Ray, I did not try it out for this particular instance, but perhaps I should try that out too and see where it leads. Chris, I was also thinking about getting a high view point to perhaps focus on the layout in this room. The issue I have is that when I shoot at my standing height I "feel" as though I am taking an ill conceived image, but perhaps that is just because in other genres of photography we tend to try different perspectives to avoid monotony (I think I analyze too much~). <br>

Paul, you are absolutely right. I think I want to run before I even understand how to walk. But given everyone's input about using a human perspective I just realize that makes a ton of sense given the nature of that type of photography is to give the viewer the experience of being in that setting. As for HDR, I totally understand, and that has actually lead me to have some stigma or guilt when I do shoot HDR. But for interiors I do feel as though you should do multiple exposures and use tools like shadows/highlights in order to bring out your detail.<br>

<br />Question, how would one go about photographing new venues (not for profit)? Would one simply ask the manager of a bar if I can just come in and take some photos prior to them opening? Just to get some real world experience, you know?</p>

[stinshoff]

<p>I'm thinking if you offered a bar owner some free shots that they could use for advertising purposes - and you were doing it during non business hours - he or she would be crazy not to let you photograph. Might be good to have some interior samples to show when you go in to ask.</p>

[Ray House]

<p>Ray's rule #1...No stigma or guilt, you just do what you do!</p>