Lessons Learned While Creating My Own Hand Painted Backdrop

     For a couple of years now I have been dreaming of hand-painted photography backgrounds. My younger brother who is also a photographer was fascinated by Annie Leibovitz’s backdrops and pointed them out to me. They were gorgeous, they looked really worn out with beautiful variations. They looked custom made and like nothing I had ever seen before, at least not in a photo store.

      After a bit of research we found that there are a couple of companies that make backdrops. Not the cheesy mottled backdrops that are so common, but beautiful backdrops that look like a huge chunk of a 100 year old carnival tent or the withered cement floor of a slaughterhouse, grungy, worn and dirty. They sound terrible, but they are heaven in a photograph. They are great for portraits or headshots and look so much better than the cheap thin stuff we have all seen at the fantasy makeover photo booth at the mall.

A close up that shows the texture. Working on a wet canvas allowed the paint to feather out a bit and eliminate the sharp edges.

    The two companies that really piqued my interest are Oliphant and Schmidli, they make art, literally. They have craftspeople that have spent years perfecting their technique and making gorgeous paintings, that also happen to be photography backdrops. They have a bunch of different designs for rent and if you have deep enough pockets you can even buy one. I am a bit of a DIY guy and I know my way around a paintbrush, so I decided rather than save up my pennies, I would make my own backdrop.

    A little careful study of nice hand-painted backdrops and I was able to determine that they are painted on artist’s canvas, or if you are willing to spend a bit more, you can get artists linen. Linen is more dimensionally stable than canvas, so it will lay a little flatter and keep its shape a little better when soaked with paint. I decided, since this was an experiment at this stage, to opt for the cheaper canvas. Canvas is a bit like a bed sheet when it is unprimed, if you start adding paint it will slurp it up in a random way, you will get wrinkles and the shape will be more like an animal skin than the smooth look I was going for. When canvas is factory primed it is stapled down so it stays very uniform and smooth. So I opted for the factory acrylic primed canvas. It is important to use acrylic primed canvas rather than oil primed, because the water based paint will flake off of an oil priming.

    The next step was to go to the home goods store and get some paint. I got three colors that were close in value but slightly different in color, so as I put them next to one another on the canvas they would would look good together. I chose a dark blue gray, a brownish dark gray and a olive shade dark gray. I bought all three colors in flat, so I could avoid issues with glare and shininess.  While I was at the home center I also got a paint roller that is designed for making nice textures. The roller is made of sea sponge, this would be my primary tool.

Here is the sponge roller, expensive at near $20. but really crucial in getting a nice random texture.

    I started by laying down a large piece of acrylic primed canvas and applying a uniform coat of the blue gray. I initially thought this would be easy and bits of blue gray would peek through the overlying warmer colors. But , as I learned there is a lot more art and finesse to this process than I originally thought. So once I had my blue-gray base. the next step was to switch colors and partially cover the base allowing bits of the color layers to interact and show through. I painted a coat of new color and didn’t bother to clean the roller so I could keep things subtle. I filled the roller with paint and then lightly rolled it by skimming the roller over the surface of the canvas. It looked great, kind of random and the original color was poking through in spots all over the canvas. The problem was, that as the paint dried it got darker and my beautiful patterning disappeared. Too subtle.

    The next coat, I cleaned the roller thoroughly and tried another color, this time the olive. I used the same technique. lightly skimming the roller and trying to keep things random looking. This time when it dried, it had far too much contrast. This wasn’t going to be easy.

    After several more coats I fell upon a method that got nice results. After allowing a coat to dry, I would wet it down with clean water, the sponge brush would make things a little foamy. Then I would use the same technique. Pick a color a little lighter or darker than the last and gently skim a coat of paint while keeping things looking organic or random. Most times I would do stripes in parallel trying not to overlap that run the length of the canvas. Then, if there was a repeating shape or harsh line I would go back and touch up the paint with a light pass of the roller.

Here is the backdrop on my studio floor, soaking wet with water about to get another light coat. (Sorry for the cruddy phone picture quality.)

    I took great care to keep things from looking deliberate or man made, I wanted my backdrop to look more like some natural process created it.

    The backdrop you see in this article is my second one, my first turned out well, it was more green and a bit lighter. The thing to keep in mind is that even though the process takes a bit of finesse and the paint dries a different color than when it is wet, you can always just add another coat. Expect the process to take 7 or 8 coats of going back and forth between colors before one dries that looks perfect. With both of the backdrops I have made, I thought I was finished and went back days later and made changes. There is an element of luck involved, it is your job to make the most of that fact, sooner or later you will get lucky and it will look great. If you try to make your own backdrop, good luck. I would love to see the results. There are some great inspiring backdrops out there to learn from on the Oliphant and Schmidli websites.

On of my brothers kindly posed to demonstrate how the backdrop looks with skin tones.

    The total cost for my project? The canvas was the most expensive bit, I spent $150. on a 84 inch x 6 yard roll, that was enough to make two nice sized backdrops of 6'x9'. The roller was pricy at $20. and then the paint cost about $10 to $12 for each of the quart sized colors, I used 6 different colors which brought the total to a little more than $200. for two backdrops. I am really happy with the results, but I must admit that I would still love one made by the pro's. Maybe my two nice new backdrops will satisfy my craving for a little while longer.

    Have you ever made a backdrop? Do you have any tips that you would like to share that made the job easier and had great results? I would love to hear about them.

Simple tip to improve your food photography

Ever wonder why so much food photography is just ho-hum? It is not the camera or fancy equipment, it is not even the food. I’ve seen enough bad photos of pretty food to know that . No, it is knowing what kind of light is appropriate for your subject.

    Somewhere along the way in our evolution as photographers we all realize that the crummy built-in flash is the reason our photos look terrible. The reason the built in flash is so bad is that it is tiny and very close to the lens. This accomplishes two things, it makes really intense sharp shadows and flattens out whatever you are shooting. Camera companies know that most people just want a picture and don't care how it looks, so they throw the little flash on the camera and thats that. The solution to crummy on camera flash is to get your light off camera, instead of a tiny flash with sharp shadows use a big light, like an umbrella. It is one of our first steps to becoming a photographer. And we all know what happens when we stop using the on-camera flash… everything looks better.

    First, lets look at why a big light source off-camera but close to the lens is so popular. The large light source softens shadows and the location near the camera flattens things out, not as flat as on camera but much flatter than if the light source was more to the side of the subject. We love this lighting because as photographers we are suckers for a great portrait. And, this combination of soft shadows and flat lighting is really flattering for all sorts of subjects. It kills detail like pores, pimples, scars and wrinkles, it even tones town a severe nose or an over prominent brow. Everyone looks good lit like this but it is especially flattering for women. You could be excused for using this style of lighting for pretty much anything because it seems to work magic. I would even go so far as to say it is rare to see photographers using anything else.

    The character of a face doesn’t lie in it’s texture, it is the relationship of the eyes to each other, it is how far the nose is from the mouth, it is the perfect smile, in short, it is the likeness of the sitter. The texture of the pores and wrinkles are details we would rather forget, so hiding them focuses our eye on what matters, the face. So, when something works so well for so many situations it is easy to fall into believing that this is great lighting and if it looks good on people it looks good on everything. The problem, is that hiding detail isn’t always the goal.

    That brings us to food photography. When we consider what makes an appealing food shot, it is all about texture. We are limited to a visual representation to stimulate our audiences appetite so we want to make the most of every detail. One of the toughest subjects for a food photograph is when the subject lacks contrast, like a flaky pastry. Especially one with very little variation in color. You could add contrast in the styling, but without adding anything to the pastry, how can you add drama and appeal? The answer is proper lighting. Rather than the flattening that occurs with a big light source next to the camera, we move the light down set and start to see the shadows lengthen.

    We tend to think of lighting in fairly conventional ways, and this is where things usually go wrong. Imagine placing the light near the camera and photograph a plate of food, this would flatten the texture because the shadows would fall behind your subject and be hidden from the lens. Now imagine placing the light opposite the camera, on the other side of your subject, the light can now scrape its way over the food revealing all of its texture. And rather than flat lighting, the shadows fall toward the camera so the shot is dramatic and contrasty.

1. This shot was made with the soft box next to the camera, notice how flat it looks. 2. This time the key was placed at a 45 degree angle, it is getting better. 3. Now we are seeing some drama and texture in this shot which was made with the seftboz at 90 degrees to the side. 4 Seems strange, but the light is actually behind the subject pointing back at a 45 degree angle and the food looks amazing, I like the shadows, might be my favorite. 5. This one is directly behind the subject and it looks really appealing, compared to image 2 or 3 the texture is much more pronounced. 6. I was surprised by this one, the light is over the subject looking down. I thought this one would be good but it feels artificial and is no comparison to 4 or 5.

    To illustrate this idea I have some croissants and a wood cutting board that is remarkably similar in tone to the croissants. Not very interesting to look at, but that is the point. Without conveying texture you are doomed to a lackluster photo. You have some simple beige blobby shapes on a beige background. To demonstrate I have made several images. First, I start with a simple glamour lighting, nice soft light, close to camera and a little fill bounced off of the ceiling, both lights are speed lights the key is in a small softbox. Then I work my way down set, where I end up opposite the camera pointing the light directly at the lens. As you can see, the images start out flat and become more dramatic and show more texture as the light moves farther from the camera axis.

Here is the winner #4 , the light is actually behind the subject but really does a beautiful job of popping the texture and separating the croissants from the bread board which is very similar in color. The best angle turned out not to be directly opposite the camera but aimed in at a 45 degree angle from down set. It shows even when armed with the proper way to light there are always surprises and it is your job as artist to experiment a little.

    A helpful way to visualize is to use a flashlight, try aiming it at your subject to bring the most texture possible. Usually this is at a low angle skimming across the surface, just enough to make the detail jump out. For the ideal food photo you want to use your lights or the natural light to accomplish the same, to bring out all of the texture.

    Applying this kind of lighting is super easy even when using natural light, just look for a spot near the window, place the food in between you and the window and shoot. Be careful when shooting in natural light to shield your subject from the interior lights or turn them off completely otherwise you might end up with a nasty color cast that is hard to remove. Another issue when using this technique is to watch how dense the shadows are, in a pinch you could use a napkin just below the lens as a simple reflector, to bump some light back into the shadows.

Just one more demonstration. The image on the left was shot in what would be lovely portrait lighting, but does nothing to show the texture. The image on right was shot with a raking light, low down, so that it skims over the surface and reveals all of the texture.

    Remember, it can be easy to fall into patterns and use inappropriate light for our subjects. Be open to all sorts of lighting but consider what the light is doing, is it revealing texture or flattening it? Is your lighting working for you or against you? Do you have any interesting stories to share about food lighting? I would love to hear from you. 

The Importance of a Shot List for Architectural Photography

I usually insist on using a shot list when shooting architectural photography. I find it an indispensable tool to insure that the client gets what they need and I avoid wasting too much time and energy on unnecessary angles. A shot list is a simple list or diagram that lays out the shots or angles that my client needs. It can be very specific and give instruction for each shot, or can be a simple accounting of the shots needed like “classroom 223”. I have used blueprints with notes drawn on them, sketches and even perfect point of view diagrams made in “sketch-up”, they all get the job done.

A well-defined shot list can make all aspects of a shoot go smoother. To illustrate my point, we should take a quick look at what goes into an architectural photograph:

The process begins when the photographer surveys the area and takes scout photos to determine the exact placement of the camera. Small movements in camera placement, can solve issues where objects are overlapping or simplify issues that require later retouching. The method I use to avoid compositional problems is by connecting a monitor to my camera so I can see everything on a large screen and avoid major corrections later. I can then adjust the camera on the tripod in small increments and see in real time the image that my camera sees. 

The next step in the process is to remove any objects that can be pulled from the shot, like trashcans, ash trays, personal effects, signs and trash. A few minutes of clean-up can save hours in post, and no-one misses the trash can. Then the furniture is adjusted, the photographer straightens chairs under tables, straightens bookshelves, gets rid of clutter, gathering the items in piles off camera and taking careful inventory so that the items can be returned precisely where they were.

Setting up the camera, cleaning and arranging can vary from shot to shot but sooner or later you get a shot that requires an hour of cleanup, occasionally several shots in a day that need massive effort to clean-up before shooting. A good example is a classroom that requires every desk straight, every chair in place, all clutter hidden, like telephone and computer cords, stacks of paper. A interior may seem absolutely clean to the untrained eye but will still require a great deal of effort to get things looking their best.

Architectural photography is one of the most precise and technical types of photography and is all about getting the absolute most out of the camera possible. Since an architectural photographer’s camera usually mounted to a heavy tripod and geared tripod head we can stack multiple exposures together to capture what would be impossible in a single shot. What this usually entails is shooting multiple exposures from light to dark of the room with lights on, then again with the lights off, and then if there are any issues that need correcting or if time allows, the photographer will make a few more exposures using supplementary lighting. As you now by now the process is fairly tedious. I usually tell clients to expect it to take 45 minutes or so on location per finished image. Some take quite a bit longer and some shorter but usually I can make about 15 images in a good long day. 

Once the photography on location is complete, all of the images are combined in post. Post-processing is comprised of everything done to the files after the shoot. First the images are given the proper exposure and color balance in RAW processing software to keep the files pristine. Then, all of the files are exported to an image editing program like Photoshop or Capture One where they are combined to make a single perfect image. Combining the images is done in a number of ways but usually involves making complex selections and masks in order to make selective adjustments to exposure and color balance. Once the files are combined the images can be retouched where the photographer goes through the image with a fine-toothed comb removing dust bunnies, window smears, footprints, wrinkles, signs and clutter. Usually post processing takes roughly as long as shooting. But sometimes, if things are rushed during the shoot the post-processing will go a good bit longer.

A common way to stray from a shot list is a request like “oh, and shoot the kitchen if it looks good.” The problem with a request like this is that the image is conditional, it is up to the client to decide if it was worth shooting after all of the work has been done. The photographer might find that the room didn’t look good enough after straightening chairs and tables, clearing clutter, organizing cookbooks, making a handful of exposures and combining the results in photoshop. Most often it is a harmless request and an easy way for me to grab an extra shot. The problem arises when there are more than one or two of these requests. Then the photographer is speculating which image the client may or may not like without knowing which shots he/she might be paid for. The obvious result is that steps will be skipped and rather than focusing on getting the best results possible, the focus becomes working quickly to minimize loss. Time ends upping pulled from important images and wasted on shots the client wasn’t sure they wanted in the first place.

Considering the effort that goes into a single finished image you can imagine the importance of a clear shot list. As the photographer I need to make a careful estimation of how much work a particular shoot might require and bid based on that estimate. A clearly defined shot-list can tell me how many shots are needed, what types of rooms are to be photographed and what equipment I may need. All of this information lets me streamline my estimate and insure that the clients budget is spent wisely and will stretch to get the necessary images done right.

When it is proving impossible to get a client to provide a shot list and the location of the shoot is not too far away you can consider doing a scouting shoot. A scouting shoot is where a photographer goes days ahead of the shoot and makes some snapshots that can be viewed by the client to help eliminate angles that are unnecessary or unflattering without committing to finished shots. The downside to a scout is extra cost and time but it can smooth out issues on shoot day, and insure a happy outcome for all.

Thanks so much for reading. Have you had similar experiences with shot lists? Or is there a better way, I would love to hear what you think.

The Horrible Truth About Your Website (Or Why Quality Beats Quantity Every Time)

From time to time I will dip into the horror show of my website's analytics to glean information and hopefully improve my photography website. If you don't know what analytics are, they are data collected about your website visitors and they can reveal some facts that are difficult to swallow. For example, you may be getting lots of hits but when you examine how your average visitor is using your website it turns out most everyone is gone within 10 seconds. You may have a percentage that stays and looks at every page but the majority are popping in to your site and right back out. 

There are all sorts of reasons you might get someone on your site for 10 seconds or less. Some of your visitors aren't people at all but search engines searching for relevant information to add to their algorithms. Some of your visitors visit your site accidentally or quickly determine that you are not what they were searching for. Or perhaps your blog might have information that a visitor was searching for that didn't quite answer their question. Whatever the reason, the amount of people that quickly bounce away form your site without looking at any additional pages is terrifyingly large. The name for this phenomena is bounce-rate.

There is a science of minimizing your bounce-rate. First and foremost is making sure your site has plenty of great content, but there are other tricks to keeping people engaged, like calls-to-action and landing pages. These are intended to minimize distraction and focus your visitor on one task, like signing-up for a newsletter or sweepstakes. They are like mini webpages that have no links except for steering your visitor towards the task you want them to perform. These techniques are great and can convert visitors into clients but you have a website full of information that you want potential clients to see.

So lets imagine how some of these 10 second visits might happen using my website as an example. I specialize in architectural and food photography and I am located near Philadelphia. Lets say someone in Philadelphia needs a food photographer and types "food photographer for hire" in a search engine. They may begin looking at website portfolios and making very quick judgements based on the website quality in order to narrow their search.

1.  Does the page open immediately, or have a flash warning? Do you bother continuing if you get a warning? That could be a 1 second visit. 

2.  Is the site up to date with big photos, or tiny and poorly designed? That could easily lead to another quick elimination.

3. Is the site mobile phone friendly? More and more people do their searches on their phone these days. It is a huge problem if your site is impossible to navigate.

4. The site is for a photographer in Maine, and not the town the client is in. No reason to keep looking here.

5. Is the page slowly loading one image at a time or is there plenty to look at quickly? Boring.

6. Does the page contain the promised content? Or do I have to click through to some other page or fill a form?

7. Finally, are your images good enough? Are they captivating? Do they sell the product?

As you can see there are plenty of reasons someone might only visit for a moment. Even when a website visit converts to a call or sale, the visit might still be very short. Lets say I am looking for a plumber, I want to find someone that is established, has been around for a while and people recommend their services. I might do a quick search, then go down the list looking fro a plumber that meets my criteria. When I find a professional site with a testimonials page I will gladly end my search with a call. I don't need to check out every page and read the blog I am frankly glad to be finished my task , so I can move on to the 14 million other things I need to do that day. 

We spend so much time crafting our website that we can't believe that people don't want to stick around and read every word and see every picture. The fact of the matter is that our website isn't fun for our visitors, it is a tool that delivers information. Once they get what they came for, or realize this isn't the information they are looking for they move on quickly. If someone is interested enough to stick around, that is fantastic but not entirely necessary to get the job done. 

Lets say that a restaurant in Philadelphia finds me through a search and likes my website enough to contact me about photographing their food for their webpage. How can our new understanding of bounce-rate help us determine how to proceed. We knowthat no matter how great or compelling your website is most people will take a peek and move on, so what is the best strategy to hold your visitor's attention and turn them into a client?

The best strategy is to show off, big time. If you are lucky enough to get a visitor you have about a second to convince them to stay. Put as much production value as you can right on your homepage, make sure the page opens quick and looks good on a phone. Your pictures need to be better than your competitors because they are being used by your visitors to decide if your product is better and the decision is being made in a snap.

If you have the choice between two photographers, and one of the photographers offers 10 exquisite images that look like advertisements for $1000. and the other photographer offers 100 competent photos for the same amount, always go for quality. Because as horrible as it sounds, your typical website visitor has likely made up their mind in a few seconds and doesn't care to see the rest of your site, so you had better dazzle them.

Thanks for reading. If you know of other great ways to grab website visitor's attention and don't mind sharing let me know. I would love to hear from you.

Tiny Tripods for Architectural Photography

Tiny tripods - once in a while I just can't get my job done without one. I have tried a few different versions over the years, and some are more useful than others. Here is what I have learned.

First of all, why bother with a small tripod?

The enemy of good architectural photography is distortion. When using wide-angle lenses, the closer an object gets the more distorted it looks. The easiest way to reduce all of the ugly stretching and distortion is to back up, and get some distance between you and the subject. That means that almost every time I shoot, my tripod is crammed up next to a wall, or shooting through a door just to get the camera as far back as possible. Once in a while my regular tripod is too big to place in the corner, I might want to place the camera on a countertop in a kitchen or a bathroom or on a piece of furniture and here is where the tiny tripod shines.

The tiny Feisol, so lightweight it is easy to bring along to any shoot. Sturdy as heck except at highest setting which is a little scary with a heavy camera. Used as pictured or lower it is another great option for macro.

I have tried three different styles, a low-flat version, a tiny compact version and a height adjustable version. The most important feature of all of these tripods is stability. These tripods might look like toys but they need to be able to hold a full frame DSLR and a heavy lens without flinching.

My low-flat tripod is a Kirk Low Pod. The low-pod is really well constructed and is as stable as a rock. The only issue is that it is heavy and not as portable as it could be, so it never really makes it on location with me. Even though it rarely goes out, I do really like it and I use quite a bit for macro work. 

My tiny compact tripod is a Feisol TT-15 Mark 2 Carbon Fiber Tabletop Tripod. The best thing about this little guy is that it is so compact and lightweight, I can easily bring it with me anytime I shoot. The legs are adjustable, but I am not comfortable using the highest setting loaded down with my 5Ds and a 24mm tilt-shift, it feels too top-heavy. Though I am afraid that the camera might tip on the highest setting, this is not due to the tripod's sturdiness, this thing is absolutely stable when used in the lower settings and even rivals the low-pod for rock solid-ness. If I could do it all over I would probably skip the low-pod altogether and go for this, even for macro work. Since this tripod is less steady on the tallest setting, you are left with very little height adjustability. So little that I wouldn't consider height adjustability as a feature of this tripod.

The third tripod I have tried is a the Vixen Optics Berlebach Mini Tripod. This tripod is made of wood, it is small, lightweight, has a nice small footprint and is quite adjustable in terms of height. The reason I like the height adjustability is that the height allows me to put the camera on a countertop without seeing the bottom of the cabinets overhead. The build quality is great and very stable. The larger size accomodates a DSLR well and I feel comfortable using this tripod in any of its configurations.

Another well designed small tripod. The wood construction keeps it light but the fittings are strong enough to keep it rock solid with a large camera mounted. doesn't make it on location as much since it is a little larger but I love this thing when it is handy.

So which tripod is best suited to architectural photography? The adjustability of the Berlebach makes it the obvious choice, however it is larger and more cumbersome than the Feisol. I am just guessing but I would estimate that I use a tiny tripod for one in 50 shots, so the best solution is one that you don't have to think about, it is just there when you need it. In this capacity the Feisol is the best option, it is so small you can pack it on every shoot with relatively little cost in effort carrying it from location to location.

Do you have a small tripod you find indespensable? What features do you find most useful? I would love to hear from you.

The Geared Tripod Head for Architectural Photographers

I have two different geared tripod heads I use when shooting architecture. The economical and multi-talented Manfrotto 410 and the luxuriously refined and notably more expensive Arca C1. I meant this article to be a comparison between geared heads but before I go too in depth, I should start by saying if you are not using a geared head for architectural work you are really missing out. 

Geared heads make everything go so much smoother. I have tried shooting architecture with a ball head, even a very good Really Right Stuff ball head and it is no contest, the geared head wins every time. I would find when using a ball head that I would fuss with the angle, make several adjustments and then just give up. Only to fix things later in photoshop with great effort, I never knew if I had my composition just right, because I might have to crop once I fix a rotated, or out of skew image. With the geared head I would level the tripod, line up my composition and I am done, all in a few moments. I would barely need to correct at all in photoshop. In tandem with the tilt-shift lens it gives a level of precision and efficiency that is tough to beat and reminds me of my 4"x5" camera days. I find the geared tripod head indispensable as an architectural photographer but it is equally at home when shooting food, still life and landscape.

The Arca C1 Cube, small package, pricy, but it does what it does really well.

I started with a Manfrotto 410 geared head and the difference from a ball head was amazing, the controls are big, and I got so used to them that within a few days of use, I didn't really need to look at them at all. I could level the head in a few seconds using both hands at the same time. It is intuitive and easyto use and I find working with the head to be a pleasure.

If you are unfamiliar with the process or purpose of leveling a tripod head it goes a little something like this. As you probably know, if you photograph a skyscraper and tilt the camera upwards, the skyscraper looks smaller towards the top and bigger on the bottom. It is physics, the top is actually farther away and the bottom is closer. Now if you level the tripod and shoot the building flat on, the bottom and top stay relatively similar in distance but you have cropped the building top off because rather than pointing upwards you are looking straight forward. If you have a tilt-shift lens you can fix this issue, you can take the additional step of shifting the lens upward while maintaining the camera's relationship to the building. This has the effect of changing the crop without shrinking the top of the building in the frame. Then the building appears just as wide at the top as the bottom and fits beautifully in the frame.

1. The first image on the left is shot looking up, causing the building to appear smaller at the top and wider at the bottom. 2. Once the camera is leveled, the building evens out but the angle doesn't make for a great shot. 3. Using a tilt/shift lens allows the composition to be shifted to fit the buildings top and get a more appealing composition.

Tuning in just the right amount of shift is exacting work. As well as making sure the tripod is absolutely level. This is where the geared head really shines. Geared heads feature a bubble level that you watch as you work the knobs Once the bubble is precisely in the center you can be sure that your camera is perfectly lined up with the architecture. "Geared" refers to how the head actually moves. Typical tripod heads usually work by loosening and tightening the fittings. You loosen the knob make an adjustment to the camera then tighten when just the right angle is found. Geared heads work differently, they are stable, without someone touching them they will not move. When you want to make an adjustment, the knob is geared directly to move the camera. Turn the appropriate knob left and right and the camera moves left and right. The knob is firm so no accidental adjustments will happen, and it is geared at a ratio that allows for a high degree of precision. So a large turn of a knob results in a small movement of the camera. The gearing ratio allows very precise movements and once you stop adjusting the knob the camera stays fixed in exactly that spot. Compare this to ball heads where you loosen the ball move the camera and re-tighten and there is a slight change in the cameras position when you begin tightening. Don't get me wrong, the ball head is amazing at portraiture and anything that moves relatively quickly. Just as the geared head can be miserable at candid portraits because it is too slow and methodical for the task.

Here is a view of the Cube's inner workings, as you can see it is able to adjust to insane positions while staying rock solid. 

I have used the Manfrotto 410 for years without too many issues, then I moved on to a Arca C1. While it is true I still love the 410 and the C1 is an expense bordering on crazy I opted for the stability and precision of the Arca.

The first reason I switched to a cube is that the Manfrotto gets looser over time,  because the gears see lots of action. There is a secondary knob next to each knob that allows for larger movements. every time you use the second knob, the gears pull apart to allow the quick adjustment, then the gears go back together. Sometimes it is between gears when the two gears go back so they don't mesh right away causing a little damage to the gears as they finally seat into their proper position. Over a long period of time this amounts to some loosening. On my 410 with my camera mounted I can lock the tripod down tightly and grab the camera and it will wiggle, quite a bit. I did some experiments with mirror lock up and sand bags on the camera to see if the wiggle was effecting my images and I really couldn't see any loss of sharpness. It still concerned me that my tests were in my lab like studio and not outside coping with things like wind. I also feel like the camera should be rock solid, I spent a fortune on a large, heavy, steady tripod so there would be no movement at all and the head is flopping around like a fish. No thanks!

The other reason, and I think it is really just another issue to do with the gears becoming more damaged over time is that the head would move slightly over a long shot. It isn't often a problem but when it happens it can be frustrating. Sometimes I will shoot a composite image that can be made up of 15 to 20 images, which I shoot over a period of 20 minutes or so. Since I will combine these images together digitally it is critical that these images line up and stay in exactly the same place. Otherwise when I combine the images later in photoshop it can lead to a loss of sharpness. I was finding that the head would move slightly once or twice a day. It isn't a huge problem because it was usually only one axis, typically the weight of the lens would pull the camera down very slightly. If I caught the issue early I could easily align the layers but if I missed it, I might need to reprocess the files.

Here the Cube's bottom knob is used to get a vertical configuration. 

I must admit the Arca C1 Cube had always been appealing to me. I had worked with a lot of 4"x5" film cameras and I really enjoyed the precision. I never had a camera with movements quite as nice as the Cube but my photographer brother Ned Jackson had a beautiful Arca Swiss 4”x5” that was a pleasure to work with, it was so smooth and precise. My love for precision is part of why my specialties are in architecture and food, I love taking my time with a composition and trying to get everything just right. 

The Arca C1 Cube is a somewhat quirky piece of equipment, there are a lot of great things about it and a few weak points. But overall I am quite happy with it. When I first got the cube I was pleasantly surprised by how small it was. The main body felt sturdy, but the knobs and levers felt somewhat cheap and plastic. As I have used it, It works exactly as I expected, beautifully. Its movements are smooth and precise, if maybe a bit stiffer than the 410. if I wiggle the camera there is no movement at all, it is reassuringly as stable as a rock. When the tripod is locked down including my geared center post, there is no wiggling at all. I still worry about the durability of the knobs, in fact, I have a padded tripod case but I usually take the head off of the tripod and transport the head in my camera bag for safety. The levers on the top and bottom for panning the head are small and seem like they could be easily snapped off. Putting the head safely in my camera bag is insurance, because I like throwing stands and gear into the back of my car at the end of the day, and I cant imaging gently nestling everything into my car after I am exhausted from a long day of shooting.

A look at the gear in the C1 Cube.

Rather than the three geared axes of the Manfrotto 410, the Cube has two, left/right and up/down. The Cube’s pans work a little more like a fluid head and sit both on the bottom and top, just under the camera. Using the top pan has the effect of insuring that once leveled, the camera can be panned 360 degrees without getting out of perfect alignment. On the 410 if a pan move is made, the camera might need to be re-leveled. I found that as a workaround there are many inexpensive panoramic plates available that can be attached to the top of the Manfrotto. Then once leveled, only the top pan is used, and since the pan is mounted on a perfectly level tripod everything stays true no matter which way or how far you turn.

Another quirk of the Cube, and all geared heads as far as I know, is a somewhat restricted angle of motion. On the 410 I had a few occasions where I was shooting straight up and would turn the head far enough that I would hit the tripod collar and could go no further. In these circumstances the solution was to turn the camera backwards in its mount and the shot would be possible. Still it seemed a rather clumsy solution. The Cube has a different work-around for the restricted motion of geared heads. The Cube has an extra knob that allows the entire head to tip to the side allowingthe camera to reach any angle. My only real issue with this solution is that the bubble levels that are so helpful for leveling the head become useless in this configuration. I think there should be an additional set or sets on the side to fix this. Although, it is easy enough to use my in-camera level to to the job, it requires a few extra button pushes or menu reading. I know, waaaaaah, but for this kind of money I want perfect.

Here is the 410 bumping into the tripod at a relatively simple angle, usually this is easily fixed by turning the camera backwards and adjusting in the other direction.

So is the Cube worth the extra expense? That is a good question that I still occasionally ask myself. The 410 is a magnificent piece of equipment that I could easly replace many times over before I got anywhere close to the cost of a Cube. The considerations I would recommend thinking about are, will you use it enough that it will save you time and effort? In other words will it somehow pay for itself? And, are you willing to baby a piece of equipment to make sure you don't destroy it? If you like to throw your gear around, maybe this isn't the head for you. I also believe when you buy a boutique item like this, that is expensive, and highly sought after, it typically retain its value and used prices stay fairly high. So if you buy one and decide a year later that it didn’t help your work at all, you can resell at a small loss and it would still be cheaper than renting, (if you could rent this kind of thing.)

I never tried the Manfrotto 405, although it looked worth checking out I opted to go for the Arca C1 to avoid any similarities that might arise between the two Manfrotto heads. I am curious if anyone has a strong opinion either way about the 405, is it prone to wiggling in the same way as the 410? Another fascinating option is the Arca D4 which is a geared ball head. Let me know if you have experience with either of these, I am curious what your thoughts are. 

Thanks for reading and happy shooting!

31 Camera Bag Items (That Just Might Save the Day)

When I was first starting out as an architectural photographer it seemed like every shoot I would go on I would forget something critical. I learned a lot of lessons that way, each horrifying episode etched indelibly into my mind. Rather than get too upset, I would figure out a way to make-do and resolve to never make the same mistake again. Nowadays, when I am on location I always have a camera and a back-up. I have plenty of batteries, all the cards I could ever want, flash triggers, cables and even an extra lens. I try to be sure that if I have been hired to do a job that I have everything I need to keep working without missing a beat, and without my client knowing anything is wrong.

Through trial, and lots of errors I think I finally have a pretty good grasp of what I absolutely NEED to get the job done. Now for the interesting bit, what I like to squirrel away on the outside pockets of my camera bag is all of the other stuff. The items that help me get out of jams and let me do my job better. I might not use these items everyday but they sure help out from time to time. Some of these items are really helpful for photographers of all kinds and some are more helpful for people that specialize in architecture like myself. 

Above all, there is nothing worse than carrying a metric ton of junk to a shoot, “just in case”. As a professional, my back is important to me, an injury could make life miserable or even put me out of work. So, this list is aimed at items that are small, lightweight and really useful. To keep things light, I am always on the lookout for small travel-sized versions of common items. For instance, a whole roll of gaffer tape can be a pain to lug around day-in and day-out, and there is no way I would ever use the entire roll on one shoot. So, why not carry a tiny roll? The effort of carrying all of the weight in the full roll just insures that I almost never have it with me on a typical shoot. With a small roll, I always have it, and there is usually more than enough to make it through the day.

Here they are with numbers for your convenience!

So without further adieu, here is my list of super-useful, lightweight, life savers:

1. Small pad of paper - If i need to make any notes it is handy to have this around

2. Pen - I won’t get very far writing notes without this guy

3.  Air Blower - just in case I have a dust issue, this usually lives in a sealed ziplock to keep dust away, otherwise this might make things worse.

4. Cards - I am often asked for business cards while on a shoot. I like postcards because I can fit a few different images on there, like a tiny portfolio.

5. Lens Cleaning Wipes - two part, one wet for cleaning, one dry for…well, drying.

6. Tripod Tool - These are supposed to stay on your tripod but they promptly pop off and get lost. Now I just keep one in my bag’s front pocket. It is for tightening the leg clamps on my Manfrotto tripod.

7. Loupe - for viewing the camera’s back screen during the middle of a bright sunny day.

8. Thumb Drive - I always need these, I buy them by the box.

9. Lint Roller - This is handy for clothing and upholstery. Travel sized of course.

10.Mints - After a morning coffee and a long drive it can smell like I have been roasting sewage in my mouth, just in time to meet my new client!

11. Rag - This does double duty, it is one of those super absorbent evaporative cooling rags. I can clean up a spill or soak it, ring it out and wear it around my neck to cool down when I am shooting outside in summer heat.

12. Band Aids- Once in a while you need one and you’ll wish you had them in your bag.

13. Multi Tool - Pliers, screw drivers, scissors and pocket knife in one tiny package.

14. Flashlight - This is a tiny one made for doctors, it has lots of power and very nice quality light. Works great at what it is supposed to do, but I have also used it to skim a little rim light on food shots.

15. Suction Cup Hangers - I use a large white cloth silk with grommets to bounce light when I am shooting interiors and I don't have white walls. When the walls are dark or when I have nothing but windows, these give me an easy way to hang a silk on glass.

16. Retractable Lens Brush - Handy for quickly removing dust from the lens.

17. Allen Wrenches - These are one of the more useful tools in the bag. I can make quick Tripod repairs or remove an l-bracket. These are big though, I think I might just switch to a couple single allen wrenches and drop some bulk. I only really use two or three of the sizes anyway.

18. Gray Card - This is really a back up for my Color Checker Passport, which I have been known to forget from time to time. This does everything you need if you have already calibrated your camera. For a more detailed explanation of color management visit here.

19. Antacid- Long shoot day, upset stomach, no problem.

20. Gaffer Tape - Baby sized roll, no sense carrying an extra couple of pounds in a big bulky roll. This is plenty for most jobs.

21. Sticky stuff - Easily removable, I use this a bit more often for food, to keep a prop angled just right or a spoon from sliding out of place on a plate.

22. Clothes pins - Useful for pinning extra fabric back on clothing or curtains

23. Tiny A-Clamps - When you need a little more grab than the clothespins, I use them to attach gels to lights.

24. Large Zip-Lock Bag - good for carrying home anything damp or covering your camera in the rain.

25. A-Clamps - These are still small, but big enough to clamp a reflector to a light stand or hang a silk.

26. Tiny Tripod Legs - When shooting interiors I often end up with my camera scooched back as far as I can possibly go, sometimes that puts my camera on a window sill, or a shelf, or counter. I just pull the head off my full sized tripod attach it to this little thing and I am set.

27. Cinefoil or Blackwrap - A bit of black foil for fashioning a quick snoot or gobo. I just grab a couple feet and fold it up.

28. Lens Cloth - I actually use this for my glasses all of the time. Just another option to manage dust.

29. Zip Ties - I once had to take down a bunch of construction webbing while photographing a building, with these I was able to put everything back to normal when I finished.

30. Aspirin -  or whatever works for you.

31. Glass Cleaning Wipes - I find these really useful, I can quickly take care of a dirty countertop, fingerprints on a mirror or shower surround without looking all over for the cleaning supplies.

Well, that is about it…for now. This is a evolving list, some things might be added or lost over time. I find these items worth the effort to carry with me every time I go on a shoot. Have you got any other camera bag items you can’t live without? Let me know I would love to hear about it. Happy shooting!

Here is what everything looks like crammed in the front pocket of my bag my bag (not too bad), I keep a bunch of flat stuff in the side pocket. Everything fits with room to spare.

A quick note on how the main image was made. After setting everything up as carefully as I could on an old marble slab I use for food photography, I used a Dynalite Baja B4 with a large profoto deep silver umbrella. I love the combination of softness and crispness you can get with this umbrella, it is almost like shooting with a beauty dish.

Image Licensing Explained in 2 Minutes Flat

So you are hiring a photographer to do some work for you and he/she mentions licensing. What is licensing, why do I have to deal with it and wouldn’t it be easier if we just forgot the whole thing and you just give me the pictures?

Well, the short answer is that there are countless way to use and abuse a photograph that you might never imagine in a 100 years, but U.S. Copyright law is there to protect the artwork’s creator when things get complicated.

Okay, so how do things get complicated?

Lets imagine you made a lovely painting of your dog. You show your painting at the state fair and it sells for the princely sum of $20. You hear a couple of years later that the painting is hanging over the mantel at the new owner’s house, they love it and enjoy it everyday.

Now, what if you heard that the same couple, took a photo of your painting and shopped it around to the dog food companies, landing a big contract. They licensed your work to be used on dog food bags for 5 million dollars. Well, luckily for you that would be illegal, because you own the “intellectual property” of that painting. Even though you no longer own the physical painting. That is because the artist always owns the copyright to his or her own images. The couple could burn the actual painting or throw it away because they own it, but they cannot transfer the copyright because it was never theirs to sell.

Usually the dog food company would know better than to use a image that they don’t have the rights to use. So, lets say the dog food company calls you up and wants to use your image, they want a very limited run of dog food bags and offer $500. Then, after you agree to the terms they decide to use your image for all of their products, a national ad campaign, billboards and every single dog food bag they make. They also decide that they already paid you so there will be no additional payment. Again, luckily for you, the dog food company didn’t buy the copyright. They simply paid for a usage license specific to their needs. If the company decided to use your image on a big campaign then you would license your image based on how much use the image will get.

So what did we learn? First, the artist keeps the copyright for their creative work, and as such, the artist can go on to sell prints or license that very same image. Second, if you buy an image there is no transfer of copyright implied, so you can’t share it with other businesses because it is not yours to give. Third, licensing is how you go about getting images for use in advertising, and the licensing is tailored to the way the image will be used.

So who wins when images are licensed for use? Everyone, the current system insures that images cannot be exploited by a third party, the artist gets paid for their work and the client pays only for what they need.

Coping With Color Casts in Architectural Photography

Color casts are tints or washes of color in a photographic image that are often unwanted and have the potential to ruin an otherwise excellent photo. They can affect the whole image or be broken up into local areas. Casts are a real pain for all photographers but are an especially difficult issue for architectural photographers. The reason for this is that light sources in a typical interior often differ greatly in color. for instance natural daylight is on the bluer side of the spectrum than the warmer more orange incandescent bulbs commonly used in household fixtures. Fluorescent and led bulbs can be warm or cool and have strange gaps in their color spectrum that can be difficult to correct, complicating things further.

When photographing an architectural interior you will likely find all of these mixed-color sources in one room, causing pools of distinctly different colored light. This can obscure the proper color of the finishings in the room and confuse the viewer of the image. In a small interior, the solution may be changing a few bulbs to match the daylight color, but this will hardly remedy color issues in larger rooms where all of the fixtures could not be changed easily without a great expense of time and money. So architectural photographers need strategies to manage their color and guarantee that their clients get the results they desire.

step 2 Calibrating the monitor. If your monitors color is off, so are all of your files.

To avoid huge overall color issues, one of the first and most important ways photographers can get their color straight is to make sure that their equipment is calibrated. Without calibration accurate color is a guessing game, is too red, purple, green? Who knows? For example, imagine that your computer monitor is a little bright and slightly purple, if you were to work on those images in photo editing software like Photoshop or Lightroom you would likely correct the brightness by darkening the file and fix the purple tint by removing purple or adding green(purple’s opposite). Then every image that you produce by this method would be off. And when you send the files to the printer you will likely be confronted by less than perfect results, even though the images looked amazing on your monitor. Compound this by the numerous ways that a monitor can be off, like contrast, brightness, color and saturation and you begin to get the idea.

here is the monitor calibrator going through its paces.

There are devices that help calibrate every step in a photographer’s workflow. In practice it works a little like this. The photographer, takes a picture of a color card that uses industry standard colors. Then using software, the computer looks at the file and determines how close each of these colors in the digital file resemble the standard colors. Once the differences are detected, a profile is created that compensates for each of these color changes. This step helps diagnose any quirks with the camera’s color, in different lighting situations. The profile gets applied to each image during processing. This leaves the issue of the monitor because even if the files are perfect you would still adjust them to compensate for a poorly calibrated monitor.

To get the monitor set correctly you can use a monitor calibrating tool. This is a light reading tool that can detect less-than-perfect color. It is like a camera, that sits directly on the computer monitor screen. When activated, the software runs through a sequence of colors and the device reads them trying to detect differences between what what is displayed on the screen and what is read by the device. When a profile is created it is then applied to the monitor to insure that all of the differences are corrected for. For print, there is even an additional profile that can be made using a reader to measure the density of the inks to insure accurate color. Once you have taken the step of calibrating, a simple gray card will yield excellent results. However it is important to calibrate every few weeks or so because all of the elements will drift over time.

Here is a typical mixed light photo, the light from the window is cool and the area around the lights is yellow-orange. A gray card reading helps a bit but as you can see here the color is good in some areas and not others.

A calibrated workflow insures that even though there are many elements that must work together, if everyone involved with a project is working with a calibrated system we will get good results. Since I have switched to working with a calibrated workflow I consistently have better results when working with printers and posting to websites. There are just far fewer unpleasant surprises.

Colorspaces are another way to insure that there isn’t any loss of color fidelity in your images. In this case when a file is sent from one individual to another. A colorspace refers to the amount steps or gradations between colors in an image. Photographers are better off working with more colors in a file because the files are more robust and can take more editing. Colorspaces can be huge, some are even so large that no monitors can display the full range contained in the file, in fact very few monitors can display the full range of colors in the most commonly used colorspaces. When professional photographers and designers exchange files they are usually safe even when using larger color spaces. But, as soon as the file might be viewed on anything other than professional image editing software the results are unpredictable. 

Here I have begun to adjust for the yellow lights, by using color balance.

The most common colorspace is one of the simpler web-based colorspaces called sRGB. sRGB was developed as a standard to insure consistency of colors on the web. When an image in a large colorspace like Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB gets converted in a consumer grade image viewing program to the sRGB that it uses to display images, it can cause all sorts of trouble. Your carefully color balanced and calibrated files will be displayed completely out of sorts, if it looks good it is simply luck. For this reason when saving and working in a lossless format intended for other imaging professionals you should use the more robust Adobe RGB. But when saving Jpegs for a client you are likely better off saving in the lesser sRGB to insure color consistency. This is because all image viewers speak sRGB but only a few are sophisticated enough to take a different type of colorspace and display it accurately. So do your editing in ProPhoto or Adobe RGB then as a last step convert the image to sRGB.

Here I have inverted the mask from white to black, hiding the color adjustment.

Calibration and color space are great solutions for global color issues, but that still leaves us with the problem of localized pools of color that are a result of mixed light sources. In limited amounts, mixed color lighting can add some drama or warmth to an image, but when overdone it can look ugly and amateurish. There are a couple of solutions for photographers and retouchers that can help fix mixed light: masking and adding more lighting while shooting.

Masking is done in post production, after the image is shot, and is a way of applying localized changes of color. The concept behind the mask is that an adjustment can be made on a layer in Photoshop and then selectively applied. So for instance, I can add a color balance adjustment layer and make an adjustment that corrects an issue in part of the photo. By default, the adjustment will be applied to the entire image but, I can change this by clicking on the white square in my layer and inverting the mask by holding command and pressing I (for invert). Once the mask is inverted and it’s color is changed to black you reveal the effect by painting with a white brush on the black mask. In this way fine adjustments can be made

Finally I have painted in the mask with a white brush to reveal the color adjustment. I wasn't quite happy with just the color balance adjustment so I added a hue/saturation adjustment layer with the yellows and reds desaturated and painted in the effect in the same way as I did the color balance. I think it looks a whole lot better.

The other solution to mixed-color lighting is to bring lighting to the shoot, and light everything with daylight-balanced flash. If the camera is fixed to a very steady tripod, the lit exposure and the ambient exposure with the practical lights on can be used together to correct the color casts. The lit frame can be used with the “color” blend mode so that it doesn't affect the exposure, it just transfers the accurate color. Then the opacity can be dropped to a level where the effect is natural looking. After that, by using a copy of the lit frame in the “normal”(affects color) or “luminosity”(doesn’t affect color) mode you can decide how much fill to add. This has the effect of removing the cast but can be dialed in to exactly the level you desire.

Here, I applied a final global color balance and the result is not bad, certainly better than before.

Here finally is the image of the room lit with daylight balanced strobe, mixed with the ambient light. I prefer the look of this method. It keeps the lights and window from being too "blown-out" and allows me to adjust the levels to my liking in post.

Thanks for visiting, perhaps you have some tips of your own that you would like to share on color casts, I would love to hear them. I also did an embarrassingly brief explanation of masking, if you would like to hear more on making selections for masking let me know and it will be the topic of an upcoming entry. If you have a moment, stick around and see some more of my blog posts, I have some recent articles on cutting photography costs by splitting production costs and another on what to look for when searching for an architectural photographer.

How to Save Money on Architectural Photography by Splitting Costs

Great photography is an essential marketing tool for architects, designers, engineers and builders. So it should come as no surprise that all of these different businesses could benefit from the same set of photographs if they work on a project together. Rather than each business hiring a photographer to go out and photograph their handiwork, sharing the production costs of a photo shoot can be a great way to stretch your budget.

As you may already know, according to U.S. copyright law, images are non-transferable. Which means that the purchaser of an image is buying the rights to use the image but not ownership. Usually there is an arrangement with the buyer describing how the image(s) can be used, for how long and in what media. So, the purchaser is free to use the images as described in their license but cannot give them to another party to use or sell them to another party. To illustrate the concept, if you were to buy a poster with the Mona Lisa printed on it, although you payed something for the image, you do not own the image itself. Nor do you have the rights to sell the image to another business. Also, If you were to license the Mona Lisa image for a tote bag that you would like to sell, then the image is licensed for that use and none other. You couldn’t begin selling posters and you couldn’t sell the image itself to another business to use however they wish. Creative work is considered “intellectual property”, meaning that even if rights for use are sold the image copyright remains the property of the creator.

On rare occasions either the copyright is transferred or exclusive rights are sold. These scenarios apply to employees making work for their employers, or when a business is willing to pay the far higher price for ownership and the ability to transfer the images. In the case of the business wanting exclusivity the cost is usually prohibitive since the image can be used without limit. 

Architects, engineers and developers typically want licenses that allow them to use the images for quite a while because their work will likely remain in their portfolio for years, so typically the time frame is “perpetual”, meaning the images can be used forever. The image license is usually “non-exclusive”, which means that the images can be licensed by the photographer to others involved in the project. And the usage rights most often covers direct mail, internet use and contest submission. For these types of businesses this package covers probably 99% of the advertising they will do with the pictures. If the firm decides later that they love one of the images and want to use it for a full page ad or a bunch of billboards, the additional usage is negotiated separately. This insures that the client doesn’t pay for licensing that they will never use, which keeps costs down.

When you hire a professional architectural photographer to create an image for you, there are two major costs that factor into the bottom line. There is the photographers fee, which would include the photographers time, an assistant if necessary, post-production and retouching. And the usage, which would include the terms of the licensing, like, how long can the image be used and in what media. Both of these numbers can vary wildly depending on the circumstances of the shoot and how widely the image(s) will be used. If two parties decide to jointly work with a photographer then the photographers fee stays the same and usage for one additional party is added.

To break this down into dollars and cents, say, a full day shoot of 12 images costs $2,000. which includes the production cost and usage. If you were add usage for an additional party that would add something like $800. to the total amount. Once the two parties split the $2,800. total, the cost for each participant would be $1,400. A savings of $600. So, the cost for two participants is less for each party than hiring the photographer for a single end user. And if there are more participants the price continues to go down for each separate user. For three parties one more usage would be added, in this demonstration the total would be $3600 split three ways, or $1200. each. The same amount of photos are shot

Splitting costs happens before the shoot. This is because the shoot is speculative, the parties agree on a shot list and agree to purchase the images. They are commissioning work to be done, they trust it will be done to the standard of the photographers previous work but they do not know what the photos will look like. If, one year later an additional firm wanted to split costs, it is too late. They can see the photos and know exactly what they are getting, they are available immediately and without the effort of arranging for the space to be available. In this circumstance the photos cost somewhere near or slightly more than the original one user price.

Many of my clients spit costs whenever they can because it saves money or allows them to get more individual images within their marketing budget. If I had to guess about half of the architectural shoots I do are for more than one client. The practice is so common that many times when I am asked to provide a bid the architect has already discussed splitting production costs with another firm and will ask for rates with one or two additional parties involved before I ever suggest the idea. So, if you have never considered the idea maybe for your next shoot, you can pool your resources and pair with another firm to get some great photos and save a little money at the same time.

Thanks for reading, please let me know if you have any questions or comments. I have posted on many issues related to architectural photography so please stop by If you would like to learn more about copyright or picking the right photographer for you. I am located outside of Philadelphia and am only a short drive away from D.C. and New York, if you are an architect, engineer, builder or developer and need great photography to promote your business give me a call, I would love to hear about your project.

What is a Professional Architectural Photographer?

I’ve been through this scenario a few times. A business contacts me. They love my work and are wondering if I am available and how much it would cost to photograph their project. We talk a bit, I give them a quote, and then I don’t hear from them again… for a little while. When I do hear from them, it is to tell me that they hired someone else but are unhappy with the results, and they would like to hire me to re-shoot. Usually, the other photographer is a very talented photographer, so why didn’t things work out? 

Photography is a marriage between technology and art. The other photographer was skilled at the wedding and portrait photography in their online portfolio. The photographer might have a real artistic eye, and had a top-of-the-line camera. So it would stand to reason that they should be good at photographing whatever they aimed that expensive DSLR camera at. But the photos look distorted and too wide, there is considerable haze, the interior is dark, the windows are big white blobs and the colors are all wrong.

Architectural photography is a creative discipline that involves different skills than other forms of photography. To start with, it is one of the most technically challenging types of photography, it is careful and methodical and always done with a tripod. There are special techniques suited to photographing buildings and interiors that have little practical use in making portraits. Also there is a huge amount of difference between lighting a portrait and a whole room or portion of a building, in terms of equipment and technique.

The other photographer’s amazing camera surely is capable of getting the shots. Among professional photographers there is a little bit of difference between cameras but not much. The reason I get sharper images is that I use a very heavy tripod, with a precise rock-steady geared head that allows me to be very accurate. I don’t even touch the camera but remotely fire the shutter to keep things absolutely still. I am careful not to move during exposures not to wiggle the camera, if it is windy I remove the camera strap so things don't wiggle at all during an exposure. All of these things and a few more give me very slightly sharper images, alone they don’t amount to much but together it can make a world of difference. In fact much of my current portfolio was shot on a digital camera that was released in 2008, but you cant see a big jump in quality because architectural photographers are great at getting the very best quality that the camera can produce, no matter what camera they use. My current camera is amazing but there is very little I can do with this new camera that I can't do with the old one.

The point is, most of these techniques wouldn't help a portraitist. It would slow them down and make them miss the split second shot that they are so good at getting. Photographers must develop a workflow that helps them with each different type of subject. Architectural photographers develop techniques that most photographers never need to learn.

Rather than how good a camera is, the real difference in quality between photographers is how well they handle light. In photographing buildings, it seems like all of the light is already in place, all that is left to do is just a matter of pressing a button. But in reality interior photographers do everything other photographers do, but also hide their tracks. You can’t have a visible light and light stand in the middle of a perfectly composed interior design. So, when the light is no good, you might cover a window with black fabric or diffuse it. You might supplement with a flash that is removed digitally from the shot. The key is being able to see when the light is flat or unflattering and being able to come up with a strategy to fix it without the lights being visible in the finished image. No camera, no matter how good can do all that. These are all routine issues for photographers that shoot interiors but rare in other types of photography.

So, when I am hired to do a re-shoot how do I proceed differently than the other guy or gal? First, as I described, I am on a rock-steady tripod. Then I am connected wirelessly to my camera through my computer or iPad. This does two things, one, I can focus and shoot on a much larger screen, so If there are any problems I can see them easily and fix them. If my client is present they can also see everything perfectly without compromise, and know if the shot is proceeding to their liking. The second reason to trigger wirelessly is that the camera stays absolutely still. A tiny bit of motion during an exposure can make an image less sharp. 

Another thing I bring to the table, is that I am well versed in all of the current techniques for architectural photography. One of the challenges of photographing buildings is that there is a vast amount of range between the darkest part of the photo to the lightest. Architectural photographers are very familiar with this issue because it is so common to the genre. There are several different techniques used by architectural photographers using photoshop masks, paths, blend modes, layer styles or even separate software. Some techniques work great sometimes and not others, it is helpful to be familiar with them all. Most photographers are not familiar with any of them because they are so specific to architectural photography.

A good architectural photographer understands how to stretch a budget to fit any client, and rather than providing a bunch of mediocre images they put all of their focus towards saying what needs to be said in as few images as possible. Architectural photographers know how to shoot in order to emphasize the form or the design, and when to do each. They also keep in mind that one of the most important goals of this type of photography is to document how the space is to be used, if there is a specific functionality the photos need to show it.

The camera might be similar from photographer to photographer, but an architectural photographer usually shoots with special lenses. There is no autofocus here, most focusing is done zoomed-in as close as possible on the computer screen. These lenses are designed to tilt and shift the front of the lens to allow the photographer to reduce geometric distortion and to change the plane of focus. They are fussy to work with for less technical photography, but perfect for architectural photographers because it allows the photographer to remove the keystone effect that is visible when photographing buildings. Tilt shift lenses also allow the photographer to get compositions not possible without lots of pixel-stretching in photoshop. 

Each technique might give a few percentage points of better results but once you add up all of these it can make the difference between a mediocre shot and stunning one.

Then, last but not least, there is a huge difference between a novice and a pro. A pro answers emails, a pro shows up on time, a pro has insurance, a pro gets the job done on time and a pro always has a back-up. When I am hired to photograph a property, there is a lot of preparation that goes into setting up the shoot, and time is money, for me and my client. So when I am on location I always have a second camera body in case the first fails. Then the cards in the camera are another point of weakness, therefore both of my camera bodies record to two separate cards simultaneously, so I always have a back-up. When I show up on site, I always have enough light to get the job done, and I even travel with a back-up light. Once I am back at the studio I have the images backed-up two more times on hard drives and another time remotely over the internet. Then all edits are done quickly, most jobs are delivered within a few days. These are just some of the benefits of working with someone that is a professional.

Questions or comments? Please let me know what you think. If you found this page because you are in need of the services of a professional architectural photographer stop by my homepage, or my blog where there is plenty of useful information on how to find the right photographer for you, and the difference between architectural and real estate photographers. Thanks for joining me and I hope to see you soon.

A Cropping Conundrum

I love shooting still-life. I like it because of all of the options available if I take my time and really craft the image. In most of the photography I do, I will take a shot, study it,  figure out what is working and what isn’t and make corrections. After around 30 or 40 shots I decide that I probably have the image I need and move on. Usually when I am shooting food, I quit when the food starts looking bad or wilted or cold. If I haven’t gotten the shot before the food goes ugly I will re-heat or replace. If I am lucky a few seconds of the heat gun will do wonders and bring back a dish from the edge. Today I am working on a new food shot, and while I shot the requisite 40 images or so, todays shoot illustrates beautifully, why, once I have the shot there is plenty left to do.

A bit of textile to break things up a bit.

The setup is simple, I thought I would let the subject do most of the talking. I decide on an overhead composition because the mood strikes me for some reason. I have an old slate chalkboard with lots of character that I have smeared with a bit of chalk dust for the background, and the food will be in a marble or alabaster bowl. That is pretty much it. When I start doing test photos I am pleasantly happy with the results I get from my roughed-out lighting design.

Another try with the textile, I like that it matches the bowl. But what I really like is the food looks great up close.

The key light is a silver beauty dish without a cover. A beauty dish is a silver reflector that is about 20 inches across and has a small plate that covers the direct light. It gives off an interesting light that is soft and crisp at the same time. I like the contrast a beauty dish gives for food photography, but depending on how shiny the food is I might modify things a bit by covering the dish or even shooting with a softbox. The light from the key(or main light) is a bit contrasty so rather than go to a softbox I supplement with a bit of bounced fill(a second light bounced off of the ceiling to “fill” in the shadows).  I ended up shooting a bunch of versions while adjusting the amount of fill. This way I could tune in the exact amount of contrast to make the food look its best. 

Here I tried adding another element to give a little more compositional interest.

A lot of food photography for hire is done with natural light from a window, it can be really forgiving and gives great results but these days I have been trying to light with strobes whenever I shoot. I want to be certain that I can get a good shot no matter what. It gets dark really early some of the year and I don’t want to be dependent on just the right conditions, so practicing with artificial seems like a good idea. Plus there is a certain joy with experimentation that I enjoy, I love coming up with new looks.

This time I lose the cloth. I like the simplicity but I am not sure it adds anything. I could see using more wood as a table top, but then I lose my slate backdrop. I feel like the mushrooms and sauce look very similar to the background, in a good way. But then the chicken and the wood get along famously too. Well, I have to make my mind up sometime, slate it is.

As usual, most of the lighting decisions were made before the food was on set. Using the stone bowl on the slate background and some crumpled paper to stand in for the food, I am able to get some idea of how the light will look on the real thing. This way I can fine tune the lighting without worrying about the food looking dead. The food generally looks its best when it is hot so I want to have most of the nitty gritty out of the way so I can shoot quickly when everything looks appetizing. When I am happy with the composition I will set some markers (toothpicks in this case) for where the plate should go once it is ready to shoot. That way it is easy to get everything back in place once the food is plated up.

Ooh, I like this one. It would make a nice two page spread. It feels like a nice combinations of textures and values.

Once the food is on set and everything back in its place I start shooting and adjusting. I will look at the food and move around the elements so everything doesn’t look like a big mess. Then, I will start small adjustments of the light and positioning the props. Over the course of the shoot I tried a few different props including silverware but nothing added much to the picture. The real star of the shot was the texture in the food, in the bowl and on the surface. I made a couple of versions with a cutting board and some monks cloth that matched the bowl and decided that I think I got the shot.

This is starting to be a whole lot of cropping, I would probably pull in tighter for this shot rather than crop, just to keep the image detailed enough. But I think this might be my favorite of the bunch. I love all of the detail from getting really close to the food.

The next step in the process is loading the images into Lightroom to edit the photos. In Lightroom I do color correction, I fix the exposure and do cropping. All of these images start out at 51 megapixels which is more than enough for a billboard, so I can crop like crazy without degrading the image at all. And cropping can have a huge impact on the final image. It is a big part of the creative process for a photographer. So I start chopping things up and seeing what looks good. I have come up with several options that I like, some using the props, some without. I think I know which image I like but this part is very subjective. I think my favorite right now isthe crop where the bowl is cut off at the top. It lets the viewer get real close and really shows off the texture. But I would bet there is probably a similarly good argument for each of these versions. Fact is, my opinion today might differ from my opinion tomorrow. But, I am really curious, if you have a favorite let me know.

One final image that crops out everything but the wood. Not my favorite but it does show how well the colors work together. This has confirmed for me the power of getting in really tight to show texture. I prefer the close shots at least for this dish.

Thanks for reading, I hope you enjoyed this inside look into food photography. If you have a restaurant or food business or have been dreaming of writing a cookbook, I would love to hear about it. You can reach me through my contact page, I am of course Daniel Jackson. Perhaps I can help you with your business, I do food photography for hire. I have lots of great ideas of how to stretch your advertising budget for the best results. Contact me for a free quote. To see more of my food photography portfolio visit here.