Chuck Norcutt wrote
>
> A neighbor of mine suggested that, since I'm out of work at the moment,
> I should start a sideline of photographing interiors. He does
> architectural drawings for many building contractors who frequently have
> before and after pictures made of remodeling work. He says, in his
> opinion, that most of this photography is simply awful and he "knows"
> that I could do a much better job. He'll be happy to put in a good word
> for me with these contractors.
>
> He "knows" I can do a better job after seeing some portraits that I've
> done including one of his wife. Now, I know (even if he doesn't) that
> interiors are a far cry from portraits. In 35 years of casual
> photography I've never attempted interiors other than what's
> accidentally caught taking photos of people indoors. I also tend to be
> a telephoto type of guy. My view of the world is generally at 70 mm or
> longer. While I own 24/2.8, 28/3.5 and 35/2.8 lenses they're almost
> never mounted on the camera unless it's outdoors for some sort of scenic
> view.
>
> Anybody have some suggestions here? Looking at my own kitchen through
> the 24 mm shows some not so wonderful perspective effects. It also
> tells me that 24 mm might not be short enough. And, of course, shorter
> is going to be (besides expensive) even worse on the perspective front.
> A 24 mm shift is out of the question.
>
Chuck
First thing, learn what to charge. Don't do a job on the cheap just
because it's your first assignment. Do it on spec, and if it's accepted
charge the full going rate.
Architectual clients will probably expect images without converging
verticals, which is a lot easier to achieve with either a shift lens or
the movements that large format gear provides. Architectual work is one
arena where LF excels: its bulk and weight are not a problem, neither is
the slowness of operation. The quality of the large negative is
desirable to capture the fine detail in texture, so much so that I doubt
that much quality architectual work is done on 35mm. Cost of LF
materials is offset by the fact that you don't need to make many
exposures. The real cost is the amount of time spent detailing and
styling the interior.
One of the big challenges with interior work is colour reproduction.
Building interiors use fluorescent lights and these are hell to colour
correct, yet if an interior designer has used a particular shade of
green for the walls they sure expect it to be accuractly reproduced in
the photograph. Some new emulsions (Fuji?) are meant to be better in
this regard, and the first thing I'd do is start finding a suitable
film. (Of course, b+w solves the problem, but clients mostly want
colour.) A lot of interior photographers go to the trouble of changing
all the fluro tubes for special daylight-balanced photographic lights
and adding key-lights, so it starts to lok like a movie set. *This* is
the tine consuming part.
Probably the best thing is to buy a few architectual and design
magazines and disect the images in there. Phone up the photographer and
chat with them -- start of the conversation with "Your photography is
excellent" and you'll be right.
It's worth remembering that exterior architectural photograpers are a
dime-a-dozen because the entry fee is so low: no studio needed, just a
camera. Interior work is much more demanding.
Good luck.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|