Shooting a low light room

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mrk123

Messages
99
Name
kane
Edit My Images
No
The lighting is low and moody, lots of warm orange hues that I think will need to remain. See example below

images removed by op

Images removed by op

One issue is shadows from all the different hanging objects? How would you overcome this?

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
Both shots, fine as they are, although a low level of flash to camera right may help, but keep it subtle.

As for gels, forget them for these kinds of shots, far better to make adjustments in post-processing.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Both shots, fine as they are, although a low level of flash to camera right may help, but keep it subtle.

As for gels, forget them for these kinds of shots, far better to make adjustments in post-processing.
Click to expand...

These are not my shots, I am asking for advice on how to best achieve the best results in this exact setting.
 
mrk123 said:
These are not my shots, I am asking for advice on how to best achieve the best results in this exact setting.
Click to expand...
Ah, I didn't know that, I assumed that they are your shots as you shouldn't have published shots that belong to other people.

But that doesn't change my view. These shots appear to have been taken either completely with available light or with very subtle additional lighting, and it works.
As there won't be any people in the shots (which is a pity) then use a lens aperture that provides adequate DOF but which doesn't create diffraction limitation, use low ISO for optimum image quality, and stick the camera on a good tripod and use whatever shutter speed is needed, simple.

It's possible that (unless there is natural light coming in from the roof that isn't visible) the first shot consists of 2 separate exposures merged together, to stop the overhead lights looking too bright, and you should do the same. The factor to change here is the shutter speed, which doesn't affect any other element so, for example, 1 shot at 1 second and the other at 1/10th.
 
It's a poorly done HDR (missing a few darker brackets). No lights used. You would clearly see them reflecting on so many shiny surfaces and for sure they are unlikely to make the effort to mask it out considering the former.
As for mixing daylight balanced speedlight (which will have super limited effect in such a dim and large space) with super orange lights... Well you must like lots of deep blue in the image and so must the client. And not to forget a gazillion of reflective surfaces.... Stick with HDR and make sure to get the full required range unless you have a really good lighting plan. I'm not saying it can't be done but it's a whole lot more than one small bare speedlite
 
I do not know what you think one small flash will add to such a large space.
Better without.
With no people , fusing multiple exposures seem the way to go.

However I am surprised that it will be without people for a life style shoot.

This is where digital medium format would be an advantage.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
However I am surprised that it will be without people for a life style shoot.
Click to expand...
That would ideally be hired actors. You don't want just random guests, let alone legal consent forms that would be required to fill in for each!

Terrywoodenpic said:
I do not know what you think one small flash will add to such a large space.
Click to expand...
accent lighting for various elements in over many multiple frames maybe. Its a big job.

by the way 16-35mm f/4 like to flare like hell with dominant lights in the frame. I've got one. Good luck.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
That would ideally be hired actors. You don't want just random guests, let alone legal consent forms that would be required to fill in for each!


accent lighting for various elements in over many multiple frames maybe. Its a big job.

by the way 16-35mm f/4 like to flare like hell with dominant lights in the frame. I've got one. Good luck.
Click to expand...

Pretty much any student union would be a suitable source for a dozen or so willing extras for an evening in a gin distillery and a few drinks.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
However I am surprised that it will be without people for a life style shoot.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Without people it isn't 'lifestyle' it is just an architecture shoot.

And for that, I wouldn't be using flash at all if possible.
 
DemiLion said:
Don't use them then
Click to expand...
If I was using these shots in a commercial setting or for my own business or even claiming them as my own I think it would be wrong.
Using them in this setting on a forum, complimenting the shots and asking how they are done, I don't see the issue. Maybe I should have added togs name (not listed) or even the gin distillery who own the images and the licensing... But I think we can get a little to caught up in the day to day and simple using an image in the manner I have.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I do not know what you think one small flash will add to such a large space.
Better without.
With no people , fusing multiple exposures seem the way to go.

However I am surprised that it will be without people for a life style shoot.

This is where digital medium format would be an advantage.
Click to expand...

'Flambient' method. Flashing various frames and blending over an ambient shot.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Before sounding off, I find it best to do some basic research on what I'm about to say.

In this case, here's a good place to start: https://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_others In particular, note section 6 on that sheet.
Click to expand...

Great.. Note my BOLD and LARGE highlighted text. Looks like I am off the hook. Phew!

Criticism or review
Quoting parts of a work for the purpose of criticism or review is permitted provided that:

  • The work has been made available to the public. (on the website of the ginnery)
  • The source of the material is acknowledged.
  • The material quoted must be accompanied by some actual discussion or assessment (to warrant the criticism or review classification). (we have done that here on this forum publically)
  • The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose of the review. (stated)
 
mrk123 said:
Great.. Note my BOLD and LARGE highlighted text. Looks like I am off the hook. Phew!
Click to expand...

If you want to get in to a serious argument with me, then keep poorly quoting copyright law. I will tie you in knots.

Forget copyright for the moment.

Using someone else's images (let alone without a byeline) is just plain bloody bad manners.

Don't do it.
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
Before sounding off, I find it best to do some basic research on what I'm about to say.

In this case, here's a good place to start: https://scammersareus.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_others In particular, note section 6 on that sheet.
Click to expand...


Please don't reference that website.

a) A lot of their so called advice is very poor.

but more importantly

b) They are scam artists. That website is set up deliberately to gull UK photographers in to unnecessarily registering their images for a fee.
 
DemiLion said:
If you want to get in to a serious argument with me, then keep poorly quoting copyright law. I will tie you in knots.

Forget copyright for the moment.

Using someone else's images (let alone without a byeline) is just plain bloody bad manners.

Don't do it.
Click to expand...
"then keep poorly quoting copyright law" You sent me the link.

No drama mate, let's keep this constructive and positive. I am open to learning, I have taken your points on board and will consider for the future. :)
 
mrk123 said:
Great.. Note my BOLD and LARGE highlighted text. Looks like I am off the hook. Phew!

Criticism or review
Quoting parts of a work for the purpose of criticism or review is permitted provided that:

  • The work has been made available to the public. (on the website of the ginnery)
  • The source of the material is acknowledged.
  • The material quoted must be accompanied by some actual discussion or assessment (to warrant the criticism or review classification). (we have done that here on this forum publically)
  • The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose of the review. (stated)
Click to expand...

unfortunately you've missed the critical one - acknowledging the source - if you're going to use the images, at least have the common decency to "back link" to the companies website, so that they at least get a little something out of it...

I've added a "generic" link back to the company at the bottom of your post, but as you've chosen the pictures, presumably you can add a link below each picture that will take people to the location that they were originally published...

if you don't, you may well find that the pictures just disappear...
 
mrk123 said:
If I was using these shots in a commercial setting or for my own business or even claiming them as my own I think it would be wrong.
Using them in this setting on a forum, complimenting the shots and asking how they are done, I don't see the issue. Maybe I should have added togs name (not listed) or even the gin distillery who own the images and the licensing... But I think we can get a little to caught up in the day to day and simple using an image in the manner I have.
Click to expand...

It would be ok to link to them, however you should not use them directly.
 
mrk123 said:
"then keep poorly quoting copyright law" You sent me the link.

No drama mate, let's keep this constructive and positive. I am open to learning, I have taken your points on board and will consider for the future. :)
Click to expand...


I didn't post any link. Your powers of observation are not exactly up to scratch.
 
mrk123 said:
Great.. Note my BOLD and LARGE highlighted text. Looks like I am off the hook. Phew!

Criticism or review
Quoting parts of a work for the purpose of criticism or review is permitted provided that:

  • The work has been made available to the public. (on the website of the ginnery)
  • The source of the material is acknowledged.
  • The material quoted must be accompanied by some actual discussion or assessment (to warrant the criticism or review classification). (we have done that here on this forum publically)
  • The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose of the review. (stated)
Click to expand...

Note my comments. Neither bold, nor large:

a) Yes the image has been made available to the public for viewing only. Not for reproduction.

b) You have not acknowledged the source. Nor have you acknowledged the author of the work.

c) You have not, in your original post, discussed the actual images. You have discussed their content and used them for illustrative purposes. That is not the same thing and does not fall under copyright exemption. Discussion of how the images were created only followed later.

d) It impossible to 'quote' a section of a photograph. Part of the whole is considered to be the whole; ie even when cropped, you are considered to be using the whole image. Which makes photographs almost impossible to use under Fair Dealing.
 
All getting a bit long this and egos starting to creep in.
Let's just leave it here eh.
Cheers boys.
 
mrk123 said:
All getting a bit long this and egos starting to creep in.
Let's just leave it here eh.
Cheers boys.
Click to expand...


Erm, no. That is not how it works.

If you infringe copyright law, making smart comments does not get you off the hook.

I note that you have just ignored the moderator's advice to edit your opening post.
 
DemiLion said:
Erm, no. That is not how it works.
Click to expand...
It's rather unfortunate that some people appear never to have heard (or ignored) the advice that "when in a hole, stop digging". :headbang:
 
mrk123 said:
Agreed. Unbelievable really considering!
Click to expand...
You have been advised of the correct procedure, by forum members, a professional photographer, and a member of staff.
And yet you continue to argue the point?

AndrewFlannigan said:
"when in a hole, stop digging".
Click to expand...


I trust you have actually stopped digging now?
 
Last edited:
learningtofly said:
I have to say that if people spoke to each other in real life like they do on here there'd be a lot of black eyes and broken noses. Why the needless aggression - it's not exactly a good look for the forum, is it?
Click to expand...


What needless aggression?
 
as the OP has chosen to remove the pictures completely, and, as he did actually get some advice on the shoot earlier in the thread, I think that we may as well draw a line under this for now.

mind the doors folks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top