Seattle Architectural & Real Estate Photographer:

I'm looking for a few good stagers!

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:54:08 -0600

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

The importance of NOT taking photos:

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:27:27 -0600

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

Aperture: A really really simple explanation (I hope) :)

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:09:10 -0500

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!):

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.
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).
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

Copyright law is under attack!

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:57:44 -0500

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

Window Views...let's make 'em BIG!

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:06:35 -0500

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

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

Place camera next to window
Point halfway out window, halfway indoors
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

Canon announces an astounding new camera!

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:38:49 -0500

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

Dodge and Burn:

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:33:03 -0500

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

After Dark - A complete shoot:

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:25:59 -0500

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.

How do we deal with misinformation on AR?

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:00:40 -0500

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

Seattle-Real-Estate-Photography

Underexposed!

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:30:27 -0500

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

Seattle-Real-Estate-Photography

Keeping your digital images organized:

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:14:54 -0500

One of the truly great things about shooting digitally is the freedom to simply snap away. Of course the downside to all this is you are likely to end up with a a lot of images...and I mean a LOT.

If you are anything like me, you probably have a large collection of photos - some which you really like and others which might not be your best work but are still worth keeping.

What do you do with all these pics? How do you keep track of them? How do you keep them sorted? I just ordered another 1.5 terabytes of storage (yes, terabytes) so the issue is on my mind! ;)

- - -

I'm going to cover two methods; one simple and free (but still very effective!) and another for those who are looking for an advanced way to catalog and sort their work.

1. Using Directories to Keep Things Organized:

Totally simple, completely free, and highly effective. It's also a good idea even if you are going to go with a more advanced method.

Bascially the goal here is to create a logical structure which you can place images into. Usually grouped by date, subject, and / or image 'status'.

Here's a simplified look at mine:

First off, you might notice I have a seperate drive just for my images. This is a precautionary measure (in case my operating system fails) as well as making for efficient backups.

To begin, I bring all images (in this case unprocessed RAW's) in under the directory '5D' (my current body). I organize these by Year, Month, Day. BTW - you can organize them by whatever you like! I just choose date because it make sense to me.

I also keep a 'Misc' directory as a sort of holding tank for random images that people have sent me etc.

When I'm actually editing images I move them into the 'Workspace' directory. This avoids confusion regarding images status and also allows me to let things 'marinate'. I find at times, it's helpful to set aside an image and come back to it later.

When images are complete I move them into 'Snapshots' (if they are images that aren't really up to my standards yet are fun or worth keeping). I move them into 'Photographs' for good quality shots that aren't sepcifically produced for clients. Finally my client produced shots all end up under (you guessed it!) 'Clients'.

Under each of these directories are sub headings of Year, Month, & Day (+ client name within clients).

Finally, I always maintain a 'Temp' directory for very short term holding of processed images (for example resized and sharpened MLS photos). This is good place for temp images that you need but don't want to get mixed up with your 'master' files.

2. Image Catalog & Archiving Software:

There are several companies working to help you keep better track of your images. They've created a sort of database software designed and marketed specifically for photographers (which is to say anyone with a whole lot of images!).

One of the most popular is Expression Media (my current favorite). However, as with everything - there are a variety of choices. Pick whichever suits you best. :)

I don't have the time to go through a full review of the software, rather I'll just cover the basics:

At the heart of program is the ability to categorize images, rate them, assign attributes and keywords to them.

For example, I've put together a catalog of most (I'm a little behind) of my architectural images. I've rated them by quality, given them some simple keywords (horz, vertical etc).

Note: It's a good idea to work out your keyword process ahead of time. If you decide later to add new keywords you may have to go back and re-edit the words for each image to make the new words fit!

One of the coolest features of these programs is the ability of the 'catalog' images regardless of their location. If you have a good directory structure from method 1 great...but if you don't that's ok too. You can also include images in 'offline' locations...external hardrives, usb devices...even CD's or DVD's. Pretty cool!

And of course all these images are searchable which makes for very fast indexing. Quite handy when looking for that one specific image.

Cheers, -B

Seattle-Real-Estate-Photography

'Trolby': The worlds fastest spider.

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 03:11:15 -0500

If you've read my blog much you'll probably know that I like to photograph spiders. I used to be quite afraid of them as a child, time has passed and the fear has become interest or at least curiosity tinged with a bit of respect. Frankly, they can make quite stunning subjects as well.

But not this one.

In fact, if spiders give you the heebie jeebies, I sincerely encourage you to hit the back button NOW.

I'm going to show you a few pictures of 'Trolby' in a second (my 3 year old son named her). But I thought I'd first cover why this spider in particular was so critical to investigate and some interesting facts about her.

First off, you might like to know that Trolby is the worlds fastest spider. No kidding. I'm serious.

Trolby is a Tegenaria Duellica. Her species has been clocked at a record setting 1.73 feet per second making them the fastest spider on the planet. Not very comforting to most of us.

Oh, did I mention she is big? The common name for T. Duellica is 'Giant House Spider'...which is fitting because she is really large. Probably a good 4".

Ok, so let's see...really big spider...really really fast spider...can this get any better?

Of course!

The Tegenaria family includes Tegenaria Agrestis, aka the Hobo spider. The Hobo's bite is no joke...in addition to being quite venomous it's rumored to cause necrosis at the wound site (though this is debated). Bottom line...a Hobo spider is absolutely not something you want in your home. Research is starting to show that bites diagnosed as by the Brown Recluse often really Hobo bites.

Oh and guess what? Duellica and Agrestis look almost exactly alike! Yay!

So now you can probably imagine why I was quite keen to sort out which one she was.

T. Duellica has one very good thing going for her:

The Giant is the single most effective known deterrent to the Hobo. It seems the Tegenaria family is not on good terms. In fact the Giant will aggressively attack and kill any Hobo it comes in contact with. They are such single minded Hobo killers that if you have Giants you can feel pretty sure you don't have Hobo's.

Whew!

BTW, these spiders are quite common in the northwest, being originally introduce to America through the port of Seattle sometime around 1930.

Ok, you've been patient (and brave). Here are the pics. I put a few too many sticks in her habitat but I think you'll be able to make her out. ;)

Cheers, -B

Seattle-Real-Estate-Photography

City Lights at Dusk:

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:58:05 -0500

If you've been following my blog about dealing with interior light for RE shoots, you might have noticed I'm a big fan of dusk shots. Not only are they quite easy to create but they can be very dramatic as well.

Must dusk shots involve exteriors (focal point house) or interior (focal point interior). However, if you list in a metropolitan area you have third option which isn't quite like either of the first two.

Because there's so much light volume in developed areas you can truly take advantage of the views while still employing a dusk shoot.

Cheers, -B

Seattle-Real-Estate-Photography

Handling Interior Light, the Comprehensive Look at Current Methods:

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:21:28 -0500

Wow, I think that's my longest blog title yet!

There's been a lot of info lately on HDR, blends, bounce flash etc. Much of it good info (some of it not unfortunately) but very little objective comparison of methods all in one blog.

I'm going to cover the following topics:

single exposure (available light)
multiple exposure blend (available light)
multiple exposure HDR (available light)
single exposure HDR (available light)
Civil Twilight / Dusk (available light)
Bounce flash (speedlight)
Strobes (flash)

Thanks for being patient, this is a bit of an undertaking. :)

- - -

1. SINGLE EXPOSURE:

Anyone who's ever picked up a camera and taken a photo of an interior knows the problem with single exposures backward and forward. It almost never produces a usable photo. Even a $40K D. Medium Format simply can't cope with the dynamic range of interior light versus an average window.

Let's look at a quick example (bonus points if you can find the barrel distortion prior to correction).

Here we have the classic case. The first exposure accurately portrays the view from the window but the room is almost completely black. The second exposure produces a nicely 'lit' room but the window is almost completely blown out. If you have interior lights on they'll often behave the same way as a window, and you'll get these super bright spots where the lights are (commonly called 'burn in').

I'd like to point out that in some cases a blown out window is very desirable (pick up a home mag sometime). Unfortunately that's seldom the case in real estate photography (unless there's something really dismal right outside). Typically we want that view!

So what can we do? Not much. Forget robbing a bank, there simply isn't a camera you can buy that can capture that much range in a single shot. Unfortunately that's not likely to change soon either unless some dramatic new technology no one knows about is suddenly invented. It's a physics problem as much as anything else.

Can single exposure work? Surprisingly, sometimes they can. Let's look at some more examples.

The above are all essentially single exposures. What do you notice right away? No big windows. Single exposures generally work best when they are tighter crops, avoiding large areas of light contrast. That doesn't mean the photos need be dreary, in fact 'close in shots' are quite popular (I quite like them for them for ambiance). They can still exhibit strong color and contrast and of course your composition skills will only enhance their value.

I should also mention that dusk shots are essentially single exposures where we wait for the sun to actually match the light we need just as if we controlled it on a dimmer. We'll cover that in the dusk section.

Summary:

Single Exposures are quick and simple but are almost entirely incapable of handling anything above +/- 8-10 EV. Good for close in or artistic shots where we like the windows blown out. Dismal at capturing views.

- - -

2. MULTIPLE EXPOSURE (BLEND):

So, we've seen that by zooming in a bit and avoiding high contrast areas (such as windows) we can make the single exposure work from time to time. However, let's face it we can't rely on that all the time, or even often. Real Estate shots require wide angles as well as close ups and those windows are crucial part of many scenes.

In this case well look at taking more than one exposure and doing a quick (manual) 'blend' of the two (or more).

Let's look at an example:

Here comes our old enemy. The left side in the first photo looks great...the right side is totally overexposed. In the second photo the area the door looks good but the rest of the room looks like the batcave.

BTW, I produced these photos quickly and easily using a function called "bracketing" which allows me to set my camera to automatically take three exposures @ 0, +2 & -2 (approximately). If you have a DSLR your camera almost certainly has this function. It's easy to set and makes getting your multiple exposures quite simple (and no additional fiddling with the camera while making the three shots which prevents movement).

So what happens if we combine the two images?

We can use photoshop to quickly (and I mean quickly) put these together.

This is probably a good time to mention that if you aren't familiar with photoshop you are missing out on some powerful capabilities. You don't need to be an expert but it would be good if you gained some basic understanding of what the software can do. Most of these techniques aren't actually that complex...but they do take some practice.

I'm going to create a very quick and crude mask (which is all we need).

Let's take a look:

Above we have the image on the left which shows you approximately where my mask is (in red). The image on the right is the final version after the blend. Elapsed time, ~60 seconds. I'm letting my window blow out a bit but that's ok...there's a bunch of stuff on the deck I don't want to show and more importantly I want the viewer to really experience the 'warmth' and brightness of the sun coming in.

Summary:

Much more versatile than a single exposure, quick and easy to shoot. Fast to edit but requires at least a basic comfort level with photoshop or similar program. Requires a tripod at minimum, may also benifit from a cable release and mirror lockup. Attempting to blend too great a light range may produce odd artifacts (visible errors). Longer exposure will shift color temp upwards and the blends may not match.

- - -

3. MULTIPLE EXPOSURE, HDR

There's been a lot of excitement around a recently developed technology called 'High Dynamic Range' (HDR - sometimes also referred to as Extended Dynamic Range). And for good reason, HDR can sometimes solve problems that are very difficult to manage by 'traditional' methods. Unique as it is, it also carries with it some serious drawbacks. It's important to know when it's going to work well and when to avoid it.

First, let's cover how it works.

HDR images are composits of multiple exposures (minimum 3, typically 3-6, sometimes 8 or more). These 'low dynamic range' (LDR) images are then run through a software process which attempts to fill in clipped and blown areas smoothly without too much mangling of the color temperature or luminance. How well this works depends a lot on the operator, the software, and the images captured.

Above are the 'LDR' images...left is -2EV, center is 0 (metered), and right is +2 EV. As you can see, none of them by themselves is a suitable photo. We know a single exposure isn't going to work (obviously) and blending isn't a great candidate either as the curtains make a good merge very difficult.

Let's see what happens when we run these through an HDR program:

Ok, now that is looking much better. Our curtains are no longer blown out and the chair is suitably bright. At this point you might be asking yourself; 'Why isn't everyone using this miracle technology?'.

I used to be a big fan of HDR, I used it for practically everything. The current HDR software leader offered to feature me in their portfolio.

However, I was spending a lot of time (and I mean a lot) photoshoping each image to correct for the problems with HDR. Despite all that some images just still weren't working right.

Let's look at a few of the problems with HDR and how to avoid them.

Light Blooming
Window 'realism'
Strange color temperature
Lens flare
Low Contrast 'muddy areas'

HDR PT.II (Avoiding Problems)

I want to take a moment to cover a few of the critical problems with current HDR tech and some ways to avoid them (or at least know when they are going to crop up). I don't want you to think I am way down on HDR however...and it's light years ahead of the single exposure. Just keep in mind it's not quite ready for prime time yet (at least without a ton of photoshop). However, the good news is there is more and more competition all the time and the software is bound to get better! :)

BTW, I cringe as I look at some of these images...go easy on me. THey are here for demonstration purposes only and are purposefully worst case scenarios for purpose of illustration. ;)

Light Blooming

Unfortunately an all too common problem, especially in areas of very high contrast (dark wood / paint around a bright window for example).

Notice how the edges of the window are overly bright and low contrast? HDR software sometimes has real problems averaging the blend in these areas.

You can sometimes solve this by lowering the blinds and getting a low contrast shot to use (along with the blinds open shots). You can mask / and paint (a bit of a pain). You can somtimes change your camera angle to avoid so much light from the window. Or you can live with it. ;)

Window Realism

Here's another common issue. HDR rarely renders the outside scene accurately. I've never been satisfied with a single view shot (I always ended up masking in a shot of my one).

Color temp tends to get sent to strange places (in this photo, much too cool) and saturation is pushed too far. Of course tweaking settings can help reduce this but typically fixing the outside view buggers up the interior temp. Headache!

If you run into this there's not much to do here but mask and replace. I do think this will improve with new software so keep your eye out for competing technology.

Color Temperature

Here's a particulary egregious example of wonky color temperature created by hdr tonemapping.

The problem is most 'scenes' contain multiple temperatures and as the hdr is attempting to blend all the luminance channels then apply colors to them (usually by pushing saturation).

Do keep in mind that sometimes this works really well, and sometimes...it doesn't. Fiddling with settings a bit may help. You may also manually color balance (a pain). It might help to color balance each shot prior to merging as well.

You could always paint everything white as well prior to the photos. ;)

Lens Flare

The lenses available today are fantastic, far outstripping gear of even a year ago...but they have a dark side: Many more elements (my standard RE lens has 17 elements!) and a more highly reflective inner surface when compared to their film counterparts (along with the sensor itself).

How does this impact HDR you ask?

Multiple images and little light means longer exposures which dramatically increases the risk of lens flair.

If you see this happening try to change the angle of your lens to avoid the offending light source (cloudy & bright skies are sinister culprits here because they send so much light into your lens at mutliple angles).

The only other way to avoid this otherwise is by doing a fast exposure but this typically means you need to add light.

Low Contrast 'Mud'

Here's another extreme example. It's hard to be too hard on hdr, we are asking it to do an aweful lot.

It's got to look for blow or clipped areas, and figure out how to replace them...all the while matching luminance and color (not to mention avoid creating noise!).

It doesn't always get it right. The common complaint is that hdr images can be 'flat' or 'muddy'. Actually, this should come as little surprise because that's exactly the goal...to take overally contrasty areas and even them out. The downside is this just doesn't always work.

You can add a little contrast in photoshop globally (or with a mask to just bits of the image). You can also blend in a standard shot or as always, you can attemtp to tweak the settings to produce a better merge. Tripod and bracketing highly suggested.

Summary:

Uses 3-8 images (typical) to create a blended image. Can be very effective at handling situations otherwise made quite difficult by 'standard methods' but may also introduce a host of problems and or restrict the freedom of the photographer to comform to hdr limitations. Unrealistic views and color temperatures can be a rpbolem as well as lens flare and low contrast. Requires a large amount of photoshop to produce a professional grade image.

- - -

4. SINGLE EXPOSURE HDR:

You can actually get away with creating an HDR image from a single exposure (keep in mind it's not magic though, multiple exposures are much better). Still, there are times when this might make sense (you are forced to handhold the shot or when you just didn't get the other shots as expected).

To the left is an image that I "HDR'ed" from just a single exposure.

The process is basically the same as creating a standard HDR image however in this case we need to create the 'multiple exposures' necessary for the HDR software to work from.

Its probably a good moment to talk a little bit about RAW vs. JPEG file format.

Most professionals (just about all of us really) shoot RAW. There's a number of reasons for this. The most important benifit of RAW over JPEG is that a RAW file contains far more information than the JPEG. JPEG images are 'flattened' to include only the information related directly to the image is it appears. Not surprsingly the JPEG images are much smaller but that's about the only advantage. RAW files are far superior in just about every other way.

If you plan to HDR from a single image you'll be much more sucessful using a RAW file as there is a lot more tonal information available. That's not to say you can't make this work with a JPEG but you'll need a wing and a prayer to do so.

Anyway, back to the actual process.

Assuming you have a good 'standard' exposure you'll need to create at least two (and two is probably all you can push it) 'new' exposures from the base file.

If using a RAW file this is quite easy, as you can simply adjust the exposure slider on your favorite RAW loader / converter and save yourself a 'bright' file and a 'dark' file for your HDR program to work with. If using a JPEG this will be a bit more tricky as you'll need to manually brighten and darken it.

Don't get stuck feeling you have to be mathmatically perfect about the two new exposures however. The key is to creat one that's bright enough to bring out some details in the dark areas, and one that's dark enough to bring out some detail in the highlights. You may have to give your HDR program some hints as to the EV range of the photos. Don't worry if you know what those are...just get proportions right. (+2 bright, -2 dark etc).

Once you've got images you are happy with run them through your HDR program and you should be all set. :)

Summary:

Not nearly as effective as multiple exposure HDR but workable. May be good as a rescue operation (not enough exposures) or when no tripod is available. Far more effective when used in conjunction with RAW file format. Requires some basic level of photoshop expertise.

- - -

5. DUSK / CIVIL TWILIGHT:

I'm always surprised that I don't see more dusk shots by realtors. They solve almost all of the photographic 'problems' above and require very little technical expertise. Even more importantly, they can be quite striking!

Let's have a peek:

Dusk shots are among my favorite and I'm fortunate to have a client or two that regularly requests them.

Get ready for this:

Dusk shots require no lights whatsoever! If that wasn't enough good news...

Dusk shots require virtually no photoshop whatsoever!

Why are dusk shots so incredibly simple to produce? Well, if full day is too bright...and full night is too dark...there's bound to be some point in between when exterior light is roughly equal to the interior light, right?

Voila dusk (or dawn for that matter)!

Some considerations when creating dusk shots:

You'll need a tripod of course, these shots are going to be longer exposures (several seconds or more).
You'll need to have a good feel for the change in light in the evening (this can be tricky at first but comes with practice)
A lot of DSLRS come with sharpness and color 'pre-boosted' when the camera creates the file. Do keep in mind that dusk shots are going to naturally produce very color intense photos anyway (longer exposures shift color temp and saturation in a similar way too film). You may want to turn that feature off (I personally never use these 'features' as they evetually limit your flexibility later).
Dusk doesn't last very long. You're looking at maybe 20 minutes max. I never promise more than 2-4 shots and that's usually only acheivable when I pre-set my shot patterns / positions in advance.
If you are doing a close in shot of a window with a view you may want to turn off unecessary lights...they may reflect in the windows.
Inclement weather is actually a good thing for dusk shots! Couldy skys turn rich blue and can create a creamy texture (if the clouds are moving). A huge improvment over a day shot with plain white clouds.

Summary:

Dusk shots can be quite dramatic. Good in poor weather and require no lights and virtually no post processing (a little never hurt but you don't need photoshop here). Requires tripod and timed exposure. Need to be cognizant of weather and time of year that dusk falls. Also realize there's minimal time to capture the shots in question. The other thing that can be a problem...you may have to stay up late (dusk is around 9p here at the moment)!

- - -

6. BOUNCE FLASH:

Coming soon. :)

- - -

7. STROBES (FLASH):

I admit it, I used to be a bonafide card carrying HDR lover. However, after a year of so stuck in my office trying to endlessy correct visual defects still present I decided it was high time to invest in a good set of strobes. Strobes are extremely good for capturing views / balancing light from windows.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered using additional lighting not only produces much better image quality (in most cases) but there is far less to bother with in photoshop making the overall process a lot faster! I also found I was able to produce shots which were simply not possible with out lights.

Of course, I won't lie...strobes take a little more know how (mostly in regards to having a good eye for light and the balance there of), they are obviously an additional cost...and let's not forget you have to lug them around and set them up for each shot. They do take more time (but not a lot more I've found).

Considerations when using strobes:

If you are going to get started with strobes I suggest you don't run out and buy an expensive set (they can easily get into the thousands per light!). Get your feet wet with a small kit at first.
You'll need some way for your camera to talk to the strobes. A simple wireless trigger is probably going to be your best bet. Avoid the more complex sets which have a lot of controls on them - you'll spend more time trying to make sure all your settings match than you will shooting.
You'll need an umbrella for each light (to greatly soften the light). Without it the light will be quite harsh.
When you are ready to shoot, you'll need to look around carefully. Where do you need the most light? Where is there the most contrast?
If you are having difficulty getting the expousre + lights right, try getting the exposure right to match the view...then add light via the strobes to brighten the interior.
Experiment! Move your lights here and there...try different configurations. Bounce them off of walls / surfaces.
Try to add enough light to the room to brighten it but not so much that the scene becomes overly washed out or flat. If you can still see a band of sunlight coming through the window or a glow from a light you probably have a good balance.

Summary:

Among the highest possible image quality when dealing with high contrast areas (windows etc). Minimal post processing required (good if you don't want to be stuck with photoshop). Additional cost, learning curve, and baggage to lug around each shoot. It will take you longer to shoot each room when using lights.

Cheers, -B

Seattle-Real-Estate-Photography

Just about the coolest 'virtual tour' software imaginable!

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:01:30 -0500

Well, it would be if it existed. I'm talking about Microsoft's Photosynth...and it is on it's way (though it will certainly be a while).

I mentioned this in a blog a ways back (as I believe others have).

However, I just wanted to take a moment to illustrate how photosynth could very well change the face of how homes are marketed online.

Most homes these days are marketed online with a mix of static images (photographs), virtual tours, video, photo slideshows, and of course a text description.

Photosynth has the potential to replace all of the visual items at once.

- - -

What the program does is take a group of photos of the same location, analyzes them for points of reference and then builds a 3D model of them. If that isn't impressive enough it allows you to move through the 'space' with seamless ease.

You can see a simplified version of it in action here:

http://labs.live.com/photosynth/

Here's the interesting part. Since you can use an unlimited amount of photos to generate the environment (in fact, more is better), you can have a wide shot of say a kitchen, and multiple 'zoomed' shots of details (cabinets, fictures etc).

The buyer could then turn, go forward, backward, 'move in closer' where ever they wanted to see more detail about a room. Almost as if they were there!

Done well, a potential buyer could move through the entire house, perhaps even the property...all at photographic quality.

If it sounds too good to be true...well...

We probably won't see this software for a good while. It's only a tech demonstration right now. Furthermore, it takes a lot of juice to compile and it takes a lot of photos to do correctly as well (which is good news for us photographers *wink*).

Still, I think it has the potential to be the killer app when it comes to 'virtual tours'. Something to keep your eye on.

Cheers, -B

- - -

It's pretty diffiicult to 'show this in action' (you should go to the site if you are interested in seeing it work). However, here are a few captures from the space shuttle pad.

Please note, these photos are obviously not mine - they are the property of microsoft, nasa, and the photographers respectively. :)

The 'dots' in the black area represents common points between photos. The gray 'border' you can see in some images is the selector for seeing different views (the tech demo isn't seamless yet).

You can see I moved my viewpoint around the launchpad, to a different view and finally zoomed way out to see the entire setting, all different complete photos.

Cool!

Seattle-Real-Estate-Photography

Photographing Children:

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:26:36 -0500

While I specliazine in architectural and real estate photography I thought it would be fun to depart from my typical topic and talk a little bit about working with kids. :)

I began my career working with children and there are days I really miss that type of work. Also, I think it keeps us fresh to work outside our primary area (no matter what field you are in).

On that note I'll cover a few of the basics:

- - -

1. Get in Close!

The number one common 'problem' I see with snapshots of kids and family is that the photographer is too far away from the subject to capture the nuance & emotion of the subject. Don't be afraid to get right in there with your subject. Children are especially great to practice this with as they are often much less self conscious than their adult counterparts. A good rule of thumb is to give the face at least 40-50% of the total frame.

2. Use limited Depth of Field (DOF)

If you are using an DSLR or similar type of camera you are fortunate in that you have a wealth of choices in how to construct a given photo. One of the most powerful tools is the ability to control the Aperture. This allows for a number of different capabilities but for the moment we are going to cover Depth of Field, or DOF, also known as boke [Japanese] (sometimes you'll also see this term mis-spelled as 'bokeh').

A large aperture (small number) lets a lot of light into the lens quickly but only has a narrow field of focus. As a result we can get a very sharp focus directly on our subject and at the same time produce a creamy out of focus area that recedes into the distance. I generally suggest you start somewhere between f2.8 through f1.2 (f1.2 is going to be a very narrow field of focus btw). When shooting portraiture you'll almost always want to make sure your focus point is the eyes (or near the eyes).

3. Know your Focal Length

The focal length of a given lens is also an important consideration in portrait photography (well, any kind of photography really). Generally speaking, 'portrait lenses' are going to reside between 50mm and 125mm (sometimes as far out as 200mm)...and there's a good reason for this. :)

All lenses (and I mean all) impart some type of distortion to an image (or more than one type!). Fortunately when it comes to photos of faces, the distortion common in portrait lenses is often helpful and tends to be flattering to facial structure (no kidding!).

4. Keep your Camera Handy

Kids are nothing if not dynamic...and that's probably putting it mildly. If you are trying to capture images of children keep your camera with you and easily accessible any time you think there's a chance you might get some good shots. The one time you leave it at home will be the time the kids are being extra cute. Also, remember to keep fresh batteries with you!

5. Take lots of Shots!

A lot of people I've bumped into are unnecessarily hard on themselves when it comes to their photography skills. Particularly when it comes to taking a ton of shots to produce a few 'keepers'. I'll let you in on a little secret. Professionals typically take a lot more than they 'need' also! This is especially true when working a subject as variable as a child.

6. Be Patient

Good advice for just about any project, it applies double here when working with kids. Keep in mind that children tend to do what they like despite our best intentions. :)

7. Have fun!

Finally, enjoy yourself and be sure your little ones have fun too. Both of you will be more willing to participate again and chances are good you will appreciate the photos more as well.

Cheers, -Bryce Mohan

Seattle-Real-Estate-Photography

Photographing Fireworks & Happy 4th:

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:04:57 -0500

First off let's remember that today is about thanking all those who have served to protect our country. :)

Cheryl (fearless photography leader of this very group) suggested it would be nice if someone put out some thoughts on photographing fireworks.

Actually *cough* I realized I don't have any photos of fireworks (I know, I'm not even sure how this happened). But I'll use some dusk shots (essentially the same) and cover the same technique.

- - -

The number one consideration when performing a 'long exposure' during low light is to immobilize the camera. You've got to have a means of keeping the camera still. Ideally that means a tripod, the heavier the better (though there is nothing wrong with an inexpensive or light tripod). If you have an SLR you might want to use mirror lock up also (a feature that moves the mirror prior to the shot to reduce vibration).

If you don't have a tripod (or monopod etc.) try leaning against something if possible. This may provide you enough stability to get a usable shot. A tree or wall will work in a pinch - get as much body contact as you can, particularly with your arms. You can also form a sort of 'tripod' using both elbows and your torso against say a car rooftop. Experiment and you'll find what works best for you. :)

(some simple long exposures / dusk shots below)

Secondly, you need to give some consideration to the framing of the shot. Fireworks tend to appear in the sky (I know, you are shocked). This can make them a little tricky to frame. I suggest trying to estimate where they are appearing, then position your camera using the next few bursts to ensure you are getting the light show in your photo. You don't want to go through all this effort only to have them half in the photo!

Finally, you need to consider exposure. For a shot where you 'freeze' the action choose a shorter exposure time. However, don't be afraid to also let the exposure run longer...you can get some very interesting fireworks 'trail' by letting them travel across the image area. The photo of the city just above this block of is an example of letting the exposure run long enough to get light trails from the brake lights of the cars.

Feel free to experiment with the exposure till you get something you like. That's half the fun. Post up what you get and remember to enjoy yourself! :)

Cheers, -B

Seattle-Real-Estate-Photography

Unstaged Interiors & White Walls:

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:30:01 -0500

Most of the properties I photograph are staged (thank goodness!). But occasionally I do run across a booking where staging is impractical (in the case of a site still under construction, as below) or it simply isn't utilized.

This is undoubtedly more difficult to photograph. Even more vexing is that such properties are often painted bright white which can make everything look really flat, details are lost, and depth is very difficult to capture.

I ran into just such a property recently and I thought I'd cover a few basic tips that might help when you have to shoot in this type of situation.

- - -

1. When you have a situation where everything is 'really white' you run the risk of losing key details due to improper exposure. Expose to long and everything really will be flat white, too little exposure and you'll get a gray melange. Ugh.

Solution: Do your best to expose for median light on the white surface...your cameras meter will typically be at the center area of focus...make sure that area is over the 'average' light area on the walls (or where ever). This will help your meter make the right exposure for the available light (assuming you are in some kind of auto mode).

If you have the ability consider 'bracketing', taking multiple exposures. Typically this means you take one at the 'correct' level and two more at +/- 1 or 2 stops. You'll need a tripod for this, if you want to blend the images or you can do it by hand if you plan to just use a single image.

Another approach is to push areas of color as much as possible. You can go a little farther with things than you might normally want to. It's important to give your viewer some sort of contrst!

Finally if you can shoot on a sunny day you might want to try to incorporate angled patches of sun on floor or walls, this will help add a little more interest (it's ok to let these blow out).

2. When a property is unstaged it's really difficult to communicate depth and space like you can when you have defining elements present. Especially at wider angles (remember that distortion we love so much that makes rooms look bigger? It's working against you here). Large rooms with standard ceilings are especially problematic in most cases.

Solution: There's only so much you can do here, fortunately there is a strategy I've found effective. Do your best to use the lines of the room itself to create interesting shapes. A good eye for lighting will help also in regards to creating areas of interest and supplimental lighting will really help.

Examples below:

Cheers, -B

Seattle-Real-Estate-Photography

Flash Photography : People

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:36:05 -0500

I was shooting a private party last week in Seattle Aquarium and afterwards, one of the staff came up to me and asked me about why I was firing my flash backwards. I stopped packing up my gear and we both took a break to talk photography for a while. He told me that was the first time he'd ever seen someone use a flash in that way. Naturally I thought; "I need to write a blog about this!" ;)

Anyway, what I'd like to cover specifically in regards to flash is working with people.

We all know the problem...we have our subject, the background is just right...except...dang, our subject is backlit! We need to become the instant light crew so we make use of the flash.

But what usually happens next?

A lot of times we end up with our subject being really harshly white and everything behind them being very dark. And the eyes...the dreaded red eye pops up.

We are going to solve both problems in one fell swoop.

- - -

Bouncing a Flash:

There's an incredibly simply solution (though it may require an equipment upgrade if your camera just has a fixed flash), and that is to fire the flash back or up, bouncing it off a nearby wall, ceiling, etc. This turns the wall (for example) into a giant reflector as well as a broad softner.

It's truly just that simple. By bouncing the flash off an alternate surface we get a much softer light that is more evenly distributed.

No More Red Eye:

Red eye is a direct product of the angle of incidence light is entering the cornea. The problem is, the 'flatter and straighter' (parallel to the floor) the light hits the eye...the more red eye occurs. So where is the flash mounted on most cameras?! Directly opposite the eye! Argh!

By bouncing a flash off something else we change the angle of entry considerably and the red eye is virtually nonexistant. Whew!

I should also mention that many cameras (even P&S) have a sort of red eye reduction method using a 'pre-flash'. By shining a red light at the eye just prior to firing the flash the eye contracts in a way which reduces red eye. While this isn't nearly as effective as bouncing the flash it can be quite helpful. :)

Let's look at some examples (all the below images are backlit in some fashion, the only forward illumination is my bounce flash):

- - -

Other Considerations:

The biggest obvious issue is that most cameras have a fixed flash. There's not a ton you can do in that case (though you can sometimes get a diffuser or even sort of deflect it with your hand or an object - difficult but possible!).
However, that said many cameras will have a flash shoe which allows you to add on an external flash that can be aimed. It is an extra cost of course.
Other good stuff about buying an external flash unit: Modern external flashes often come with a host of features, including improved light metering through the lens itself to power Autofocus assist function. They aren't cheap but you can do a bunch of stuff with these things.
Bouncing a flash off something may pick up a color cast (change the flash light from white to something tinted by surface of the object). This could make for some strange color temp or it could be used to your advantage.
An external flash will recycle much faster and be much more powerful than a fixed flash. It also won't pull power from your camera which risks killing your batter double quick.

Well, that's (hopefully) a good overview. As always, please feel free to ask any questions. :)

Cheers, -B

Seattle-Real-Estate-Photography

Even pre-sales need staging - & - Be careful on ladders!

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:21:33 -0500

Life is a funny thing sometimes. You simply have to laugh at the odd turn of events that so often come your way.

Last year I received a booking for two new construction houses that were just being built. I was there to get some view shots. When I arrived at the first house (they were side by side), the construction workers told me I couldn't use the stairs to get to the third floor (and the deck I needed to be on). Instead they directed me to an A-frame ladder. It looked a little sketchy but dutifully I climbed it.

When I reached the top of the ladder it collapsed.

I fell some 8-10 feet onto a marble floor (I'm going to show you a picture in a moment). Both of my legs actually caught in the ladder itself so in essence my legs bore 90% of the impact (probably why I'm still alive - it's good that my head didn't take that impact on the marble). Both my legs were crushed and I actually bent the metal ladder some 30 degrees.

Naturally I got right up because hey, I felt fine! (I was in shock). ;)

About five minutes later I could barely move my legs, one hand etc. It was at that point that I went straight to ye olde emergency room.

Being a cheeky fellow I was joking with my doctor when he informed me it was possible for me to lose my legs (I was less cheeky after that revalation). I had compartment syndrome (crush) in each leg...and the swelling was literally so bad they could see it on the x-rays which normally don't even register soft tissue injuries.

Long story short, I'm fine...and I'm walking around on a great set of knobby legs. The lesson of this story is...be careful on ladders! ;)

- - -

But...the story doesn't end there.

Just this week I received a booking that looked suspiciously familiar. Yes, it was the 'ladder house' as I affectionally call it!

Now I am back again, it seems the listing changed hands and as the top agents are a small group and I shoot for many of them...here I was again. :)

Fortunately the stairs were complete this time, whew!

But this brings me to my second point (and I have no intention of being critical of my client) but in my opinion wouldn't the second pic have benifited from at least a little staging? A table, a lamp, a statue...maybe a plant?

I understand new construction pre-sales are a different breed but I think good staging makes them more competitive just like any other listing. Worth considering.

Cheers, -B

Seattle-Real-Estate-Photography

White Balance & Color Temperature:

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:17:36 -0500

I've been putting together some narrow focus blogs on photography stuff lately and I thought I'd cover a more general subject that applies to everyone (who owns a camera anyway!).

I'm going to talk today about White Balance, and by association Color Temp. Let's start by going through a very quick overview of what these two things are:

- - -

White Balance:

When photographers talk about white balance what they really mean is color temperature, which is to say they are trying to find the correct color temperature for a given shot...where 'white is balanced' so to speak. So White Balance is a verb as much as an adjective.

Confused yet? Yes? Perfect! We'll cover this more in a minute.

Color Temperature:

Color temp refers to the overall color cast (or tint...or and tint for those of you familiar with Adobe's RAW converter). If that doesn't make sense right away, don't worry...we'll look at some examples in a second.

A good rule of thumb when thinking about color temp is to place it into two camps.

Warm (sunset, fire, volcano, incandescent light, late afternoon sun, headlights etc)
Cool (ice, water, rain, fog, early morning sun, snow etc)

The above is a big simplification of color temperature but it's fine for the moment so let's move on to some examples.

- - -

Take a look at the below image (I love lofts so I'm going to be using examples from one of my shoots yesterday). Notice any difference between the three images? Well, it's probably pretty easy to see and I've exaggerated the difference to illustrate the point.

The image on the left has been poorly white balanced, it's color temp. is too cool (too much blue, cyan, etc). The image on the right is also a problem, it's too warm (too much red, orange, magenta). The image in the middle is about right.

Actually, the image in the middle, strictly speaking isn't truly white balanced but we'll go more into that in a bit. For the moment I just want you to really 'see' the difference the color temp has on photos.

- - -

Ok, so we can now see that photos can have a color cast a.k.a. color temperature and that we need to get that sorted properly (white balance) or we might end up with an odd looking photo.

So how do we do that? As with most things in life, there are a couple different ways.

The Camera:

I know a little something about your camera. Really. I don't even know what type you have, but I know just how it's going to handle white balance. Poorly.

You see cameras don't do a very good job figuring out the color temp of a given scene should be no matter how hard they try...and that goes from the cheapest P&S to a $10K DSLR. They all struggle. They just can't 'see' what the color should be. Of course, there is a method to work around that.

You can tell them.

Most cameras and any DSLR will have settings that allow you the photographer, to tell the camera what type of light you are shooting under. This is critical to getting a good color temp because so much of an image's color cast is determined by the type of light illuminating it.

You may also opt to shoot what photographers call a 'gray card' if your camera has the option (literally this fancy device is just a bit of gray cardboard). You can then tell your camera to 'look' at the photo you've just taken and determine what the correct white balance should be.

This is probably a good time to point out that the term 'white balance' is a crummy name. Or at least confusing when it comes to actually sorting out the color cast. You see, it's really better to use a gray reference point instead of a white one. White too easily holds a color cast which can lead to exaggerated results, it's also prone to blow out during exposure which can leave you with nothing to balance from.

All of the above works fine, but I suggest you forget all about in favor of what I am about to cover.

Post Processing:

Sure, you could do all that stuff above...and you can weave your own clothes or start a fire by rubbing two sticks together also. But there's a much easier way nowadays and a lot more flexible as well.

Here's a screenshot from the Adobe Camera Raw loader. I've scrunched it down a bit so it's easier to see in a blog but it's the same basic deal.

In the upper left, along the top bar you can see that I have a little 'eye dropper' selected. That's the White Balance tool. You then just click on an area in the image where something white is (or preferably gray) and voila...photoshop makes all the necessary color temp changes.

You can see on the right we have a readout of the specific temp and tint as well as a histogram of the RGB channels and the luminance channel. Don't worry about all that right now...that's in the 201 class.

BTW, I should mention this handy feature only works if you shoot RAW. If you are shooting jpeg's your camera is forced to make a white balance decision for you and you are stuck with that (sort of).

- - -

Balancing Color Temperature Manually:

If you are shooting some sort of non RAW file type (commonly jpeg) then you are image has already been 'set in stone' so to speak regarding white balance. But that doesn't mean you can't attempt to fix it by re-balancing the colors manually.

Just a word of warning about manual color balance. Most people find it to be very difficult. In fact I know professionals that still struggle with manual balancing. It's just not an easy skill. It takes a discerning eye, patience, and a lot of practice.

I don't want to scare you away from trying it, rather I don't want you to feel too discouraged if you have a hard time 'getting it just right'. It's NOT easy.

Fortunately photoshop puts a very good tool in our hands called 'color balance' (surprise!). It does the best it can to simplify the process by grouping opposing colors so that you aren't working against yourself during the balancing.

If you want to get your feet wet here I suggest sticking to midtones (they are the easiest) and just working with one 'group' at a time.

- - -

Advanced Concepts:

If you've got all the above figured out you are doing great...but I have some bad news for you.

1. You'll almost always have more than one color temperature represented in an architectural shot...I've had photos that had as many as five, and those were just the critical areas!

Photos like this are notoriously hard to 'white balance' in fact they are impossible to so handle on a global basis. The classic example of this is any window. The room will almost always be warm compared to the window (which will be cooler)...never mind that you might have a mix of artificial light sources and color cast reflecting off bright furniture also!

You can handle these though...in most cases by balancing the photo twice (or five times!) for different areas of the photo and blending them together.

2. You seldom want to balance perfectly to white when working with interior shots.

Of course this is a matter of opinion (just like everything I write) but I find one has to be careful about aiming for a perfect white balance when working with architectural shots. You may find the photos look very artificial and strange. This is because most interior light (especially common household t. filament bulbs) has a warm tone to it...so the room should have a little warm color cast to it if you want it to appear most natural.

3. You can manipulate color temp to your advantage during unfavorable weather.

I'll just skim this briefly (it deserves a blog of it's own) but you can monkey with color temp to make things appear much (better) then they are when working with exteriors. Skies can be made to appear blue (cooler temp) and foliage can appear 'sunnier' (warmer temp). Good stuff when you live in a rainy place, eh?!

Well, that's it for a bit. I'm in my busy season now so I won't be able to blog as often but will try to contribute as time allows. Hope this helps. :)

Cheers, -B

Professional-Photographer

General SEO question; Keywords

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Tue, 27 May 2008 07:57:36 -0500

Hi all you SEO guru's. :)

I wanted to take a moment to introduce myself, I'm a photographer specializing in residential & commercial real estate / architecture (please feel welcome to come visit my profile or the site when you get a chance).

I consider myself moderately knowledgeable about SEO, yet I have a very elementary question:

"Is it more ideal to have many exact phrases, even if that means a lot of repitition of main keywords? Or is it better to simply have the main keywords once, and the supporting words seperately?"

Below is a hypothetical list of keywords. The actual list is more detailed and not ordered exactly like this but it's suitable for an example. BTW, I've worked this out by looking at wordtracker history and predicts so I'm feeling decent about the list as a whole.

- - -

List 1: Exact phrases (main keywords repeated)

"photographer, photographers, wedding photographer, commercial photographer, corporate photographer, professional photographer, portrait photographer"

List 2: Main keyword once (supporting words seperate)

"photographer, photographers, wedding, commercial, corporate, professional, portrait"

- - -

Obviously my main concerns is effective indexing. The first list would seem to be stronger but my worry is that it may also be viewed as spam.

Any thoughts?

Cheers, -B

(random real estate image for you) :P

Real-Estate-Photography

Macro 101 (warning: spider pic inside):

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Thu, 22 May 2008 17:27:04 -0500

I thought I'd talk a little bit about macro photography today.

Shooting macro is one of my favorite 'recreational' types of photography.

What is macro anyway? Macro is generally defined as a category of lenses which have no reduction factor. In other words, the lens transmits an image to the sensor at a 1:1 scale. Actual size. As a result the subject appears much 'bigger' (hence, macro). There are even macro lenses that operate at 1:4, at that level of 'zoom' a grain of rice would fill up the entire frame of the image!

What's the big deal about all that? Well you can see some incredible things when you start looking at your world close up. Everyday objects take on a whole new dimension.

Let's take a look at an example (just snapped this today). The below image is a spider of course, one of my favorite subjects due to the lines & contrast. Apologies to the squeamish, but I warned you. ;)

Some things to consider when shooting Macro:

Lens: You don't need much to get started, just the lens. Macro lenses are relatively inexpensive (compared to most specialty lenses anway) and can usually be had for the same price as a 'standard' type lens. They are rated by focal length mm just like other lenses and the same general rules apply; a 90mm macro is going to allow you more distance from your subject than say a 50mm. Possibly an important consideration depending on the subject! ;)
Depth Of Field: One common 'problem' when shooting macro is the lack of DOF, especially on longer lenses (notice you cant even see the web in this pic). It's quite common to shoot at very small apertures as a result. I took the above image at f20. That's all fine and dandy except at f20 I need a much longer exposure than I'd normally take or I need a lot more light (in this case I opted for more light via a speedlight). If you are working outside on flowers for example you may want to be sure you have good sun, and bumping up the iso doesn't hurt either.
Focus Bracketing: This is a little more complex solution to the DOF problem above but I'd thought I'd introduce it for the advanced section of the group. If you have a subject that is fairly stationary you can set your camera up on a tripod, focus on the subject, snap a pic...and then refocus closer (or farther) and snap again...repeat until you get a shot of the whole object sharp (across several pics). You can then composite those images in photoshop to produce a single image that is sharp across the range.
Lighting: As I mentioned above getting enough light on the subject can be difficult, especially if you are trying to handhold the shot. There is a special type of flash made just for macro photography called a ring flash. A ring flash is just what it sounds like it is, a circular flash that attaches to the front of your camera and goes completely around the lens (or sometimes just has multiple light points around the lens). These are pretty neat devices but they aren't cheap and i wouldn't suggest buying one unless you plan to be doing a lot of this type of photography. As often as not, a good fill like a speedlight will work just fine.
Critical Sharpness: Have you ever noticed it's harder to get a steady image at telephoto distances? You aren't imagining it. As the image is farther from the sensor, minute movements register exponentially more. Many people report the same experience when shooting macro, especially at longer focal lengths. You can combat this with a tripod of course, but if you are chasing butterflies around that's not a very good option. Another solution to this problem is (and you'll need plenty of light) shoot at very fast shutter speeds. Due to space constraints i had to handhold the image above...as a result I shot it at 200th of a second. Much faster than I would typically choose. Plenty of light and a push of the exposure and it comes out looking fine (and quite sharp!).

Well, that's your introduction for the day. I'm currently working on a 'bug' series for the local kids (they love this stuff). I'll try to post more when the weather improves. :)

Cheers, -B

Architectural-Photographer

Do you REALLY need to hire a professional photographer for every listing?

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Wed, 21 May 2008 01:05:52 -0500

Heck no you don't!

That's right, I said it and I'm a photographer.

Listen, every once in a while I see a post on AR by a real estate 'photographer' or virtual tour business where they suggest, imply, or outright accuse agents of doing their clients a disservice by not 'hiring a professional'.

To be sure, there plenty of situations where a photographer can enhance your business tremendously but there are also many situations where it might be money down the drain.

Situations where you probably don't need a professional photographer:

The property is sizzling: Last year I recall a listing I shot, curious about how it was doing on the market I asked the agent about how it was going. She just laughed; "That sold in one day." Now, I'd like to think it was my photos that garnered such a rapid sale but let's be honest...that was simply a hot property. Location and availabilty determined the rapid sale. We probably could have put up crayon drawings by a three year old and it still would have sold in a day.
The property is a teardown: No kidding, I've been hired many times to shoot teardowns, including interiors. Now, I'm seldom inclined to argue with a client when they are more than happy to pay me but...seriously...tear downs are bought for the land. Maybe you need a few nice land pics but hiring a professional to shoot the $100k house on the $900k bit of land seems like overkill to me. :)
None of your competitors use professionals and your clients don't expect you will either: Remember, you are running a business. You are trying to utilize minimum capital to acheive maximum revenue. If your clients really don't care, and you aren't going to lose business to competition who might be competing by using professional services you really may not need to hire a photographer. I know, I know...you guys are going; "Has Bryce gone crazy?". I do feel by using professional services when your competition doesn't, you have an advantage that leads to more business but that's a choice (or a judgement call)....it doesn't mean you need to.
You take really dang good photos! A lot of folks in this group have worked hard to improve their skills and it's paid off for many. Some of you are taking some really good shots. I've seen some lately that I'd be hard pressed to distinguish from a professional.
The commission structure doesn't support the cost of a professional: Sometimes the math just doesn't work. I've known agents who work on very narrow margin listings. It doesn't make sense for them to sacrifice a large portion of their profit for very little return.

You can probably think of a few other situations I can't. My main point is you shouldn't feel bullied or guilty about not hiring a professional if the situation doesn't warrent it. :)

So what are we photographers good for (besides outstanding photos of course)?:

If you rub our belly, we will grant you three wishes
We ward off the giant, seven toed foozit (seriously, have you ever seen a foozit and a photographer together? I rest my case)
We can predict the weather (example: it might rain, or it might not rain)
Flat tire? We can fix it!*

* Actually, we are notoriously lazy. Can't we just call for roadside service?

Some snaps from last weeks listings, enjoy:

Cheers, -B

Seattle-Photographer

Anyone interested in some hands on learning? :)

Bryce Mohan (Bryce Mohan Photography) — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:08:47 -0500

I sent out a bit of marketing recently to the top 40 agents in WA state, the resposne has been overwhelming and I'm now swimming in bookings (that's the good news). The bad news is this has revealed a weakness in my business model which is time spent on backend process (post work). It's taking too long...strictly speaking I'm rapidly approaching more business than I can handle.

As a result, I'm shifting certain interior shots from primarily HDR to primarily strobe lit. This costs more time at the shoot but saves a ton more time on the backend.

I called up one of my long time friends and clients and they were all too happy to provide me with a home to shoot. ;)

Then I had a thought, since I'll be knocking around this big empty house enjoying some practice and experimentation, maybe a few folks would like to come along and work on their skills with me.

I'm more than happy to share my knowledge and opinions (lord knows I'm seldom shy about my opinions, lol).

The house I will be working in is a Johnson-Chen in the Newcastle Reserve. He's one of the premier builders here in the northwest and his houses are consistently among the finest I've seen.

(here's a couple pics I snapped last year of one of his buildings):

Anyway, there's a lot opportunity in a listing like this as you have many different lighting / composition arrangments, nooks and crannies etc.

I probably can't take more than 3-4 people at a time and still give the right amount of attention. It might be fun to post some of the work back to this group as well and sort of talk about different things tried etc. :)

If you are interested, please let me know. You will need to have an SLR and this is open to any realtors or stagers (no competitors please ;).

If there's more folks interested we'll need to figure out some way to pick. Maybe we do this once a quarter? Could be fun.

Anyway, drop me a line.

Cheers, -B

Professional-Photographer