# Lens recommendations for real estate interior photography please



## ereka (Dec 26, 2011)

Season's greetings from the UK! 

Given a full frame camera body, which lenses would you recommend for real estate interior photography? This is an area of photography that I've only recently become involved with, so I'm looking for some guidance here. 

My kit currently includes a 24-70mm f/2.8L (my widest lens) but I'm thinking that 24mm might not be wide enough for all purposes e.g. small rooms. I'm considering the 14mm f/2.8L II but it is quite expensive and I'm not sure at the moment how much interior photography I'll be doing and the payback period might be rather long!

My brief is to use available light and avoid using flash wherever possible.

Any suggestions for an interior photography beginner that will get the job done to a professional standard but won't break the bank? If you're already involved in this type of photography, which are your 'workhorse' lenses?

Any and all advice appreciated!


----------



## Flake (Dec 26, 2011)

Firstly you should be aware of the legalities in the UK which say that you must declare if you have used a wide angle lens (anything wider than 50mm).

17mm on the 17 - 40mm L should be wide enough and if necessary stitch a couple together, if rooms are very small then more stitching may be necessary, you might want to consider buying a Pano head.

Planning not to use flash is planning to fail! You might even want to use multiple flash units with an ST-E2, certain rooms have dark areas which need bringing up, you can even use flash outdoors to mimic the sun streaming in.

Interiors is a discipline all of its own, and it's not simple stuff there are loads of free tutorials all over the internet, you should look at lots of them before you consider pressing the shutter.


----------



## Caps18 (Dec 26, 2011)

If money is no object, the 17mm TS-E would be the way to go. I am thinking about getting one next year for different tree photos I take.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 26, 2011)

Caps18 said:


> If money is no object, the 17mm TS-E would be the way to go.



+1. If in your budget, the TS-E will allow you to correct keystone distortion, 17mm on FF should be wide enough, and if not (e.g. small bathrooms), you can take 2-9 images that can be seamlessly stitched by using shift. 

You're considering the 14/2.8 II, about the same price as the TS-E - of the two, I'd take the TS-E. 

You mention available light - be sure you have a good tripod! Don't worry about 'fast' lenses - you'll want to stop down a bit for DoF anyway. Thus, the tripod. Assuming there aren't people walking around, you can use a longer exposure. 

One problem with no flash for RE photography is balancing indoor lighting with day-lit windows. It can be done with flashes, but if that's out I'd recommend learning about HDR.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 26, 2011)

I've got lots of exPerience in this arena. What body are you using? 17mm on a crop will not be wide enough for the most part but will be fine on a full frame. On a crop grab a 10-22 or 10-20. It's very wide angle so if you can, use a level, if you have the 7d, use those levels, or get a hot shoe level. The 17 will work for big rooms but small to medium you will need to do heavy post production work to stitch. Flash is good but use diffusion and use it sparingly. They can become unwieldy and a bit much if You don't mask and or hide them well. Instead if possible, get cheap work lights at a home improvement store or even the round reflector lights that accept house hold lights. They plug in anywhere in the house, easy to hide and controll. Heck you can even get a lamp dimmer to soften the light if you wish. Keep your verticals under control. I can't tell you how much bad architecture photography I see where in interiors the vertical lines on the wall cave in on you or bow out just because the camera was not level.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 26, 2011)

Hopefully someone who has done a lot of this will chime in but here are some thoughts I've accumulated over just a few dozen interior photographs.

If there are strong light sources in the room (e.g. sunlight coming in a window, candles, accent lights) your available light photo will often cause these sources to blow out badly. You want a flexible light kit that will allow you to balance the light in the room so candles still look like candles, and there's still beautiful sunlight streaming into the room, but also so that light sources don't blow out. As Neuro said, HDR might do this for you as well, but you should spend the time to find out what works and what doesn't. Also practice working with mixed light colors, e.g. fluorescent + incandescent

Also, edge-to-edge sharpness is important, so if your lens isn't up for it, either get one that is, or plan to crop and stitch.

I suggest you read some books on interior photography for more ideas; a quick search on Amazon.com shows a number of titles. Remember that interior photographs are often scrutinized in minute & technical detail.

Good luck.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 26, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> What body are you using? 17mm on a crop will not be wide enough for the most part but will be fine on a full frame. The 17 will work for big rooms but small to medium you will need to do heavy post production work to stitch.



OP's post started 'Given a FF camera...' Just to clarify, I think your statement about 17mm not being adequate for small/medium rooms applies to crop bodies, right? It should be wide enough for most rooms on FF, IMO. 

Great point about the hotshoe level!


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 26, 2011)

Thanks for the clarification neuro. In my experience, on crop, 17 mm will not be wide enough to get adequate ceiling and floor in your shot. In architecture you want breathing space... Area where the viewer can feel they can walk around the scene. To combat this a lot of photogs tilt down to show more floor than ceilings but then they get narly distortions. 

Color balance is something that is overly overlooked by many photos. Mixing tungsten or strobes in fluorescent rooms or such can give ugly color and many photogs don't check. Try to keep all lights either tungsten or daylight and learning either to do hdr or balance light indoors with outdoors will be good skills to learn. The latter gives you the most control and hdr can look bad at times in architecture. To get great exposures on exteriors most hers will use lower exposures on the interior so it's somewhat proportional. If not corrected the room can look dark and unwelcoming. Always try to view the property before you shoot so you can brainstorm before you shoot, get the right lights for the scene, bring extra lights to replace the properties lights if needed to match your lights, and make sure it goes smoothly. Also bringing cleaning supplies is a good idea. No property manager/owner will object to having you clean/dust/etc as needed. If you cannot use flash, perhaps they won't object to accent lights such as cheap silver reflector lights or even lamps you can Plug in and hide. Some properties for archiving purposes don't light flash because they are afraid of items aging quicker than normal, such as museums and castles, but if they are requesting for you to photograph, they tend to allow less powerful lighting gear that won't do as much damage as strobe. If that isn't allowed bring lots and lots of reflectors and learn to hide them from view of the camera.


----------



## Policar (Dec 26, 2011)

I hate to be "like this," but if you're considering this field professionally and not just for fun, a 5DII, 17mm TS E, 24mm TS E, and a decent set of off-camera strobes and hot lights is the absolute bare minimum for the low end.

You can fake it with the widest available APS-C lens, photoshop to correct for perspective correction, and HDR, but that's a pretty bad fake.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 26, 2011)

As Arwin said, lighting is a huge issue, you need even color-balanced lighting, powerful enough to overcome outdoor liighting coming in thru windows. I do a lot of natural lighting photography in theatres where I cannot use extra lighting, and do not get the results you'd want for interior usage.

A low cost lens is the Canon 15mm FE which can be corrected and still have a reasonably wide fov. Its far superior ti the 14mm Samyang that I bought. Rent a 17mm TS-E, and the other candidates and find out what works, but plan on another $$$$ for good lighting, don't get cheap junk lighting, you will just have to dump it. You can rent good lighting until such time as you decide to buy it.


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 26, 2011)

*Something about TS-E lenses...*

I have a TS-E 24mm L, and while it is very nice, I can't focus it through the viewfinder, even with the EgS screen.

I rented a Zeiss 35mm, and I couldn't focus that one, either. Live view, yup. Viewfinder, nope.

An aftermarket split prism screen is something I need to try. 

I would make sure that you can focus a lens with your eyes and camera before buying a TS-E lens.

I wear glasses, and my eyes aren't bad.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Dec 26, 2011)

After being not really satisfied with my 16-35/2,8II (to soft, not sharp in the edges, not even at f8; maybe a bad copy) I am very satisfied with my Tokina 16-28/2,8.
Versatile because zoom.
I was able to try the 14/2,8, very good, but expensive.
Not tried, but always recommenden are the Tilt- Shift. Good as they are you can also make a 2- shot panorama, stitching together horizontally 2 frames.
Have a nice pain choosing )P


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 26, 2011)

danski0224 said:


> I have a TS-E 24mm L, and while it is very nice, I can't focus it through the viewfinder, even with the EgS screen.



The Eg-S screen would be of little benefit, given the relatively narrow max apertures of the wide TS-E lenses. But...is your viewfinder diopter set correctly? 

Regardless, Live View is a far better way to use a TS-E lens, IMO. It makes tilt much easier, since you can 10x zoom on different areas of the scene. Also, the TS movements affect metering (differentially based on direction and magnitude), so with the VF you must meter at neutral then move, whereas with Live View the metering is taken from the imaging sensor so it's accurate with TS applied.


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 26, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> The Eg-S screen would be of little benefit, given the relatively narrow max apertures of the wide TS-E lenses. But...is your viewfinder diopter set correctly?



I think so.

I adjusted it until the viewfinder info was clearest, which puts me about 4 clicks away from the "-" endpoint.

I also tried it without a lens, adjusting until the AF points were sharpest. Seems to be about the same spot.

Right way? Wrong way?


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 26, 2011)

i have a friend that does this professionally and he swears by his 60D and 10-22 combo due to the 10-22 having less distortion than the 16-35 on FF, also since he shoots off a tripod at low angles he loves the flip screen so he has to bend down less

i would say save some money and just go with a 600D, same sensor, same screen you dont care about AF
cheap set up and he has more work than he can handle and has just put on another photographer to help him

he uses 5Dmk2 for other photography


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 26, 2011)

usually this site gives pretty good advice however this thread bucks the trend. whats with all the recommending super expensive ts lenses? its REAL ESTATE photography, hardly fine art, the pictures will only ever be viewed online i would be surprised if ever at a resolution greater than 1024x768. maybe some might be printed on a sign at the front of the house, also the shoots do not command alot of money so investing heavily in equipment to shoot real estate does not make business sense.

See my previous response to what my friend uses for this exact type of photography.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 26, 2011)

Why not just put a 14mm on the ff?


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 27, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> whats with all the recommending super expensive ts lenses? its REAL ESTATE photography, hardly fine art, the pictures will only ever be viewed online



Maybe we don't have a clear understanding of what's meant by "real estate photography:" Is it Architectural Digest or mundane rental/sales listing?  My guess is folks have been imagining "Architectural Digest."


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2011)

danski0224 said:


> I adjusted it until the viewfinder info was clearest,



Exactly the right way. So, I'm not sure why you're having difficulty with MF... ???


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 27, 2011)

I do professional real estate photography. When I first started out I used a 16-35/2.8 II. This worked OK to start out with but in order to keep your verticals you need to either level your tripod or use software that corrects the verticals. By levelling the tripod you then need to move the tripod up and down to adjust how much ceiling vs. floor you want. In terms of correcting software I do not like it mainly because you lose the edges of the frame. I am very particular on what occurs on the edges of the shot and want to see that through the viewfinder.

I now use a TS-E 24 II and a TS-E 17. Most of my interior shots use the TS-E 17 while most exteriors use the TS-E 24 II. The TS-E 17 is too wide for most exteriors (the distortion becomes quite noticeable) whie the 24 is too narrow for most interiors. Of course there are situations where I use the 17 for exteriors or the 24 for interiors. I also occasionally use a TS-E 90 - most commonly for shots from the dock of waterfront homes.

I borrowed a 14/2.8 once to play around with it and found it too wide for most purposes. I imagine it could be useful at times but I haven't really needed it so far.

A fisheye may occasionally be very useful for very specific shots. It is definitely not a lens I would use often though. Occasionally I see RE photographers use them for an entire house and even corrected the shots make me want to throw up.

If I were to pick up another lens for RE I would consider the TS-E 45 or more likely the Schneider 50. Eventually I expect Canon to update their TS-E 45 and that's when I will most likely pick it up. I would mainly use it for exteriors.

For someone starting out on full frame and a budget, a 17-40 leveled on a tripod could do the trick. The 16-35 is a bit nicer and more flexible if you can afford it. Eventually you will want TS lenses though. TS lenses make a big difference even in RE photography. I picked up several new clients who took notice of my work when I switched to them. Keep in mind for high end listings your work will wind up on the covers and spreads of local magazines - not just in tiny form online.

In terms of manually focusing with the viewfinder, this is not difficult once you have practice.


----------



## willrobb (Dec 27, 2011)

If it's regular high end property interior shoots the TS lenses would be worth it.

If not and it's internet postings etc a good wide lens will suit your needs fine. I don't often shoot interiors, bit when I do I use my 17-40 f4L on a FF body, have it mounted on a tripod and angle it so the verticals are as straight as possible. These shoots are for online/print housing brochures and they are more than adequate. If I was doing it a lot kore regularly I would get a TS I reckon.


----------



## Policar (Dec 27, 2011)

Real estate photography used to mean a 4x5 view camera, film that's $3/sheet (with development costs), a host of expensive lenses, and an assistant being paid $300/day minimum. "Painting" with lights and long exposures. Years and years of apprenticeship. That a 5DII and a couple lenses seems extravagant is insane to me.

A t/s lens is absolutely necessary for reliable and repeatable work. Yes, you can get away with a regular ultra-wide lens, photoshop, and cleverly turning lights on/off and using HDR, but that's really pushing things and asking for a sub par result.

You need the ability to light a space naturalistically yet stylishly. You need the ability to consistently deliver corrected perspective with an acceptably wide field of view. You should be able to compose and focus properly in camera instead of shooting a lot of stuff and fixing in photoshop.

If you have a great eye, that will trump anything else. A brilliant photographer with a rebel and kit lens will do better than an amateur with a high end tech camera, waiting patiently across the course of the day for the best light, switching practicals to ones that are powerful enough and color corrected, composing artfully and intentionally too wide but with a final composition in mind in order to correct perspective later, blending multiple exposures by hand in post, etc. But if you're not technical enough to understand why tilt/shift lenses and a strobe package are essentially mandatory then you're certainly not technical enough to do competent work without them. Again, the 5DII and t/s lenses should be considered bare minimum for the low end.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 27, 2011)

Policar said:


> Real estate photography used to mean...



Maybe that's *not *what it means anymore. Or at least maybe that's not what it means under all circumstances. Sure, for high-end real estate you'll use expensive gear to get a perfect shot. But is this necessary for a middle-class suburban house or for nondescript office space? Our OP has not clarified for us which kind of real estate is to be photographed, nor what the clients' expectations are likely to be. In the absence of more info it's all just guesswork. To get the right gear for the job you need to know what the job is.


----------



## TexPhoto (Dec 27, 2011)

From the original post, it's a little hard to tell how serious you are about this. Are you spending a day or 2 photographing a 2 million dollar mansion for Architecturel digest?, or an afternoon shooting 10 apartments for the grocery store renter's guides? I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but it's difficult to answer well without knowing.

The 17mm tilt shift is awesome in both ability and price, but of course you can do a lot of that in photoshop. I'd consider the sigma 12-24 if your budget is tight, and your photos are not being printed as posters. This lens is so wide you can usually do the poor man's shift. That is shoot verticle with the camera set really wide. On a tripod, level side to side and for and aft. Then in photoshop crop to horizontal, usually cropping mostly off the bottom.


----------



## aldvan (Dec 27, 2011)

I'm not a professional photographer, but I'm an architect and I'm shooting architecture (inside and outside) since the early seventies. I used, in the old times of films and large sheets, a Linhof and an F2+T&S lenses. They were a big pain in the a**. Now, I believe that using a T&S lens on a DSLR is more a matter of old habit than a real necessity. You consider also that, optically speaking, their focal lenghts are very much shorter than the nominal focal lenght, with all the related optical problems.
In the old times correcting a perspective in the dark room was a big pain, something impossible shooting transparencies, and for that reason T&S lenses or optical benches were the only way for getting acceptable architecture images.
Perspective correction in LR is not more a fake than correcting by T&S lenses. Everything is a 'fake' when you translate a 3D perception on a plane. As Arthur Schopenauer said, the World, in our eyes is just 'representation'...
To believe in photoobjectivity is a naive belief...
By the way, as always all depends on the final destination of your shooting. If the destination is a large and expensive architectural book, and you don't accept compromises, you have to consider a big optical bench and a lot of auxiliary lights. Nonetheless I experienced that a good kit as a 1Ds or a 5D with a 14mm and a good tripod can give a perfect starting material for a final LR editing that will be accepted by the majority of architectural publisher. And the whole process is faster and more manageable.
Just my personal opinion and experience, by the way...

P.S.: I would add that controlling a perfect parallelism in Live View or in a viewfinder is very difficult and for a perfect final result you will always go through an LR (or similar) editing...


----------



## pwp (Dec 27, 2011)

17-40 or 16-35 are flexible and do most of what you want if you're talking basic RE. A Sigma 12-24 is occasionally a godsend for those ridiculously tight corners. 

But for more considered work the 17 & 24 TS lenses will be a must.

Paul Wright


----------



## Viggo (Dec 27, 2011)

Seems rules might be different elsewhere, but there isn't a single realestate photographer in Norway who shoots rooms at anything wider than 24mm. For the outdoorshots, it doesn't matter to go wider, but inside the 17ish lenses makes the room look waaay longer than it is, and that is why it isn't used. Rather you shoot from different angles, and place a key sellingpoint in a 1/3 comp in each image instead. HDR with PROPER (not acid) tonemapping is okay outside, and to put a fire in the fireplace and such, but indoors, forget about normal exposure, blow it out!! The brighter the room looks, the better, plus you get rid of any clutter outside the windows by blowing them out (Ah, I see the pun there )


----------



## vuilang (Dec 27, 2011)

How much you want to spend?
17-40>16-35IorII>17tse>24tse .....14mm maybe too wide but i dont know how wide you would need.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 27, 2011)

aldvan said:


> You consider also that, optically speaking, their focal lenghts are very much shorter than the nominal focal lenght, with all the related optical problems.


I think you have it backwards - a nominal measure is a by-the-numbers measure, whereas on APS-C DSLRs (NOT full frame cameras) the "equivalent" focal length is longer - not shorter. On full-frame cameras the lenses act as normal.

There is a problem (on many newer cameras) with the extra exposure capability of very wide aperture lenses not being useful as the sensors won't pick up the extra light (I forget where the "cutoff" is) but for f/2.8 and slower it's not an issue.

I will agree that I don't like to use the shift function of the TS-E 17mm, though shifting the longer TS-E 90mm doesn't introduce the stretching effect in the direction of a shift (at least not as perceptibly). I also agree that if shooting a series of photos and stitching them together is easier (I think it could well be) then there is no reason not to go that route. The new software seems good enough that a tripod is becoming optional for all but the most marginal of shots in dim lighting.


----------



## ereka (Dec 27, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> usually this site gives pretty good advice however this thread bucks the trend. whats with all the recommending super expensive ts lenses? its REAL ESTATE photography, hardly fine art, the pictures will only ever be viewed online i would be surprised if ever at a resolution greater than 1024x768. maybe some might be printed on a sign at the front of the house, also the shoots do not command alot of money so investing heavily in equipment to shoot real estate does not make business sense.
> 
> See my previous response to what my friend uses for this exact type of photography.



Wow! Thank you to EVERYONE who has taken the time to reply - I've been off visiting family since my original post and to be honest wasn't expecting such a quick and extensive response.

In clarification, the commission that prompted my post is photographing short-term lets. Insofar as I'm aware, the images will just be used online to promote the lettings. However, the client has specified that they want images at least 4200 pixels wide. Also no fisheye lenses, flash only if necessary and preferably no HDR.

wickidwombat is correct that each individual shoot does not pay much, so it's the case that I'm struggling hard to let my head rule here, which is why I mentioned payback period. My heart tells me I want the very best equipment available so that I can achieve (with study and practice of course) the best possible results - that's just my nature as a perfectionist. However, my head is nagging me to look more at the business aspect and acquire equipment that will be 'good enough' to get the job done to the client's satisfaction and that will pay for itself in a reasonable period of time. There is a certain tension between the two extremes though, just because of the low-paying nature of the commission i.e. time is money and therefore I don't want to be spending hours in post production. 

I currently have a 1D MkII but because of the client's 4200 pixel specification and also the wide angle requirement for these real estate assignments, I'm thinking of buying a 5D MkII (new bodies seem to be at rock bottom price at the moment) and considering all of the advice offered here, possibly a 17-40mm f/4L to start off with - I already have a sturdy Manfrotto tripod with level to keep everything straight. I also have two speedlights and radio triggers as well as a range of Elinchrom studio lighting but I'm only expected to spend 30 to 40 minutes at each property to photograph several rooms so I'm thinking there wouldn't really be sufficient time to set all this up. Quick 'in and out' seems to be the name of the game on these assignments. It seems from what has been said that the 17-40mm might be 'good enough' and it would pay for itself in less than ten shoots. If I could get away with using the wide end of my 24-70mm f/2.8 so much the better! The 5D MkII would in any event come in useful for my general photography and in particular for stock images. It would also be useful as a second body when my 1Dx eventually materialises 

Am I thinking along the right lines here? Any more thoughts or suggestions?


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 27, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Exactly the right way. So, I'm not sure why you're having difficulty with MF... ???



Me neither.

Could be as simple as more practice.

I'm probably not the only one that has difficulty focusing on these matte screens. The DSLR viewfinder is so much different from my plain old EOS 620, and I never had any issues with that- despite never owning any L or fast glass.

Maybe an aftermarket split screen is the answer, or a viewfinder magnifier. I have spent a lot of time researching both from a couple of screen vendors and the Nikon magnifier adaptation vs the commercial aftermarket product, and the results are inconclusive for the screens and magnifier. Each seems to add some solutions and new quirks.

Unfortunately, it looks like I'll have to buy it and try it. 

As I mentioned earlier, I rented a Zeiss ZE 35mm f1.4, and I could not focus it unless I was in live view. I had it only for a few days and this was my first real effort at a manual focus lens.

The other possibility is the 20+ year time span between my EOS 620 and now, and maybe my eyes suck, even with glasses.


----------



## Nick Gombinsky (Dec 27, 2011)

Hey there! I do that exact same kind of real estate photography. On-line only, for an agency that sells and rents all over my city. The pay is not much, and for the kind of time and dedication the pictures are gonna get after they go on the website, I don't think I need to be THAT serious about it.

What I use, is a 7D with a Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 14mm f2.8 @f4 (Manual focus lens, but with the same optical quality as Canon's 14mm f2.8L, at a third of it's price). I have a hot shoe flash which I use in manual mode, bounced to the ceiling, to balance the light coming from the outside and inside (making it look like it did come from the outside, but at the same time, the outside isn't overexposed).

No tripod, shutter speed is usually 1/50 or 1/100. I was told when I was hired, to use a good tripod. I sent them the pictures of my first property, in three sets: One in which I exposed the interiors correctly, blowing away the exteriors, another one exposing the exteriors a bit better, but showing a gloomy interior, and another one using my style, filling in with the flash and no tripod.
They told me to ditch the tripod 

On full frame, I'd say the 17-40mm is a good choice.

This way is very easy and fast and I get good pictures for the use intended.


----------



## aldvan (Dec 27, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:



> aldvan said:
> 
> 
> > You consider also that, optically speaking, their focal lenghts are very much shorter than the nominal focal lenght, with all the related optical problems.
> ...


Edwin, here I'm not speaking about APS-C crop, but about T&S lenses design. A T&S lens design is nothing more than a super wide angle with a huge image circle, larger than required by the sensor, allowing the image to 'float' inside it by means of the lens groups mechanical shifting or tilting. The TS-E 17mm, for instance, has a 67.2mm image circle, far larger than a standard 17mm. So, a 17 mm T&S lens has an optical design typical of extremely wide angle or a T&S 24mm of a super wide angle, hence the huge price to get a good quality.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 27, 2011)

Ereka, Good luck with your venture... I used to do real estate photography almost full time before the economy went to the shitter and real estate agents decided it was more cost effective to do their own photography rather than paying a pro to do it... Pictures aren't nearly as good as they could be with me shooting them but with a slumping real estate market and commissions not where they used to be, they cant justify splurging on photography... For those who aren't sure about Real Estate Photography, depending on the client, how much they want the photography, and what you are given, you can be paid as little as $100 per house for single snap-shots or as much as a few thousand a picture depending on how they depending on using it, it its being published in magazines, websites, etc... Those are few and far between. I never used TS lenses when I did the Real Estate Photography because for what I did, I couldn't justify the cost and to go in photoshop, throw in guides and do a quick distortion fix took me like 1 minute so it wasn't that worth it to me... It i was doing the architectural digest style shots day per day, then hell yeah, I would have plunked the money down, but for this temporary gig, unless you become one of the select few to be deemed worth to do the high end gigs full time, it really is one of those things where you dont NEED it but WANT it... there's a big difference there.


----------



## ereka (Dec 27, 2011)

Thanks - some great sounding advice here! I've also considered going even cheaper e.g. 600D with 10-20mm but something is telling me I'd be better off with a 5D MkII (or III ???) and winging it with my 24-70L. Decisions, decisions!


----------



## Policar (Dec 27, 2011)

It sounds like you've got the right attitude and I'm sorry for my critical tone, but it really is foolish going into this without appropriate gear.

I would skip the 17-40mm zoom (the 24mm-70mm, which is excellent, covers most of that range already) and get the 17mm TS/E. I'm a total amateur at photography but the pros I've talked with who've done this professionally and with success wouldn't consider doing interior photography with anything less and even I don't like shooting landscapes without a view camera, not that I get the chance to use mine much anymore. Remember, you absolutely need to correct for perspective and if you don't use a tilt/shift lens or tech/view camera that means the horizon will be dead-center, which is a very ugly way to compose in general. In a pinch the zoom will pull it off so long as you compose wide with the aim of correcting/cropping in post, but the correction in Photoshop will show up at 4200 pixels wide. The 5DII sounds like an ideal camera for this purpose, however. The other advantage of tilt shift lenses is you can stitch geometrically seamlessly so the focal lengths are a little "bendable" in post if you will...

If you really want to cheap out, a 7D type camera and very wide zoom will work, just make sure you correct for perspective in photoshop and bring your off-camera strobes. Your client's aversion to strobes and HDR implies that he's worked with some untalented people in the past. As much as I hate HDR (even in a lot of professional real estate photography), it can be used seamlessly on interiors to recover blown out windows, etc. Also carry around a set of color corrected practical bulbs at lower wattages to avoid blowing out highlights too strongly and a set of color correction gels for your strobes (CTO of various strengths at the very least).


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 27, 2011)

ereka said:


> In clarification, the commission that prompted my post is photographing short-term lets. Insofar as I'm aware, the images will just be used online to promote the lettings. However, the client has specified that they want images at least 4200 pixels wide. Also no fisheye lenses, flash only if necessary and preferably no HDR.



To be honest, from my experience this would make me a bit nervous. When I discuss RE photography with new clients I send them my portfolio, recent properties I have photographed, and often agents I currently work with. The agent's job is to sell the house and my job is to portray that property in the best possible way. There is no discussion of HDR vs. flash. I do not tell them how to sell the house and they do not tell me how to photograph. Often agents will tell me that they want particular angles or shots, but in terms of post processing + lighting they will receive similar shots to those I sent them. With agents I have worked with for some time there often isn't even a discussion on angles - they know I know which angles they want.

Personally, I use exposure blending in all of my RE shots. I tried going the multiple lights approached and found it took forever to get the lights in the right positions. I found that by using exposure blending the shots come out brighter and look nicer. There isn't really a right vs. wrong of exposure blending vs. multiple lights, but both I and most of the agents I know prefer blended shots.

In terms of time to shoot a property, it takes me about 45 minutes to shoot your average 1-2 bedroom condo and about an hour to shoot a normal sized house. Very large properties may take up to three hours over multiple visits.

In terms of post processing the average property takes about an hour. I use batch processing in Photomatix, do some color correction in Lightroom, replace the windows in Photoshop, then use the Nik suite + Photoshop to do some final changes.

If you are just starting out plan for about an hour and a half photographing the property and 2-3 hours of post processing. As you photograph more properties you will become much quicker. Plan for more time at the property if you are using lights as you'll have to experiment a bit to get them right.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 27, 2011)

Policar said:


> It sounds like you've got the right attitude and I'm sorry for my critical tone, but it really is foolish going into this without appropriate gear.
> 
> I would skip the 17-40mm zoom (the 24mm-70mm, which is excellent, covers most of that range already) and get the 17mm TS/E. I'm a total amateur at photography but the pros I've talked with who've done this professionally and with success wouldn't consider doing interior photography with anything less and even I don't like shooting landscapes without a view camera, not that I get the chance to use mine much anymore. Remember, you absolutely need to correct for perspective and if you don't use a tilt/shift lens or tech/view camera that means the horizon will be dead-center, which is a very ugly way to compose in general. In a pinch the zoom will pull it off so long as you compose wide with the aim of correcting/cropping in post, but the correction in Photoshop will show up at 4200 pixels wide. The 5DII sounds like an ideal camera for this purpose, however. The other advantage of tilt shift lenses is you can stitch geometrically seamlessly so the focal lengths are a little "bendable" in post if you will...
> 
> If you really want to cheap out, a 7D type camera and very wide zoom will work, just make sure you correct for perspective in photoshop and bring your off-camera strobes. Your client's aversion to strobes and HDR implies that he's worked with some untalented people in the past. As much as I hate HDR (even in a lot of professional real estate photography), it can be used seamlessly on interiors to recover blown out windows, etc. Also carry around a set of color corrected practical bulbs at lower wattages to avoid blowing out highlights too strongly and a set of color correction gels for your strobes (CTO of various strengths at the very least).



The 24mm on the wide end would be similar to the 17-40 on a crop... the problem is in rooms such as lets say bedrooms, they are medium sized rooms, but 24mm will on average get you a wall and a half to 2 walls in the shot... sometimes you will get floor, sometimes not... It is not wide enough... The 17TS, I would NOT recommend unless you start really getting paid decent money for the investment... The 17-40 does just fine for this application... Using the lens corrections in camera with the 5d2 AND using the lens correction in photoshop, you should be just fine with that set up... and once the big jobs start flowing in, set up a slush fund to pay for the 17TS... It's just a lot of lens that you dont know if you will really need...

kirispupis, I've been in the industry in California and Nevada... I've got competition for $300 they not only will do HDR photography and have a turn around time of less than 24 hours and have full resolution files on a CD and website page, but they also will rent a helicopter to provide arial shots... RE photography in my experience, until the economy recovers is dying a slow painful death with cameras getting better and better and a realtor can get their own gear and take their own shots... I had a real estate agent try to buy my 7D so they can do their own stuff... If your working for real estate agents, it really isn't worth the fancy lenses or upselling to higher packages because in my experience, the agents just aren't buying... I live in the foreclosure capital of the world but the agents just wont spend the dough... I had to all but stop my RE photography in favor of commercial photography for the time being..


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 27, 2011)

ereka said:


> Thanks - some great sounding advice here! I've also considered going even cheaper e.g. 600D with 10-20mm but something is telling me I'd be better off with a 5D MkII (or III ???) and winging it with my 24-70L. Decisions, decisions!



Seriously have a look at the 600D and the 10-22

total cost for the above is around $1300 thats half the cost of a 17mm TSE the 600D will do absolutely everything you need it to for interiors

My friend that does this all the time with the 60D swears by the 10-22 due to lack of distortion
I also just got my mum and dad a 600D for xmas and its a pretty impressive little camera for what it costs
the flip screen and built in flash control is excellent i set it up and had it driving all my 580II flashes in about 30 seconds. Even the image quality off the 18-55 kit lens was better than i expected. It makes me want a 7D even more now.

Another thing you should consider is 2 exposures expose the interior and the outside and just mask the exterior exposure over the blown out highlights, its not HDR and looks good and its not very hard to do, I use topaz remask to speed up the process of maskingbecause you dont have to spend alot of time geting the edges correct as it can calculate it all pretty well

good luck


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 27, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> ereka said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks - some great sounding advice here! I've also considered going even cheaper e.g. 600D with 10-20mm but something is telling me I'd be better off with a 5D MkII (or III ???) and winging it with my 24-70L. Decisions, decisions!
> ...



If you dont have the 5d2 all ready and are looking at making the camera and lens purchase, the 60D and 10-22 would be a fine recommendation for most people getting into RE photography... If you already have the 5d2, then the 17-40 or 16-35 II are great options... When you first get into this sector of photography, keep your overhead low and build up a clientelle... assuming your market is in better condition than my market..


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 27, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> kirispupis, I've been in the industry in California and Nevada... I've got competition for $300 they not only will do HDR photography and have a turn around time of less than 24 hours and have full resolution files on a CD and website page, but they also will rent a helicopter to provide arial shots... RE photography in my experience, until the economy recovers is dying a slow painful death with cameras getting better and better and a realtor can get their own gear and take their own shots... I had a real estate agent try to buy my 7D so they can do their own stuff... If your working for real estate agents, it really isn't worth the fancy lenses or upselling to higher packages because in my experience, the agents just aren't buying... I live in the foreclosure capital of the world but the agents just wont spend the dough... I had to all but stop my RE photography in favor of commercial photography for the time being..



$300 is very cheap if aerial shots are included. My rates are between $150-$300 which is a tad below what other photographers charge. The main reason I charge a bit less is I do not depend on the money for income. I use it only to pay for more equipment. However even though I am not a full time RE photographer I have photographed over 100 homes. 

If I depended on this for a living I am sure I would have a different view. It is a pita for the money and if I can ever get my print business going someday I will not hesitate to drop most of my RE clients.

Actually my biggest client sells almost exclusively foreclosure (REO) properties. She has found that by using professional pictures her homes tend to move quicker. The best agents out there realize that a small investment in quality photos make a big difference in the number of people that view the property. 

I have yet to see a realtor who truly knows how to take RE photos. It is not as easy as it looks.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 27, 2011)

why would you use a 60D and not a 600D? I cant see a single thing the 60D has for this type of shooting that the 600D doesn't? just wondering if there is something i dont know about thats all


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 27, 2011)

kirispupis said:


> I have yet to see a realtor who truly knows how to take RE photos. It is not as easy as it looks.



Oh so true. Its funny how people assume the quality of images is more about the camera and not the person driving it  then they wonder why the expensive DSLR they just bought isnt taking any better photos than their point and shoot


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 27, 2011)

kirispupis said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > kirispupis, I've been in the industry in California and Nevada... I've got competition for $300 they not only will do HDR photography and have a turn around time of less than 24 hours and have full resolution files on a CD and website page, but they also will rent a helicopter to provide arial shots... RE photography in my experience, until the economy recovers is dying a slow painful death with cameras getting better and better and a realtor can get their own gear and take their own shots... I had a real estate agent try to buy my 7D so they can do their own stuff... If your working for real estate agents, it really isn't worth the fancy lenses or upselling to higher packages because in my experience, the agents just aren't buying... I live in the foreclosure capital of the world but the agents just wont spend the dough... I had to all but stop my RE photography in favor of commercial photography for the time being..
> ...



It isn't as easy as it seems but yeah... I used to have a handful of realtors from Dickson Realty and Coldwell Banker.. Coldwell Banker bought out dickson realty in my area and then provided all their realtors software to create their own tours... In one swoop I lost all those clients... REO realtors I've talked to either are putting little to no money in advertising which means no professional photography, or are moving them too quickly to see a need for advertising... which is a double edge sword for me... Where I live, the running joke is Realtors all have part time jobs somewhere else because there are so many realtors and so few houses selling unless they are REO will little commission going to the realtors... During it's hay-day in 2006 I shot a good 100 properties and such but can count on one hand how many i've shot since 2009.. 

I'm sure once the economy and unemployment and people start buying and agents start feeling the need to advertise, then I'll be able to get going again in that area, but until then... $300 for what photographers here offer are a heck of a deal, especially for arial photography... Hard to compete with that unless I start offering that and targeting the high high end clients... but then it gets even more competitive... I predict once the RE market turns around still photography will be a thing of the past with RE tours... it will have moved to video... hence I'm learning how to use my video on my 7d's and 5d2's better...


----------



## Madkrafter (Dec 28, 2011)

There is a lot of advice here to take in. I can tell you that I've done high-end RE photography for several years now on homes from $1 million - $50 million USD. I did it for a long time with a 50D and Tokina 12-24 crop lens. It's focal view was that of a 19mm on the 50D. I would shoot straight on to avoid post processing distortion if I could, but still had to correct for barrel distortion. You can correct for keystoning in post, but it just stretches everything out. Sometimes you have to do that to "see" over objects in the room. I've done it plenty (shame on me).

I just upgraded to a 5DmkII FF and 17mm TS-E. It has enough view to get the tightest of rooms. I think the 14mm would be too wide. I find that the 17mm TS-E distorts the view more than I sometimes like. The plus is it doesn't have the barrel distortion of my Tokina and I don't have to correct keystoning.

I use HDR techniques on a tripod at twilight when the ambient light of the house can take over. I bring a box of light bulbs and replace any compact fluorescent bulbs so my light balance is consistent. I lock my white balance down to about 3000K, F11 and use Exposure Blending in Photomatix Pro for a very natural, realistic view of the space. I have never had a client say anything other than they love the shots. They don't ask HOW I process the photos, they just love the results. Better than them coming in with an on-camera flash and snapping away. 

Setting up lights would take too long and take away from what the lighting designer intended (on higher-end homes). I can shoot an average house in 45 minutes to an hour, but spend 2-3 hours in post. Some bigger places may take multiple trips because twilight only lasts about 45 minutes.

If you are not doing this full-time, on high-end properties, you would probably get the most benefit from the 17-40 or 16-35, as you could use it for more... enjoyable shoots. I've heard good things about both but don't own either. I'm surprised to hear that even the 16-35 is soft in the corners (I've read that about the 17-40). How much more than the 17-40? I would rent both and see if one out-performs the other (I will).


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 28, 2011)

Madkrafter said:


> There is a lot of advice here to take in. I can tell you that I've done high-end RE photography for several years now on homes from $1 million - $50 million USD. I did it for a long time with a 50D and Tokina 12-24 crop lens. It's focal view was that of a 19mm on the 50D. I would shoot straight on to avoid post processing distortion if I could, but still had to correct for barrel distortion. You can correct for keystoning in post, but it just stretches everything out. Sometimes you have to do that to "see" over objects in the room. I've done it plenty (shame on me).
> 
> I just upgraded to a 5DmkII FF and 17mm TS-E. It has enough view to get the tightest of rooms. I think the 14mm would be too wide. I find that the 17mm TS-E distorts the view more than I sometimes like. The plus is it doesn't have the barrel distortion of my Tokina and I don't have to correct keystoning.
> 
> ...



I would be very interested to hear a detailed description of how you use photomatix to achieve realistic looking results setting etc. While i like HDR and have a fascination with it I am over photomatix and the sameness of the results, I've been using it for a while now. got any examples you would care to share?
also the 16-35 while one of my favourite lenses has too much distortion for this use without post correction


----------



## Madkrafter (Dec 29, 2011)

@wickidwombat I've posted some examples of one of my latest with the 5DmkII and 17mm TS-E. A photographer may look at them and notice that they are some kind of HDR, thankfully, customers don't. Photomatix seams to give me the most realistic look with the Exposure Fusion option (plus I'm most familier with it). I've also attached a snapshot of some of the settings I use. 

I have multiple settings to deal with different lighting scenarios. In the snapshot you can see in the upper right corner some of the flare that can occur with the 17mm TS-E. It's easy enough to retouch out. On the lamp on the left, you can see the posterization that can occur in lamps. In both the shade and being too close to the wall. If I can, I will move them away from the wall to get better light falloff. I do some touchup in Photoshop for these circumstances.

The accentuation and shadow adjustments both play a big part in posterization. I shoot in 1-stop increments, anywhere from 4-12 exposures. A lower accentuation will keep the posterization at bay. The saturation is also one to look out for. I keep it about -1. Any more and it can really make the woodwork and fabrics glow.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 29, 2011)

Awesome thanks!
yes those pics look really good
it looks much more like an exposure blended scene than the enhancer pumps out
I will play with fusion a bit more and try some of your advice.
why so many exposures? even at 1 stop difference much more than 7 exposures is usually completely dark or completely blown out


----------



## Madkrafter (Dec 29, 2011)

Two words: Bare Bulbs! If there are bare-bulb fixtures in the room, I will shoot from 1/250 or so to get my lamp highlights, up to 8-15 sec to get shadow detail. As great as HDR is, I don't believe the hype of "filament to shadow." Maybe using other HDR methods, but as you've pointed out, they can look pretty gnarly. At most I hope to retain a little detail of the glass scones or shades and pleasant shadow detail. As for too many exposures: Better to have them and not need them, then need them and not have them!


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 29, 2011)

ok next question
how are you doing so many exposures with the 5DII which only has 3AEB
I am hoping this new upcoming magic lantern adds it back in an works better
the last one i tried was unstable at best


----------



## Madkrafter (Dec 29, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> ok next question
> how are you doing so many exposures with the 5DII which only has 3AEB
> I am hoping this new upcoming magic lantern adds it back in an works better
> the last one i tried was unstable at best



I shoot in manual mode - f/11, ISO 400, Mirror lockup and Promote Control trigger. The Promote allows you to program in what exposure range you want, depending on whether you want to start with a highlight, shadow or mid-exposure value; program and hit Start. They're a bit pricey, but after I used one, I have to say it was worth it for as many houses as I shoot.

http://www.promotesystems.com/products/Promote-Control.html


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 29, 2011)

Madkrafter said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > ok next question
> ...



good to know I have actually been looking at these, currently i still use my 1D for HDR because it can do 7 AEB

also have you ever had a look at this method?
http://goodlight.us/writing/tutorials.html

it looks really good, totally impractical for RE of course due to the time it would take but I think its a pretty neat way to do HDR


----------

