You know when you think to yourself, 'mmm this could be interesting, BUT, I haven't got time to watch that now'. So you put it to one side and for whatever reason you never get back to it? I'm really glad this wasn't the case with this short clip from Mike Kelley. Loved watching his process and technique. Excellent stuff and the resulting images are beautifully crafted. _Take a look..._ it's a great ***** even if you're not into Shooting Architectural Images. Thanks for sharing Fstoppers :)
@@travis8665 Agreed! I wonder if for certain areas it's just not worth it to hire a photographer vs do it yourself. Where I live, an agent doing their own photos is a good way for them to fail - the listing would get no attention over an uglier house that's presented better. I'm curious about if some local markets just don't have ROI worth it, even though that's hard to imagine
@@SamEmilio2 I think it really does depend on the market. Where I live in Hawaii for instance most of the homes, especially on the higher end, have such a large profit margin that the return on investment is worth it for them. On top of that the expectation the buyers have is to have photos such as these ones
Great video/technique. Note that this is a LOT of work for one photograph. Think about if you are also hired to shoot the interior, front of the house.. etc. One day shooting (minimum [if looking for that perfect light on every shot]) and 2 days in front of the computer. If you plan on doing this type of work, charge a LOT, because there is a LOT of work to be done.
I am a real estate photographer and have just started using ambient light painting techniques a few months ago..... it is time consuming but my final product is far superior than other real estate photogs in my market area. However, the guy in this video is extremely detailed in his work, and it shows in his work.
@@thomaslavery5168 why such strange comparison? I mean you can use few flashes and do several pictures in like 1-2 hours + postprocessing them in similar amount of time = good to great results and at the same time affordable for the customer.. If you need like 3 Hours for 1 picture + 6 or so for post .. hmm, not sure how many clients will pay this. Of course there are always exceptions. Mike Kelley is such exception, the clients with those several Mio. $ worth villas are exceptions etc. etc. But for "usual" Architectural Photographer it is to high effort and to expensive service for the customer, just my opinion :) (sry fo bad english).
@@MrRomanMiller If a client has a high end property then of course ehe will spend the money. If not then he can use a phone to advertise his property and get no buyers. I dont know how much Mike charges for this but if a client had to pay a grand or two it would be worth it.,
Thank you for sharing, Mike. The process is indeed, very comprehensive. I photograph my own listings as well as clean it up in photoshop; but I can truly use your services because I know I do not have your advanced skills.
Excellent work Mike and your detailed frame by frame light adjustment description is classic. Hope you'll post some more stuff for learners. Best of luck.
Dude your are the Jedi Master of Real Estate Photography. Lot of work goes into these shots. I agree with Kurnia Lim, taking the house out of the the pic in the background make it false advertising to sell the house but if its for a House Magazine then it's warranted to do so.
I like this very much. Adding light to pictures(known as the dodge and burning) is very often used in architect photography. I understand Mike why he got to this stage. More realistic as this you can`t get.......
Awesome video! Just a question for Mike, would it not be considered false advertising to get rid of the house in the background? I mean, for all you know somebody might want this house given the fantastic view and not realise there is in fact another house next door.
Nice work. As one poster said this is the upper pay area of real estate photography market. The only criticism I have is that a prospective buyer can never see the house in the image you have created unless the buy additional fixtures for the back.
The house is not for sale. Its like a display home I shoot. We do video of the home and it will never be sold. Its a display home and not for sale. Our job is to shoot so the positions homes and skip bins are not in the shot. Thats why we cant use drone shots. We dont want to see skip bins am=nd builders building on near by sites.
Great work!! Very well executed, I now understand how Attic Fire photography gets those results.....thanks for sharing, you're an inspiration and please keep posting.
Very interesting way of working, thanks for sharing your technique, especially the way you used the external flash to add interesting light to the scene.
Mike GREAT picture and video! looking forward to watching more of your videos and learning from one of the best in the business. This is my first comment on UA-cam . I don't get why people try to bash someone else's pictures and hard work. Obviously that's why he's well-known an your not. People always look at the negative and not the positive smh.
very nice work. i saw the part where you're using the CamRange to show the image on your ipad, but what are you using to take the photos? remote trigger? you're quite far holding the speedlights, so i was wondering which remote you're using? i'm also on canon and would like the same remote. thanks
Great image. But, why don't you use a panel like Lumenzia or TK to do your luminosity masking? I think you can speed up your workflow like that. I am using it for a while now and once you get use to it you can't live without the tool anymore. Oh, I see this is an old post. My bad.
Are you still using the Cam Ranger? I found it to be slow and my Nikon D700 battery dies after a few minutes. Has anything changed in your workflow since this video was made? Thank you for any help.
You mention you have a pocket wizard connected to your camera for remote triggering with another, but I don't seem to see it on the camera (only the TT1)? I'm after a similar setup and would like to know what you've got connected to the camera to achieve off camera triggering. I'm expecting you've used the TT1 just to get TTL info.
Great! Thank you. Quite interesting the análisis form the triangle of house, flash and ambient light. I was able to follow the layers and the different adjustments. Forgive my ignorance, when did you hide the multiple photographers for the as many flash shots? Thank you
This might sound completely silly to ask (I'm new to photography) but when you took those pictures while walking around with the flash, were't you caught in the pictures too? How did you erase yourself from the pictures?
I really liked your professional work Well done and good luck I have a question about how it was taken from your phone And what is the device you had in your hand Thank you very much
Great video, awesome photo! Are you able to get more than one view? Looks like so much timed is devoted to each shot that additional views would have to be shot on different nights?
As Mark pointed out it's probably the one feature the architect/builder wanted from that property. You would not waste your whole twilight period for one shot in a property tour type situation (unless they are paying extra for it).
Isn't removing the house a bit deceptive? After the client spends millions to buy the house they sit in the patio and think. What is that house doing there?
Yes and no. The exception is that this is essentially an ad for a custom home builder, not a real-estate agent. The photo is to show the work he is capable of producing, not the location - he is not selling *this* house, but his ability to build houses. Furthermore, he won't be able to build another house, for a future client, in that location as he already built someone else a house there. The building in the background is removed to clear distractions and keep the focus on the house itself. If his next customer wants a house with nothing on the hill in the background it is up to that person to buy property that looks that way, not the builder or the photographer 👍 If it were for a real-estate agent I'd 100% agree, and be very annoyed if I drove out to see the house and found a deal breaker that was 'shopped out of the photos! 😝
I get your process it’s 👍 money making tools. Question is someone young is always going to saturate the piss out of everything. As we’ve all done. Photography to me and I’m sure anyone will get this it’s that trends are so hard and also fun to deal with. Like any industry it’s cut throat, which is good. I just don’t like, All the bullshit I’m sure mike has a story or two of Fake it till you make. Point being it’s a fickle beast
I consider myself an amateur to novice photographer. Prob a dumb question, I realize he’s bracket shooting, using lighting etc, how is Mike taking shots and he’s in allot of the shots. Part I’m confused about, how is he taking himself out of the pics? Sorry if it’s a dumb question
Mike, I basically shoot and post process the same way you do for the past 6 years. I have been shooting since 1980, back then I shot with 8x10 & 4x5 Sinar view camera's. Today client's want the shoot done fast and you don't have time to light it like in the old days. Instead today we do the lighting in Photoshop and come out with better results than the old days. The other posts that say stupid things like this isn't photography etc. are people that don't know Photoshop very well or are to lazy to do it this way. I imagine they are real estate photographers that are getting paid peanuts and there is no way they can take the time to do it this way. I only shoot for architects, interior designers and just 10 real estate brokers/agents that understand good photography and are willing to pay, the rest of them when they call to see what I charge have a heart attack. Your photography is STELLER!
Hello gjjohnson5, thanks for sharing this. I am interested in getting my feet wet in architectural photography, with real estate listings first. I'm deeply curious what you charge for your work (I know I can't charge what you do, but no one likes to discuss money in this field and I think it would be fascinating and informative if you could share this).
cg Even if the commenter replied, really it's not a realistic question for him/her to answer. There are many variables that are going to effect the pricing, not only the country you reside in but the town or city, the demographics of that location and the type of structure ie building or housing and the type of client are all aspects that will effect what you charge. The best way you can get an idea is to get quotes from existing photographers of that type in your local area. I hope that helps a bit.
If it were me, I would charge around 2k a home. I charge $2200 to video a display home and its a 2 hour shoot and a 4 hour edit. I shoot about 3 a week and I would think this is worth at least 2k. Its not for normal real estate.. its to show the architect what his work looks like. You see homes like this all the time in magazines.
I doubt you did the same process. I know what your'e trying to say on the capabilities in photoshop but there is no way you can copy certain types of lighting in photoshop. Even if you change the colors, add in fake sky, select areas with a pen tool and add contrast that way, but in the end it will never look the same as the real thing. As someone replied, this shot is for an architect, not a realtor. A realtor is honestly a cheapskate when it comes to pictures and all they care about is time and money. Architects don't care so much about time but on the finished product. They are not in need to have to pictures as fast as realtors and they also appreciate what the photographers are doing. I'm always trying to find ways to help streamline my editing skills and don't mind it when software helps. However if it does a poor job at it and looks too "clean", the picture looks fake and sticks out like a sore thumb. You also said "we do lighting in photoshop and come out with better results than the old days. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not true. I've seen people try to replicate golden hour and add in fake flares and colors to mimic it. When compared side to side with an actual scene, it can not compare.
This is a good tutorial and awesome image! However, one concern for me is that the client only give people three or four hours to take photos and normally they would expect 5-10 pics. what's your plan in those situations? Thanks!
AGH331 LOL. I don't know if you understand. but what brian is trying to say is that. Can we just bump up the ISO in a portion of the image where Mike uses flash to light up. or is it necessary use flash? what the difference and so on. Me, IDK.
No, you can't selectively increase the ISO after having taken the picture. You can, however, artificially increase the exposure in selected areas of a RAW file with Lightroom and similar programs, it just won't look anything like what he is doing in the video.
AGH331 yeah, You're right. sorry about that. obviously, Mike created a composite image-from multiple images with different exposure. So yeah, I guess the right term for that is "exposure". But yeah, Brian can do something like that even with one RAW file, however, you are right, it doesn't look as good as what Mike did. ;) cheers bud.
You can do exposure compensations. Take 2 or 3 images at different exposures(by changing the ISO, I would suggest a 2ev or 3ev stop difference), and merge them into a single 32bit image for retouching. This will give you a much better lattitude to work with the lighting than a single raw file. Alternatively, you can just use mask in photoshop to combine these images.
I'm surprised you painted out the house. If I was a potential buyer I'd be pissed if I was lured there by that photo only to find there was a big house painted out.
What is the name of this techic in English? I know it in my language and i often use it, but i never find anything on the internet cuz i dunno how it`s in English.... PLS :)
It depends on the market. If a million dollar home hasn't sold in a year, they will pay good money to get that listing in front of more people. In many cases it isn't the realtor who pays the photographer but instead the home owner. When you get to luxury style homes, it can be cheaper to hire a photographer for $1-2k to sell a home vs sitting on it for months and not getting any prospective buyers checking it out. This does t make sense for a house worth less than $500k though you are right.
The real estate agent or his/her company almost always pays for the photos. You might not realize it, but it's the case. This is coming from someone with over 11 years in the luxury real estate business as a Realtor and also as a professional photographer who has shot well over 100 homes. I appreciate the time, knowledge, and effort Mike Kelley puts into his work because he does an amazing job, but as someone said, very few people will pay for this kind stuff, especially not most real estate agents. Understanding his workflow would probably better serve someone shooting minimal images for home magazines, like Souther Living or Coastal Living, where you can focus on the main areas of the home. Another thing as a Realtor I would like to point out is that while it's fine to make an image pop a little more, bring out some color and highlights, etc., it's not a good idea to falsify a view or surroundings. When a prospective buyer shows up at a house, they don't want to find out the beautiful view they see in the photo is actually partially blocked by another home. For real estate listing photography it is always better to show the surroundings at they are.
I missed the sale for this course and glad I did. Like another comment you don't have the time to do all of this if your shooting several houses and no help. Did like his equipment. Tilt shift lens didn't see what one it was.
@UCTAMyNcz9afXd7S7YVUI12w I dont get you people. This house is not for sale. Its for a builder and I would think one pic would be worth 2k top 5k for that photo. Its not for people that just want a to spend $150 on a house to sell through a real estate agent. I am going to learn how to do this and my thoughts are to do this kind of work on hotels and large properties and make a fortune. I charge $2420 to do a video on a display home and average 3 a week. My competition charges $250 and does a prick of a job. They also get no work.
Ok I can accept about the interior light excuse, but remove the house at the back seems like tricking the consumer, if this is for real estate advertising. Eg: I look at the picture, wow this house nice, but when I get there I see house behind that not in the picture, doesn't it sound like you give false information for consumer? But if it's only for produce good image for people to see, or show off your house, it's fine, nicely done.
+Kurnia Lim this shoot was done for the house designer, not for the real estate agent, the focus was on the house and not so much on the location. house designer might not be the one selling and this photograph is probably for his own collection to show his designing skills to his future clients.
@7:04 LOL, you can't do that can you? You also can't remove electricity poles and permanent fixtures among other things that may get you sued. Be careful, great images by the way. Commercial photography go all out but when it comes to real estate you don't want to misrepresent.
I don't think it says anywhere this is for real estate. He says at the beginning he's shooting for a custom home builder, so who cares what he does with houses in the background and poles?
MICHAEL MICHAELS In a section of the DVD, he says that he will have a meeting with the real estate agents before he does shooting, so I'm assuming topics like this would come up.
Do HDR. But shoot flash on site. Then add flash to the HDR results. Flash always improves the HDR making it look more real. HDR and look fake if not very careful.
Nice technique but which leads to a result which, although apparently attractive, is completely wrong. The flash carried around on the set actually generates a series of unlikely shadows coming from light sources that do not exist in the final result.
I'm lost at how he shows up in all the shots but in the final image he's gone. lol It's probably something simple in photoshop but i'm over here trying to figure it out on my own
@@MrMrWattz I would expect the cost to be at least that but more like $2000 would be fair. I charge $2,420 to shoot a video of a display home. I do 3 a week on average and it takes me 2 hours to shoot and around 4 hours to edit. Others shoot with phones for $150 and look like crap.
+Ross Gumbrell Um I've been doing if for a couple of years and there is absolutely nothing wrong with lighting a home the way you want it. It's no different that lighting a person when you shoot them. The only thing that is illegal is removing things from view. That is the only thing not ok.
Photos and blending are very good but in my case they dont even want me to edit too much,they want to reflect the reality. p.s working in London real estate
The reality is that the camera will not convey the same emotion one feels in the space with one's own HDR eyes. Hence, the editing to bring it up to the level of reality.
I find the images unrealistic and cgi-like. enhancing existing light is one thing but adding light where there isnt any seems a step too far to me. just a personal opinion. good architects place natural and artificaial light where they want to highlight areas of projects. Most i know dont want their vision changed. maybe thats just a uk thing. Julius schulman was an amazing architectural photographer and never used artificial lighting. maybe photographing neutra, frank lloyd right, or adolf loos was different. perhaps the greatest american architectural photographer ever. www.google.co.uk/search?q=julius+shulman&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=qaIcVLTXAtDlaJiSgYgF&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1455&bih=739
Thank you for the link Mark. I'm just getting my start as a freelance architecture photographer. As a matter of fact I'm heading out to a shoot in about 10 minutes. Thanks for again.
Julius Shulman was an outstanding architectural photographer, but he did use artificial lighting. For his most iconic shot, the Stahl house, he used 2 strobes as evidenced in the second photo with the sync cord on his camera. anthonylukephotography.blogspot.com/2012/04/photographer-profile-julius-shulman.html
Nice photo lighting. I like how it enhances the image closer to what my eye will see. I see that you crossed the line and lied for the view of this house by editing out the house that can be seen down the way. This is why folks don't trust photographs anymore. You edited the view from this scene if I was to buy this place. Hello legal actions. -- Poor Karma
I don't think that it is poor Karma. It really depends on what you do with the images. If you are recording an image as a legal document - that may be an issue. If you are trying to create an image like an architectural rendering or show a portfolio for a high end builder it's fantastic. It's always the choice of the client as to what they want included or excluded. Mostly, what I see is technical artistry. Poor Karma is much evident in looking at the distortion of human models :). My guess is that when I go to actually visit an $8.5M home I can see what it's like in person before I cut the check.
Karma is payment for good/bad actions. Not sure you understand that. If you are making this to show property to sell or show how the place it then it's a lie and poor karma. But most folks with bad karma don't realize it so to each his own. Enjoy your karma.
John D I understand Karma. Again, it depends on what you are showcasing. I have shot images for builder portfolios, I have also shot images that are used to represent comparable images as in multi unit buildings. Additionally you could shoot an image for companies selling building products or specific aspects like pools, stone work or timber frame construction. In all those cases you are representing an aspect of the whole.
the image is for the builder and not going to be used to sell the house.Therefore it is not misleading. In the old days all fashion photos sent to buyers were in black and white and they would pick the colors they wanted. You didn't want to send a design to a buyer in a color and have them not buy it just because that buyer was triggered by the color to say no. Ever notice how many black cars Ford sold when he first started?
You know when you think to yourself, 'mmm this could be interesting, BUT, I haven't got time to watch that now'. So you put it to one side and for whatever reason you never get back to it? I'm really glad this wasn't the case with this short clip from Mike Kelley.
Loved watching his process and technique. Excellent stuff and the resulting images are beautifully crafted. _Take a look..._ it's a great ***** even if you're not into Shooting Architectural Images. Thanks for sharing Fstoppers :)
That was awesome!
Great video.
Thank you, Mike Kelly for making it.
Thank you Heidi for sharing it.
This is a pro at work. Very inspiring.
cheers folks ♥
Wow, just amazing.
Mike is shooting this for an architect not a real estate agent. Huge difference.
Most real estate agents where I live do their own photography. It has basically become part of their job now.
@@tallaganda83 Yes, and they look like crap. Absolute crap.
@@travis8665 Agreed! I wonder if for certain areas it's just not worth it to hire a photographer vs do it yourself. Where I live, an agent doing their own photos is a good way for them to fail - the listing would get no attention over an uglier house that's presented better. I'm curious about if some local markets just don't have ROI worth it, even though that's hard to imagine
@@SamEmilio2 I think it really does depend on the market. Where I live in Hawaii for instance most of the homes, especially on the higher end, have such a large profit margin that the return on investment is worth it for them. On top of that the expectation the buyers have is to have photos such as these ones
Great video/technique. Note that this is a LOT of work for one photograph. Think about if you are also hired to shoot the interior, front of the house.. etc. One day shooting (minimum [if looking for that perfect light on every shot]) and 2 days in front of the computer. If you plan on doing this type of work, charge a LOT, because there is a LOT of work to be done.
I am a real estate photographer and have just started using ambient light painting techniques a few months ago..... it is time consuming but my final product is far superior than other real estate photogs in my market area. However, the guy in this video is extremely detailed in his work, and it shows in his work.
Will Ward is this accomplished combing all the imagines into one HDR? And how is he walking around lighting things but yet not seen in the picture
Will Ward I just started Realestate photography. Where these videos helpful ? Or would you suggest something else ?
This kind of work blows me away. WAY above my skill set
These are amazing, but ain't nobody got time for that!
Desmond Lake one great picture or a bunch of snap shot your call
@@thomaslavery5168 why such strange comparison? I mean you can use few flashes and do several pictures in like 1-2 hours + postprocessing them in similar amount of time = good to great results and at the same time affordable for the customer.. If you need like 3 Hours for 1 picture + 6 or so for post .. hmm, not sure how many clients will pay this. Of course there are always exceptions. Mike Kelley is such exception, the clients with those several Mio. $ worth villas are exceptions etc. etc. But for "usual" Architectural Photographer it is to high effort and to expensive service for the customer, just my opinion :) (sry fo bad english).
@@MrRomanMiller If a client has a high end property then of course ehe will spend the money. If not then he can use a phone to advertise his property and get no buyers. I dont know how much Mike charges for this but if a client had to pay a grand or two it would be worth it.,
Really inspiring and fun to learn how to paint a house with light for your photograph.
Love the workflow and results! A+!
Thank you for sharing, Mike. The process is indeed, very comprehensive. I photograph my own listings as well as clean it up in photoshop; but I can truly use your services because I know I do not have your advanced skills.
Excellent work Mike and your detailed frame by frame light adjustment description is classic. Hope you'll post some more stuff for learners. Best of luck.
Amazing work and amazing presentation to the point no hunky dory . Hats off ...
Mike,
Beautiful and technical work. Top notch.
Oh wow, a feature length DVD, that will be interesting!
Dude your are the Jedi Master of Real Estate Photography. Lot of work goes into these shots. I agree with Kurnia Lim, taking the house out of the the pic in the background make it false advertising to sell the house but if its for a House Magazine then it's warranted to do so.
I like this very much. Adding light to pictures(known as the dodge and burning) is very often used in architect photography. I understand Mike why he got to this stage. More realistic as this you can`t get.......
Nice work. Thanks for sharing your process. Always something to learn when working with real professionals.
Awesome video! Just a question for Mike, would it not be considered false advertising to get rid of the house in the background? I mean, for all you know somebody might want this house given the fantastic view and not realise there is in fact another house next door.
Yaron Sarachik please read previous responses. This is not a real estate photograph. It’s for an architect.
Nice work. As one poster said this is the upper pay area of real estate photography market. The only criticism I have is that a prospective buyer can never see the house in the image you have created unless the buy additional fixtures for the back.
The house is not for sale. Its like a display home I shoot. We do video of the home and it will never be sold. Its a display home and not for sale. Our job is to shoot so the positions homes and skip bins are not in the shot. Thats why we cant use drone shots. We dont want to see skip bins am=nd builders building on near by sites.
Great work!! Very well executed, I now understand how Attic Fire photography gets those results.....thanks for sharing, you're an inspiration and please keep posting.
Very interesting way of working, thanks for sharing your technique, especially the way you used the external flash to add interesting light to the scene.
That was absolutely AMAZING !!! Fabulous.
Thank you Mike! I learned so much watching the trailer so many times. Imagine the progress when I buy the tutorial!
Simply amazing. Congratulations for the job and thanks a lot for sharing that with such details.
Mike GREAT picture and video! looking forward to watching more of your videos and learning from one of the best in the business.
This is my first comment on UA-cam . I don't get why people try to bash someone else's pictures and hard work. Obviously that's why he's well-known an your not. People always look at the negative and not the positive smh.
I like your way to taking photos.
Architecture photos is an hard job for positions.
This was excellent. Shoot as best you can on site. Then hunker down in post.
Learned a lot from this video. Thank's for sharing, Mike!
you are an artist ! thank you for doing your work so perfect ! I love your work. Thank you for sharing this.
Excellent work, thanks to share it
very nice work. i saw the part where you're using the CamRange to show the image on your ipad, but what are you using to take the photos? remote trigger? you're quite far holding the speedlights, so i was wondering which remote you're using? i'm also on canon and would like the same remote. thanks
Great work Mike.
Thanks for sharing that Mark!
I'm thinking abt buying that set :) Did you purchase it and if so is it worth it? Seems like for me it's a no brainer
Michael Ratcliff I've used a camranger for about 6 mos., is that what you mean by "that set"?
James Pommerening You bet.
No, the training videos put out by Mike Kelley Mark Spomer but I am thinking of getting a cam ranger as well.
Incredible. Thank you.
Great video! Thanks!
Nice tips. Yaron you have a point. If I was a buyer looking at these pictures I would expect there not to be a home in the view of the backyard.
Great image. But, why don't you use a panel like Lumenzia or TK to do your luminosity masking? I think you can speed up your workflow like that. I am using it for a while now and once you get use to it you can't live without the tool anymore. Oh, I see this is an old post. My bad.
Are you still using the Cam Ranger? I found it to be slow and my Nikon D700 battery dies after a few minutes. Has anything changed in your workflow since this video was made? Thank you for any help.
great shot! It looks like a lot of work over a decent period of time, how is it possible to blend frames to match?
Just wondering, with such a workflow why would you ever need more than one flash? Thanks for sharing!
You mention you have a pocket wizard connected to your camera for remote triggering with another, but I don't seem to see it on the camera (only the TT1)? I'm after a similar setup and would like to know what you've got connected to the camera to achieve off camera triggering. I'm expecting you've used the TT1 just to get TTL info.
Great! Thank you. Quite interesting the análisis form the triangle of house, flash and ambient light. I was able to follow the layers and the different adjustments. Forgive my ignorance, when did you hide the multiple photographers for the as many flash shots? Thank you
Great video. Thanks a lot 😀
Great work !
Love this tutorial. Thank you so much for sharing.
This might sound completely silly to ask (I'm new to photography) but when you took those pictures while walking around with the flash, were't you caught in the pictures too? How did you erase yourself from the pictures?
Joseph Carter thank you!
I really liked your professional work
Well done and good luck
I have a question about how it was taken from your phone
And what is the device you had in your hand
Thank you very much
Its the Camranger with an app on your phone.
@@paulthomasonair THANKS
Wonderful! Thank You so much for sharing :)
Great video, awesome photo! Are you able to get more than one view? Looks like so much timed is devoted to each shot that additional views would have to be shot on different nights?
Good point Eric, except that he was hired by the builder, not a realtor. If it was for a realtor you definitely would NOT want to do that.
As Mark pointed out it's probably the one feature the architect/builder wanted from that property. You would not waste your whole twilight period for one shot in a property tour type situation (unless they are paying extra for it).
Isn't removing the house a bit deceptive? After the client spends millions to buy the house they sit in the patio and think. What is that house doing there?
Yes and no. The exception is that this is essentially an ad for a custom home builder, not a real-estate agent. The photo is to show the work he is capable of producing, not the location - he is not selling *this* house, but his ability to build houses. Furthermore, he won't be able to build another house, for a future client, in that location as he already built someone else a house there. The building in the background is removed to clear distractions and keep the focus on the house itself. If his next customer wants a house with nothing on the hill in the background it is up to that person to buy property that looks that way, not the builder or the photographer 👍
If it were for a real-estate agent I'd 100% agree, and be very annoyed if I drove out to see the house and found a deal breaker that was 'shopped out of the photos! 😝
Deceptive, yes.
I get your process it’s 👍 money making tools. Question is someone young is always going to saturate the piss out of everything. As we’ve all done. Photography to me and I’m sure anyone will get this it’s that trends are so hard and also fun to deal with. Like any industry it’s cut throat, which is good. I just don’t like, All the bullshit I’m sure mike has a story or two of Fake it till you make. Point being it’s a fickle beast
Alfred Au it’s for a builder, not real estate
Who buys a house without checking it in person?
Superlike, informative
dude this is just awesome
love how you've shot this
Amazing. I had no idea!
wish that particular one was included in the dvd
Amazing Tutorial!
That's... AN FREAKING IMAGE!!!
Think to find the "balance" between ambient and artificial light a lightmeter will help
Love your video what Canon Camera did you use?
I consider myself an amateur to novice photographer. Prob a dumb question, I realize he’s bracket shooting, using lighting etc, how is Mike taking shots and he’s in allot of the shots. Part I’m confused about, how is he taking himself out of the pics? Sorry if it’s a dumb question
Mike, I basically shoot and post process the same way you do for the past 6 years. I have been shooting since 1980, back then I shot with 8x10 & 4x5 Sinar view camera's. Today client's want the shoot done fast and you don't have time to light it like in the old days. Instead today we do the lighting in Photoshop and come out with better results than the old days. The other posts that say stupid things like this isn't photography etc. are people that don't know Photoshop very well or are to lazy to do it this way. I imagine they are real estate photographers that are getting paid peanuts and there is no way they can take the time to do it this way. I only shoot for architects, interior designers and just 10 real estate brokers/agents that understand good photography and are willing to pay, the rest of them when they call to see what I charge have a heart attack. Your photography is STELLER!
Hello gjjohnson5, thanks for sharing this. I am interested in getting my feet wet in architectural photography, with real estate listings first. I'm deeply curious what you charge for your work (I know I can't charge what you do, but no one likes to discuss money in this field and I think it would be fascinating and informative if you could share this).
cg Even if the commenter replied, really it's not a realistic question for him/her to answer. There are many variables that are going to effect the pricing, not only the country you reside in but the town or city, the demographics of that location and the type of structure ie building or housing and the type of client are all aspects that will effect what you charge. The best way you can get an idea is to get quotes from existing photographers of that type in your local area. I hope that helps a bit.
If it were me, I would charge around 2k a home. I charge $2200 to video a display home and its a 2 hour shoot and a 4 hour edit. I shoot about 3 a week and I would think this is worth at least 2k. Its not for normal real estate.. its to show the architect what his work looks like. You see homes like this all the time in magazines.
I doubt you did the same process. I know what your'e trying to say on the capabilities in photoshop but there is no way you can copy certain types of lighting in photoshop. Even if you change the colors, add in fake sky, select areas with a pen tool and add contrast that way, but in the end it will never look the same as the real thing. As someone replied, this shot is for an architect, not a realtor. A realtor is honestly a cheapskate when it comes to pictures and all they care about is time and money. Architects don't care so much about time but on the finished product. They are not in need to have to pictures as fast as realtors and they also appreciate what the photographers are doing.
I'm always trying to find ways to help streamline my editing skills and don't mind it when software helps. However if it does a poor job at it and looks too "clean", the picture looks fake and sticks out like a sore thumb.
You also said "we do lighting in photoshop and come out with better results than the old days. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not true. I've seen people try to replicate golden hour and add in fake flares and colors to mimic it. When compared side to side with an actual scene, it can not compare.
amazing tutorial . good job
Great work. Thank you for sharing! =)
This is a good tutorial and awesome image! However, one concern for me is that the client only give people three or four hours to take photos and normally they would expect 5-10 pics. what's your plan in those situations? Thanks!
You take them and charge normally. You cant have work like this done without paying for it.
So much knowledge 👏👏👏👍👏👏👏👏
excellent thank you.
Would the Sony A7s help in the process could you jack up the ISO to eliminate dark spots? or do you need to do all those flashes?
Jacking up the ISO increases the general exposure - it will eliminate dark spots, but totally blow out the highlights too.
AGH331 LOL. I don't know if you understand. but what brian is trying to say is that. Can we just bump up the ISO in a portion of the image where Mike uses flash to light up. or is it necessary use flash? what the difference and so on. Me, IDK.
No, you can't selectively increase the ISO after having taken the picture. You can, however, artificially increase the exposure in selected areas of a RAW file with Lightroom and similar programs, it just won't look anything like what he is doing in the video.
AGH331 yeah, You're right. sorry about that. obviously, Mike created a composite image-from multiple images with different exposure. So yeah, I guess the right term for that is "exposure". But yeah, Brian can do something like that even with one RAW file, however, you are right, it doesn't look as good as what Mike did. ;) cheers bud.
You can do exposure compensations. Take 2 or 3 images at different exposures(by changing the ISO, I would suggest a 2ev or 3ev stop difference), and merge them into a single 32bit image for retouching. This will give you a much better lattitude to work with the lighting than a single raw file. Alternatively, you can just use mask in photoshop to combine these images.
I'm surprised you painted out the house. If I was a potential buyer I'd be pissed if I was lured there by that photo only to find there was a big house painted out.
Thank u very much its a great video
nice work
Splendid
how long would you spend on a shoot like this?
What is the name of this techic in English? I know it in my language and i often use it, but i never find anything on the internet cuz i dunno how it`s in English.... PLS :)
This ia fucking awesome. One of the best videos ive seen for a while!!!!
real estate agents eat this shit up. It looks nothing like what you really see.
It depends on the market. If a million dollar home hasn't sold in a year, they will pay good money to get that listing in front of more people. In many cases it isn't the realtor who pays the photographer but instead the home owner. When you get to luxury style homes, it can be cheaper to hire a photographer for $1-2k to sell a home vs sitting on it for months and not getting any prospective buyers checking it out. This does t make sense for a house worth less than $500k though you are right.
The real estate agent or his/her company almost always pays for the photos. You might not realize it, but it's the case. This is coming from someone with over 11 years in the luxury real estate business as a Realtor and also as a professional photographer who has shot well over 100 homes.
I appreciate the time, knowledge, and effort Mike Kelley puts into his work because he does an amazing job, but as someone said, very few people will pay for this kind stuff, especially not most real estate agents. Understanding his workflow would probably better serve someone shooting minimal images for home magazines, like Souther Living or Coastal Living, where you can focus on the main areas of the home.
Another thing as a Realtor I would like to point out is that while it's fine to make an image pop a little more, bring out some color and highlights, etc., it's not a good idea to falsify a view or surroundings. When a prospective buyer shows up at a house, they don't want to find out the beautiful view they see in the photo is actually partially blocked by another home. For real estate listing photography it is always better to show the surroundings at they are.
Donnie Whitaker Yes, the last thing you want is to overly heighten expectations only to have the client disappointed upon visiting in person.
That home would be worth millions so 2 or 3k is peanuts to get it sold or whatever.
thanks mike i learn something
really good job. THS mike
You clone out urself in photoshop? How comed u r not shown in the picture?
I missed the sale for this course and glad I did. Like another comment you don't have the time to do all of this if your shooting several houses and no help.
Did like his equipment. Tilt shift lens didn't see what one it was.
@UCTAMyNcz9afXd7S7YVUI12w
I dont get you people. This house is not for sale. Its for a builder and I would think one pic would be worth 2k top 5k for that photo.
Its not for people that just want a to spend $150 on a house to sell through a real estate agent. I am going to learn how to do this and my thoughts are to do this kind of work on hotels and large properties and make a fortune. I charge $2420 to do a video on a display home and average 3 a week. My competition charges $250 and does a prick of a job. They also get no work.
Thank you so much :D
Ok I can accept about the interior light excuse, but remove the house at the back seems like tricking the consumer, if this is for real estate advertising. Eg: I look at the picture, wow this house nice, but when I get there I see house behind that not in the picture, doesn't it sound like you give false information for consumer? But if it's only for produce good image for people to see, or show off your house, it's fine, nicely done.
+Kurnia Lim this shoot was done for the house designer, not for the real estate agent, the focus was on the house and not so much on the location. house designer might not be the one selling and this photograph is probably for his own collection to show his designing skills to his future clients.
1:42 - CamRanger Rocks!
@7:04 LOL, you can't do that can you? You also can't remove electricity poles and permanent fixtures among other things that may get you sued. Be careful, great images by the way. Commercial photography go all out but when it comes to real estate you don't want to misrepresent.
I don't think it says anywhere this is for real estate. He says at the beginning he's shooting for a custom home builder, so who cares what he does with houses in the background and poles?
gregkrazanski yeah who cares! I'll toast to that.
MICHAEL MICHAELS In a section of the DVD, he says that he will have a meeting with the real estate agents before he does shooting, so I'm assuming topics like this would come up.
Dude youre an idiot. THIS ISNT FOR A REAL ESTATE AGENT. It's showcasing the architecture of the house. He's not using the images to SELL the house.
MICHAEL MICHAELS he’s working for an Architect, so I’m sure it’ll just be used for a portfolio piece
How did you remove yourself from each of the photos?
With the power of photoshop. :)
Back before Mike could afford his Arca Swiss
just put your camera on bracket settings - HDR import into light room - edit in photoshop way better results most of the time i dont use flash
Do HDR. But shoot flash on site. Then add flash to the HDR results. Flash always improves the HDR making it look more real. HDR and look fake if not very careful.
I used to think like that too but HDR looks fake. I use flash now.
liked ur work man..but reflections on bottom left side is distracting n gives unnatural look in final image..
John and jack legacy have a collection of photo books on homes they run lagecy homes..Dallas learning light or appyling new light.. leap and learn..
i can't get a match with Shazam for the intro music to this video - anyone know the song?
HERRO PLZ? Sound Hound and Shazam give different results every time i try. it's hilarious.
Nice technique but which leads to a result which, although apparently attractive, is completely wrong. The flash carried around on the set actually generates a series of unlikely shadows coming from light sources that do not exist in the final result.
Yas
😎
I'm lost at how he shows up in all the shots but in the final image he's gone. lol It's probably something simple in photoshop but i'm over here trying to figure it out on my own
Magnus Dahlgren Those "partial layers" are actually called layer masks.
You really earned your $100.
An Architect would pay 10x that for decent photos of a portfolio piece
@@MrMrWattz I would expect the cost to be at least that but more like $2000 would be fair. I charge $2,420 to shoot a video of a display home. I do 3 a week on average and it takes me 2 hours to shoot and around 4 hours to edit. Others shoot with phones for $150 and look like crap.
Travis yeah that’s it, I charge a fixed day rate for video and another rate for interior and aerial stills
in real world you would need just few different exposures, but yeah you cant get a decent image in re without blending
great stuff there, but I don't think this is something you could ever do this for a real estate listing as it falsely depicts the property
+Ross Gumbrell Um I've been doing if for a couple of years and there is absolutely nothing wrong with lighting a home the way you want it. It's no different that lighting a person when you shoot them. The only thing that is illegal is removing things from view. That is the only thing not ok.
@@lamaking1978 It's not a real estate listing shoot so it doesn't matter.
Photos and blending are very good but in my case they dont even want me to edit too much,they want to reflect the reality.
p.s working in London real estate
The reality is that the camera will not convey the same emotion one feels in the space with one's own HDR eyes. Hence, the editing to bring it up to the level of reality.
Secret #1: hope the assistant doesn't drop your equipment.
I find the images unrealistic and cgi-like. enhancing existing light is one thing but adding light where there isnt any seems a step too far to me. just a personal opinion. good architects place natural and artificaial light where they want to highlight areas of projects. Most i know dont want their vision changed. maybe thats just a uk thing. Julius schulman was an amazing architectural photographer and never used artificial lighting. maybe photographing neutra, frank lloyd right, or adolf loos was different. perhaps the greatest american architectural photographer ever. www.google.co.uk/search?q=julius+shulman&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=qaIcVLTXAtDlaJiSgYgF&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1455&bih=739
Thank you for the link Mark. I'm just getting my start as a freelance architecture photographer. As a matter of fact I'm heading out to a shoot in about 10 minutes. Thanks for again.
Thanks Mark. Shulman is a real photographer. Inspiring.
Julius Shulman was an outstanding architectural photographer, but he did use artificial lighting. For his most iconic shot, the Stahl house, he used 2 strobes as evidenced in the second photo with the sync cord on his camera. anthonylukephotography.blogspot.com/2012/04/photographer-profile-julius-shulman.html
Nice photo lighting. I like how it enhances the image closer to what my eye will see. I see that you crossed the line and lied for the view of this house by editing out the house that can be seen down the way. This is why folks don't trust photographs anymore. You edited the view from this scene if I was to buy this place. Hello legal actions. -- Poor Karma
I don't think that it is poor Karma. It really depends on what you do with the images. If you are recording an image as a legal document - that may be an issue. If you are trying to create an image like an architectural rendering or show a portfolio for a high end builder it's fantastic. It's always the choice of the client as to what they want included or excluded. Mostly, what I see is technical artistry. Poor Karma is much evident in looking at the distortion of human models :). My guess is that when I go to actually visit an $8.5M home I can see what it's like in person before I cut the check.
Karma is payment for good/bad actions. Not sure you understand that. If you are making this to show property to sell or show how the place it then it's a lie and poor karma. But most folks with bad karma don't realize it so to each his own. Enjoy your karma.
John D I understand Karma. Again, it depends on what you are showcasing. I have shot images for builder portfolios, I have also shot images that are used to represent comparable images as in multi unit buildings. Additionally you could shoot an image for companies selling building products or specific aspects like pools, stone work or timber frame construction. In all those cases you are representing an aspect of the whole.
the image is for the builder and not going to be used to sell the house.Therefore it is not misleading. In the old days all fashion photos sent to buyers were in black and white and they would pick the colors they wanted. You didn't want to send a design to a buyer in a color and have them not buy it just because that buyer was triggered by the color to say no. Ever notice how many black cars Ford sold when he first started?
I LOVE YOU
Great job , you are also beautiful
this is not the mike kelley i thought it was.