Last month I kept finding myself in houses where a particularly good stager had left his/her mark. This isn't too surprising considering the type and volume of shoots I typically handle.

I thought to myself; "I'm going to get in touch with this person, I could use a good stager to recommend!". It's become much more common lately that people get in touch with me, looking for a stager or similar resource.

I call the number on the stagers card (which is quite plain, more on that in a second). I get ahold of them and tell them I want to refer them / help grow their business! I ask them for a link to their site or any marketing materials so I can share that info with my sphere whenever the need arises.

That's when they let me know they don't have a website.

By the Way, they also don't have any marketing materials.

Prices? Oh, we don't have a list of those either.

Are you serious?

Ok, ok. What can we do here...

I offered to make them a website...for free!

(which btw was basically crazy...because I have zero free time these days) But heck, sometimes you just need to help the other person out. :)

I asked them to follow up with me when I had more of a break in my schedule...they seemed excited.

They never called me back. Really.

- - -

I would still really like to be able to be able to suggest a few different stagers when the need arises.

Anyone local care to connect? :)

Cheers, -B

This might sound a bit odd but I wanted to take some time to discuss the importance of NOT taking photos. In fact, I think this is an crucial topic that often gets lost among the 'which lens' and 'how do I improve' conversations.

So what are the main reasons behind this (somewhat) strange assertion coming from (of all people) a professional photographer?

• When shooting, the camera is both literally and figuratively between you and the subject. The quickest way to step outside of the action is to take a picture. You are no longer part of the event itself but instead you are recording that event. You are likely missing some or all of the experience. This is particularly relevant when you think about family events. Does this mean you shouldn't take photos? Heck no! But I do suggest you take your important snaps, then put the camera away for a while and simply enjoy the participation.

Below is a shot of my youngest with a good family friend (left). Next to it is a photo I didn't take of my two sons playing at the same party - why not? Because I was playing with them!

• 'Mental Photographs' are an important part of your path to better photography. A huge part of improving your photographic skills is, well...looking. Looking at other peoples photography, looking at your own photography, and perhaps most importantly looking at the world around you. I believe there is a real benefit to simply letting images filter down into your subconscious.  Doing so means your creative 'pool' has a large amount of information in it, leading to better photos! When you take a photo it tends to 'cement' itself into a sort of objective reality that in some ways can reduce it's impact on future work. This might sound a little strange but give it a try. Next time you see something you want to photograph (but don't have time or a camera) - take note of what makes the 'shot' work. Do this enough and these elements will find their way into your process for future photos!

Below is a dusk shot of a residence that garnered high praise from the design team that commissioned it (right). On the left are the photos I didn't take all those times at dusk when I instead focused on simply observing differing light and color qualities and how they influence photographs. I couldn't have made the image on the right without the (non) images on the left.

• Memories can be a much better 'lens'...than an actual lens!  We all know the human memory is an imperfect mechanism at best. But that's also part of its charm! Our memories allow us to sift out the bad stuff, re-experience the good stuff...and honestly we probably embelish the latter - but it all becomes part of our personal story and that is a very good thing. Sometimes an objective measure like a photo can actually detract from that process. I think in some cases people also hold on more tightly to memories that go unrecorded because, whereas they may otherwise assign them less importance because they know they have a 'photo backup'. If this sounds like a strange concept...well, it probably is but I'm convinced. ;)  

Below is one of my favorite early shots of my oldest. As much as I like it, it doesn't hold a candle to my memories of time with him - my favorite of which I have no photos of and I'm glad of it. :)

 Cheers, -B

It seems like Aperture is one of those things that is perpetually confusing to people (I base this in part because it took me so dang long to feel like I really had a handle on it)!

Of course, it's also one of the most important concepts to understand when working with a imaging device (like a camera), so it's worth a little investigating. 

What is Aperature?

• The aperture is (simply put) the size of the opening in a given lens.
• It controlls how much light the lens allows in
• Most aperatures are mechanical devices that vary in size (in other words they can open wider or close down smaller to let more or less light in)
• Every single lens has an aperture (simple lenses like the lensbaby have a fixed aperture system)
• Aperture settings are generally referred to as 'f-stops', you will usually see this as f/2.8 (for example where 2.8 is the size of the opening) or even just 2.8 to those in familiar with the lingo
• Even your eye has an aperture (the pupil)! It varies from around f/2.1-f/8.3

Here's the tricky thing (oh, now he tells us it's going to get tricky): 

Changing the size of the aperture affects multiple aspects of a photograph (some dramatically!): 

1. One of the most obvious changes that result from fooling around with your aperture setting is the Depth of Field. (DOF) If the aperture is very small...there will be a large amount of depth. If the aperture is very large there will be a small amount of depth. Got that? Small ap. = big depth, big ap. = small depth.
2. If that wasn't enough to worry about changing the size literally affects how much light comes in so...you guessed it...you are changing your exposure as well. Small ap. = only a little light in (slow, takes longer to expose), large ap. = lots of light quickly (fast, shorter exposure).
3. If that wasn't enough...aperture will also influence various types of visual distortion - most lenses have a 'sweet spot' where at a certain aperture the lens will be most sharp and claer with the fewest possible abberations.

So let's look at a quick example of some different settings and how they impact an image:

FYI, these were shot at 85mm and they've all had the exact same post processing which is to say, virtually none.

Ok, so here is our first image. Please forgive the setup, it worked in a pinch (let me just thank my 3 year old son for the props).

The focal point is set squarely on the little blond girl (maybe blonds do have more fun?)

This was shot at f/22 (aperture) and it required a 2 second exposure.

At f/22 we should have a pretty big depth of field right? And we do...we can see all the toys pretty well (the dino is a bit soft) but it did take a pretty long exposure (2 seconds!). Nothing we could handhold.

Here we go with our second shot.

This was shot at f/16 (aperture) and it required a 0.8 second exposure.

Hmm, that's pretty interesting...look at how much the exposure time dropped.

However, do you also notice we've lost a bit of depth? Look at the dino now. He's starting to look plain blurry.

For our third shot we can really start to see some changes.

This was shot at f/8 (aperture) and it required a 1/5th of a second exposure.

We have another dramatic drop in exposure time.

How about our depth? Dino is looking like a Monet, and the girl in the pink dress is blurry also. You can see the forward edge of the table is fading as well as the far side of the monitor.

Wow, there's not much that is very sharp now. I bet we are getting some very fast exposure times now. Let's take a look.

This was shot at f/4 (aperture) and it required a 1/20th of a second exposure.

This image took 40 times less exposure time than the first one!

We are really narrowing that depth.

Almost done.

Blondy is still looking very clear, but tigger and cow are suffering a little. Dino is long gone.

This was shot at f/2.8 (aperture) and it required a 1/40th of a second exposure.

Notice how the heads of the two toys behind dino are sort of 'pushing up' against the top of the keyboard? If you check the first image they aren't even close! I don't have time here to cover this in depth but very narrow DOF shots allow light to bend and distort in some unusual ways.

Ok, last shot.

Only the little girl remains sharp. You might notice a little section of the keyboard also is sharp...it's exactly in line with where the girl is in relation to the film (sensor) plane.

This was shot at f/1.8 (aperture) and it required a 1/100th of a second exposure.

200 times faster than the first shot!

Final Notes:

• The shape of the aperture (typically the number of blades) determines precisely how the out of focus area will look.
• A higher number of blades (more expensive, more complex) will lead to smoother, more natural looking out of focus blur
• Lenses that can open their aperture very wide are usually called 'fast lenses'
• Some lenses (zooms) have variable maximum apertures - in other words, if you are zoomed out (or in) they might be able to open wider (or less wide) as the case may be.

Here's you super bonus extra credit trivia question!

(BTW, this is a hard one...I know a lot of photograpohers who can't answer this)

What does the aperture number actually represent?

Cheers, -B

I've been absolutely swamped with business lately. Between the Buildex convention here in Seattle and 'normal' shooting (now averaging 3-4 bookings per day) I've had almost no time to visit AR. :(

That said there is a very concerning issue at hand: The so called 'Orphan Works Bill'.

BTW, full credit to Glenda Cherry for breaking the story first. You can see her blog here. :)

- - -

Basically the bill attempts put some rules in place for using other peoples images when you can't find them (in other words, 'orphan works').

This sounds good in theory...I suppose.

There might be situations where (for example) people would like to use images for commercial or documentary purposes that are say...from a long time ago...and have no clear owner.

The trouble starts when we take a look at the actual wording of the bill:

The bill essentially states that a person need only make a 'reasonable and diligent' search for the owner of the image.

Furthermore if the owner shows up and says 'Hey! You used my image without permission' the first party need merely say 'well, I TRIED to find you' (they are protected from any legal consequence). The bill doesn't actually define what a reasonable search is. It's a trial lawyers dream come true and a copyright defendants nightmare.

Are the alarm bells going off yet?

It's already difficult enough to defend our work in the digital era and our fine politicians have seen fit to put together legislation which will make it even harder.

Please join me in letting your local representatives know this is not ok.

Thanks, -B

Here's a really simple for making 'knock your socks off' window / view shots.

Are you ready? Here's the entire set of instructions.

1. Place camera next to window
2. Point halfway out window, halfway indoors
3. Press button to take photo

That's pretty much it!

Clients feedback for these type of shots are off the charts. They really like these. I hesitate to share with them how easy they are to create (but I'm glad to let you in on the secret).

Why do these work so well? (well, my opinion on the subject anyway) 

Most view shots you see are either created from outside (which is good a thing, I always include those) or they tend to be shot more or less directly head on into the window (or with some minor angle).

By putting the camera next to the window and giving it a half in / half out composition the view feels really big because we still have the referance point of the interior. If you look carefully it's the proportion of interior to view is what helps the view to appear so large.

Also we are inviting the viewer to be either 'inside' or 'outside' if they like. They can spend time in each 'space'.

Maybe the best aspect is simply this, we get a concrete feeling for what it looks like to really be standing at the edge of that room admiring the view. This provides a greater sense of 'realism' if you like.

Lastely, these shots are more dynamic than a straight on shot...they are simply more fun. :)

Cheers, -B

If you've followed my blog much you'll probably note that I'm not much for 'equipment debate'. Lots of folks do enjoy arguing the various merits of this camera system over that and it's understandable as everyone wants the inside scoop on the best tools.

Frankly though, while I think the right equipment is important, I believe your photography skills are far more important. Anyway, any 'major brand' DSLR you can currently buy, be it Canon, Nikon, or Sony is going to be a great piece of equipment. :)

Still, once in a while a camera or lens comes along which is simply so outstanding it deserves mention.

This happened the first time when Canon released the legendary 5D, the first 'affordable' full frame DSLR and one with an almost unmatched tone curve and imaging characteristics (some argued it surpassed canon's much more expensive top of the line 1DS).

The 5D immediately became a favorite among architectural photographers (I use one and love it!).

The marketplace being competitive Canon hasn't been resting on their heels.

Please welcome the 5D MKII:

What makes this camera so special anyway? Let's look at some basic stats:

• 21.1 megapixels, (while more is not always better when it comes to resolution the 5D's wonderful image quality makes this new 21mp sensor quite exciting. It's well beyond what is needed for most images which gives good opportunioty to crop down where necessary)
• 14 bit A/D conversion per channel (this is huge...almost all current DSLR's operate on a 12 bit per channel color conversion, 14bit means much smoother gradiations - keep in mind medium format body's top out at 16bit! They better watch out...)
• 25,600 ISO! this is jaw dropping low light performance (the current 5D is a low light master yet tops out at a mere 3,200 ISO. The new 5D gives us 3 more stops of light we can shoot out without flash etc)
• 3.9 frames per second, this is almost 25% faster than the current 5D and at almost twice the resolution to boot. Impressive
• Built in dust cleaner, full frame sensors attract a lot of dust. It's a fact. The current 5D as always had dust issues, a built in cleaner will very valuable.
• Improved weather seal, This may not be a big deal for many folks but coming from a person who shot a wedding in a rain forest...I appreciate these kinds of details.
• It shoots HD video! Strictly speaking this doesn't realy apply to a work function (for me anyway) but I think it could turn into a lot of fun. It shoots at full HD @ 1920x1080px up to 30 minutes worth.
• Automatic light fall off correction, certain lens situations will cause a darkening around the edges of the image due to light fall off...the new 5D 'knows' when one of these lenses is attached and will automatically correct the darker portion if desired.
• Highlight and shadow optimization, The camera has a mode where it looks at the shot and does it's best to preserve highlight detail as well as bring out shadow information for a more well rounded image.
• Improved view finder, the view through the glass is now 98% accurate to the image dimensions getting ever closer to the holy grail 1:1

There's quite a few other improvements I won't cover in depth, high res lcd on back, improved shutter life, quiet shutter modes, new raw sizes, improved battery life etc.

I dare say this is one of the finest cameras for arch. available and certainly the best value when the price is factored in.

Did I mention it costs less than the original 5D when it was released? A mere $2,700 at release.

I plan to get two, maybe three. ;)

Cheers, -B

A ways back I covered the basic process of converting a color digital image into black and white (or similar toned image): B&W Conversion

I've wanted to do a quick follow up for a while now on dodging and burning (oh so useful when combined with B&W photography).

What is Dodging and Burning? 

D&B is a direct descendant from the dark room, but like many such techniques we have quite a bit more control of it when making use of it in the digital arena.  

• Dodging: Brightening an area, by raising the luminance or 'brightness' of the pixels
• Burning: Darkening an area, by lowering the luminance or 'brightness' of the pixels

I just want to take a second to point out the D&B is not restricted to B&W images at all. However, it does tend to have the most impact when combined with B&W images for reasons too complex to cover in this snippet of a blog.

Let's take a look at an example:

On the left we have a untouched image (well, besides cropping and toning etc) and on the right we have an image that has been both dodged and burned in select areas.

Can you see the difference between the two?

The left image is has great potential, unfortunately if it was left as is it would have to go squarely in the discard pile. Compositionally and subject matter wise it's very well rendered (if I may say so myself). However in terms of light it has a negative focal point. In other words, while we should be looking at the face our eye instead moves to the two brightest points...the hair and the blanket. The face is simply too dark and too low contrast (flat).

The image on the right is a huge improvement, we can see that the blanket has been muted quite a bit (by burning i.e. darkening) and the the face and upper body are much brighter (you guessed it, dodge!).

How does the tool actually work?

In photoshop the dodge and burn tools are pretty straight forward (they are likely to be similar in most other image editing programs).

They operate as 'paint brushes' i.e. they have similar options to a simple standard brush. Of course we aren't painting with color we are painting with brightness or darkness. You actually 'paint' over the image with the appropriate tool.

Doesn't sound too bad, does it? :)

Both tools will allow you to select 'highlights, midtones, or shadow' which means you can refine your dodging or burning to just particular areas of brightness (very handy when going for that precise or subtle look).

If you are just starting out forget all that and just leave it on midtones.

Well, that should be enough to get you started. Experiment and have fun! :)

Cheers, -B 

As photographers we have a bad habit of only showing off only our best shots (I'm just as guilty of this as the next). However, in an effort to give clients a better view of what a complete shoot has to offer them I've started posting select shoots in full (well where space allows) on my website.

I had the thought that by posting a full shoot here and putting down some notes on why (and how) I put the shots together- it might generate some fun conversation about styles and choices when marketing property visually.  I might learn a thing or two from the feedback as well. :)

- - -

A few general notes about this particular shoot: 

This is a high end property which features significant water views from many rooms (note the amount of glass). That said the weather simply would not cooperate. We've had spotty sun and lots of clouds for days. As a result the client and I moved the first shoot to dusk (I'm going back for a sunny day shoot as well). Remember, dusk shots can work very well even on cloudy days.

Besides the standard cleanup I did very little processing on this set of photos. I've intentionally manipulated the color temp on several photos but that's about it.

For those of you who've followed my interior lighting blog - most of these are single exposures (a few are two exposures with a manual blend). I just one strobe in only one shot. Bonus to the first person who can guess which!

As always please feel free to ask questions or offer constructive criticism.

Let's get started!

Above: Here we are with two different living room shots.

I initially shot the wider view on the left but then wanted something closer in to the fountain outside. I'm a big fan of doors open in these types of shots. I think it really enables the viewer to 'step outside' if they like and get a feel for the space beyond the glass. Fairly standard composition 60/40, 70/30. There was a third shot I quite liked standing next to the doors and coming back into the room however, we then lose the glass doors from the shot and they are absolutely the main feature of this room.

 Above: Reacreation room on left, living room on right.

The recreation room isn't going to be on the cover of arch. digest anytime soon. However it works well considering. Initially the marketing director and I debated including the exercise equipment (I wanted to exclude via composition) however I couldn't move it out of frame without losing the couch which provides the visual balance to the entertainment center as well as the primary depth cue. Plus she's my client so she wins automatically. ;)

The living room is actually a 45/45 center split with 10 on the left for depth cue. It's that little peek back into the second living room / hallway that really opens this shot up. This is a two exposure blend thanks top those white leather couches. They just came in too hot any other way.

 Above: Two different shots of the formal dining area.

The shot on the left was taken towards the end of the shoot, the shot on the right at the beginning. Both have reasonably well balanced composition (though clearly different). The shot on the left is more clean, the shot on the right more busy, but it has the advantage of showing us more of the interrelation. Notice how much richer the dusk shot is though? I've let the color shift (warm) due to the long exposure largely alone to emphasize the depth afforded by the windows (cool). Personally I think the dusk shot is much stronger overall in terms of 'emotional impact'. How do you feel? :)

Above: We have a more stylized shot of the same dining area on the left, middle is pure color temp with center cross composition, on the right is a standard 60/40 split comp of a 'powder'.

The left hand shot of the dining area is one of my favorites of the shoot. It feels just a little 'mechanical' if that makes any sense (preventing it from being the best it could be). That said it's technically working very well. Nearly perfect complimentary lines / balance with a good strong color element. I really like these kinds of shots.

I ran out and grabbed this dock shot in between set up for other shots. You can see the weather is very poor (heavy clouds) - if we had shot this midday all you would see is white sky. I've intentionally let things shift very blue here with just the ground lights for warmth. I intentionally accentuated the bright horizon.

Despite being a 'low priority' shot - this powder was probably the most difficult single shot in the whole house. The walls are jet black (and reflective too boot!). I think I spent good five minutes just pondering how to go about this one. The challenge is to get at least some definition on a really dark room without creating reflections all over or even worse, lens flare. Otherwise a fairly standard shot. 

 Above: Casual(?) Dining.

Probably my favorite shot overall. Multiple depth cues, complimentary lines everywhere. Rich color. Warmth. Doors open to get that outside feel. One of the challenges of dusk shots with a lot of glass is dealing with reflections (you can see some here). It's difficult (and cost prohibitive) to get rid of all reflections but you can minimize them buy turning off any unnecessary lights. Alternately you can hit a second exposure with no lights and paint back in the second exposure over the windows.

 Above: Kitchen shots, right side & left side.

These are very similar shots. Just giving my client two different perspectives to choose from. Both have good depth and saturation. It's critical that we have the color separation present by the rich blue in order to really get a feel for the outside, otherwise it would be lost in the 'busy' lines of the beams.

 Above: Stairs, hallway & Master bedroom.

The stairway shot is a simple 'connective' bit. I like to show relationships where possible while still including some smaller details (metal rail, glass panels). We get a good feel for the openness and colors (hopefully!).

This master shot is working very well (with one exception I'll cover in a second). Strong composition, great complimentary lines. Even the shadows from the lights are following the lines of the shot. We see the bed and related space as well as the cabinets behind. Feels appropriately large. The downside is the reflections in the window. While I am happy with the shot overall I should have done more to reduce those pesky reflections!

 Above: Dining details - fireplace, cabinets, and stairs / lights.

It's hard to overestimate the value of 'close in details'. I think these types of shots convey very strong mood even if they can be somewhat week on overall 'description' of the space.

These are all pretty much self explanatory shots. Technically they are still wide (very wide) being true 17mm shots (more or less). Even when working at tight distances like this I am still looking for strong compositions and complimentary lines. It can sometimes be harder to 'see' these shots but at the same time where as you may have a few angles to choose from for a wide shot of a room, there are hundreds for these type of detail shots just waiting for you (maybe that's why they are more difficult for most folks).

 Above: Deck on left, master bath on right.

Nothing earth shattering here, the deck shot is maybe only notable for the blended exposure which allows us to see the light from the cupola on the right. Good color but maybe a little 'dull'.

This bathroom shot probably won't be used as is (remember I went back for a day shoot also). We simply lost too much light by the time we got here. If you look closely you can see that the upper left ceiling is actually glass. However, it's so dark (and there are so many reflections) this detail is almost completely lost. Overall despite depth cues this comes across as too flat for my taste. As a funny aside we later discovered one of the 'closet' doors is opens up to a passage to several more rooms we didn't notice at first (the house is that big).

 Above: Game room, detail shot of fireplace and kitchenette(sp?), same room.

I was really happy with the wider shot of the game room. great depth, good color, open door is working well. The lights came in a little hot. Reflections could have been better (too strong). Still I think it works pretty well.

I had originally set up a tight shot of the kitchen area but the marketing director asked for a wider shot including the fireplace. She came back later and asked for the original tight shot instead. To cap off the humorous aspect, I ended up preferring the wider shot, lol. :P

Above: Master bath, hallway.

If we had only got the master bath earlier. This would have been a perfect shot if it hadn't been so dang dark by the time we got to it. You can imagine the rich blue of the other window shots. It's possible to p-shop the windows a bit and at some time I may get back to this and see if I can 'improve' it.

I like hallway shots. They give a nice feel for space between rooms. Here we have a fairly straightforward shot. Composition is deceptively center, if you look closely you see that's it's actually not center, but rather balanced by light and color (compare the bright / light area around the left picture frame to the darker / heavier door on the right side). Good balance of this type is subjective of course - however, learning to do this can open up a lot of different shots that might otherwise not work as well.

Anyway, hope this was helpful or at least enjoyable.

:)

Cheers, -B

Seattle-Real-Estate-Photography

P.S. I tend to include a lot of my posts in Stage it Forward as I have an affinity for good staging (very helpful to my work!) but I also guess that stagers might like to see some of this photo stuff too. However, if it's not appropriate for the staging group please fell free to let me know and / or remove it.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and respect thereof. However, once in a while I run across a post where the information is at best misleading, at worst just plain wrong.

I bumped into a post in the photography group today that is replete with errors.

What do we do about this?

1. Send them a nice note explaining where they might want to revise their post

It's sometimes said; 'No good deed goes unpunished.' I've tried the nice note bit. It turns out the people who are enthusiastically blogging incorrect info aren't usally all that keen on you offering them advice on how to improve it. One might guess that their attitude about accepting new ideas or explainations might be why they are stuck with the wrong facts in the first place.

2. Post a blog with the correct info without calling out the incorrect post

This feels like a better option because if written well, it's not confrontational and takes care not to bruise any egos. The big drawback to this is that the people reading 'bobby's blog about how the moon is made of cheese' may not ever get a chance to see your blog on how the 'moon is really made of...well...moon stuff, like rock for example'. Also, I always feel like it's pretty obvious which post is being referred to. That kind of kills the subtly of the correction.

3. Set loose a horde of giant robotic weasels upon the original poster and their blog

Sure, this seems like a great idea at first...but giant robotic weasels are a lot harder to tame than you might imagine. Don't even get me started on the pet licensing situation for these. In the end this option just takes too much work.

- - -

Are there better options than these? Surely? What do you do when you run across a post that is full of more holes than swiss cheese? :)

Cheers, -B

One of the fun things about photography is freeing yourself from the constraints 'rules' and just experimenting.

Take a look at the image below.

Would it surprise you if I told you I shot this in broad daylight?

In fact, it was supremely bright outside. I simply underexposed the image (significantly, 2000th of a second). This requires virtually no technical prowess (other then knowing how to set your exposure) and so is quite a friendly technique for those not keen on spending a lot of time with photoshop.

The key here is that by 'not exposing correctly' you are free to create dramatic and unusual photographs. Here's a standard exposure shot just a moment before the picture above.

So...have fun! Try new things, don't worry too much about getting things right...just enjoy yourself. :)

Cheers, -B