Amateur, Advice Please

beanok77

I am trying to put some content together for a website for a construction company I work for. It will involve taking photos of various buildings we have built around the city. We want the photos to look professional and understand that hiring a professional would be the best route to take. However for financial reasons we have not got that option. I am going to take some photos myself this weekend using my sony cybershot digital camera and see what they look like when on screen. Can anybody offer their advice? For example if the weather is bad is there anyway I can make it look better?

CabanSail

I have been to a few talks from photographers who specialise in Architchure. There is quite a lot involved in it to get professional looking results.

It may be an idea to give us some examples of the sort of images you would like to capture. This would give us an idea of how ambitious you are trying to be.

beanok77

CabanSail wrote: »

I have been to a few talks from photographers who specialise in Architchure. There is quite a lot involved in it to get professional looking results.

It may be an idea to give us some examples of the sort of images you would like to capture. This would give us an idea of how ambitious you are trying to be.

Thanks for the reply, just some standard images of finished buildings (internal and external) also maybe some work in progress photos but I'm not too sure as WIP may look messy given how cold and wet sites can look.





The first one, we didn't take photos of and the second one the estate agent took photos of.

Thoie

To be honest, you've got a steep learning curve ahead of you. If you want to make the weather look better, you'll need some post processing software. Gimp is free, there are other packages such as Photoshop as well that you can pay for. IMO none of these are exactly simple to start with (but I'm not very artistic), so head to the library, trawl the internet, and google for tutorials to start with.

One of the problems with architectural photography is converging parallel lines. Try this at home now - kneel down in the hall, and try fit an entire door into the picture. You'll notice when you look at the picture that the door edges don't appear parallel - you'll have the same problem when photographing most buildings (unless you can get far away from them, which might make the building too small to be useful in the picture). Architectural photographers often use special lenses to avoid this. It might be possible to correct this in your editing software, but again it will take some time to learn. Either that or deliberately emphasise this while taking the photo. Lines that are just "off" will look worse than ones that are definitely meeting.

Some of the camera shops hire out cameras and lenses by the day (I think someone's mentioned Gunn's before?), so it might be worth enquiring there.

This article might give you some ideas. While you say that for financial reasons you can't hire a professional, discuss it with your boss again taking into account the cost of your time in taking the shots, learning how to use post processing (PP) software, and then doing the actual PP. Or look into the costs of hiring a graphic designer to do the PP for you.

CabanSail

That looks like just a grab shot of a building. Nothing very difficult or inspiring there.

Can you post links to images of the type you would like to achieve?

The internal images will be a more of a challenge as the lighting can give lots of problems.

Architechural Photographers do charge a lot. The reason for this is that they ussually have very expensive gear & to do the job properly takes a lot of skill.

Thoie

beanok77 wrote: »

The first one, we didn't take photos of and the second one the estate agent took photos of.

A few comments on that picture (and I don't mean to sound harsh). The first thing is that it looks a bit out of focus to me, which doesn't "sell" the work very well. As I mentioned above you've got the converging lines problem in that picture (hold a piece of paper along the right hand edge of the building and see how it lines up with the left). A higher vantage point would help a bit. If you can't afford anything else, have you considered just showing shots of "interesting features" - so say one pic of just the big red window area, another at one end of the balcony looking down the whole length of it, a close up of one of the carved woodeny sticky out bits (is there a name for those?) - that sort of thing?

CabanSail

I was thinking that we recently had a post on a similar subject.

This thread may have some useful information.

beanok77

Thoie wrote: »

To be honest, you've got a steep learning curve ahead of you. If you want to make the weather look better, you'll need some post processing software. Gimp is free, there are other packages such as Photoshop as well that you can pay for. IMO none of these are exactly simple to start with (but I'm not very artistic), so head to the library, trawl the internet, and google for tutorials to start with.

One of the problems with architectural photography is converging parallel lines. Try this at home now - kneel down in the hall, and try fit an entire door into the picture. You'll notice when you look at the picture that the door edges don't appear parallel - you'll have the same problem when photographing most buildings (unless you can get far away from them, which might make the building too small to be useful in the picture). Architectural photographers often use special lenses to avoid this. It might be possible to correct this in your editing software, but again it will take some time to learn. Either that or deliberately emphasise this while taking the photo. Lines that are just "off" will look worse than ones that are definitely meeting.

Some of the camera shops hire out cameras and lenses by the day (I think someone's mentioned Gunn's before?), so it might be worth enquiring there.

This article might give you some ideas. While you say that for financial reasons you can't hire a professional, discuss it with your boss again taking into account the cost of your time in taking the shots, learning how to use post processing (PP) software, and then doing the actual PP. Or look into the costs of hiring a graphic designer to do the PP for you.

Sounds very complicated! Here are a few websites that i was looking at

I like the look of this one, but the website itself looks expensive, never mind the photos. http://www.gtcrampton.ie/ . Do you think these photos were taken professionally?

This one looks okay but not half as professional as the other but probably a similar budget to my company.http://www.midland.ie/our-projects.php


I apologise in advance for posting links if against forum rules.

CabanSail

Perfectly OK to post the links. I asked for them earlier.

The Photo's on the Crampton look like they were taken by someone who knew what they were doing. It's a pity there is so much compression artifact in them, though I would imagine that was down to the web designer more than the photographer.

The Midland site is not quite as impressive. Looks like quite straight forward snaps to me.

If you would like to see some very good examples then look at Gerry O'Leary

Covey

beanok77 wrote: »

I am trying to put some content together for a website for a construction company I work for. It will involve taking photos of various buildings we have built around the city. We want the photos to look professional and understand that hiring a professional would be the best route to take. However for financial reasons we have not got that option. I am going to take some photos myself this weekend using my sony cybershot digital camera and see what they look like when on screen. Can anybody offer their advice? For example if the weather is bad is there anyway I can make it look better?

From a business perspective, I think thats a huge mistake. This is your marketing plan for a recession, marketing plan fails = no business. The shots are probably more important than the text to be honest.

Not casting any aspersions on your photography (I've never seen it) but the professional route is the way to go imo. It's a very specialised area but doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg. In this climate you might even find someone who'll barter their services.

I don't know this guy, but his shots look more than half decent and he's starting out, I think.

Thoie

beanok77 wrote: »

Sounds very complicated! Here are a few websites that i was looking at

I like the look of this one, but the website itself looks expensive, never mind the photos. http://www.gtcrampton.ie/ . Do you think these photos were taken professionally?

This one looks okay but not half as professional as the other but probably a similar budget to my company.http://www.midland.ie/our-projects.php


I apologise in advance for posting links if against forum rules.

I'm no expert, but I'd say that yes, the first one was a professional architectural photographer. Even the second one I'd say was a professional photographer (or an amateur with lots of experience), and they've all been touched up a bit.

There probably wasn't an awful lot of difference in the cost of the websites, but you're right - the first looks more "classy"/upmarket. This is one of the problems with web design and photography. Anyone can take photos on a digital camera and throw them into a website, but if you're using this as a marketing tool, then the professional gloss makes a huge difference.

I understand times are tough, but I think your office needs to have a good think about this - a shoddy website could be worse than no website. They need to work out what they want from a website - what is its purpose, what do you want it to do, how will it do that? How will potential customers find the website?

Lots of things to think about

Covey

Personally I think the first website is extremely poor, in particular the photography. The second one is just a bit amateurish.

No doubt at all the photos are badly presented, but the photos aren't up to much either, badly taken, poorly exposed, no ooomh etc. You can do a hell of a lot better than that tbh.

Having looked around at a lot of the bigger construction companies, the photography is quite poor generally. Whilst, you may not be in that league, you'l definitely make your company stand out from the norm with good class photography imo.

Borderfox

Fail to prepare = Prepare to fail

Covey

Borderfox wrote: »

Fail to prepare = Prepare to fail

You should change that user name to Mayfieldbadger :p

Seriously though, having looked at a dozen big sites, there's a market niche out there for sure K.

24mm T&S on order already !

Borderfox

I have some shots to do up in the Marriot in Ashbourne tomorrow, mostly exterior with the staff in front so hopefully its a good day..

sheesh

The easiest this to do in terms of advice is to go in the morning so you get this sort of horizontal light shining on the building if the sun is shining. use a tripod if you can get a loan of it
if not a cheap one can be picked up for about 20-30 euro and will really help Now I know you might not want to shell out for a pro photographer but you might have to shell out some thing for equipment.

spend some time framing the shot it will feel pretentious and silly but just give it a go.

Covey

Sheesh, I have to disagree.

A €20-30 tripod is not what you need to promote a business in this economic climate, or any for that matter.

Why do you need photographs. Why do you need a website? Why do you need text and what does all that say about your company? What is the image you want to portray?

Answer all of those and get them all right and you're on the right track imo.

beanok77

I had great will and confidence when I first thought of putting a website together but my will is deteriorating rapidly. One guy quoted me €1700 for putting a basic enough website together while others gave me quotes starting at €399. With all quotes I have to supply our own content i.e .photos, client referrals, architect references etc. I also think if we were to hire a professional to take the pictures. It was cost more than the website because our sites are located north and south side of the city and it would take a day or 2 to take all pictures required.

I don't know wheter to go with the cheap price or the expensive because I don't know much about web design and I want a website where we can update it when we build new projects, get new references and so on.

We do need a website because of the way public procurement is going (getting onto lists to tender for public contracts). You now have to prequalify to get on these lists filling in a 40 page long questionnaire outlining your economic, financial, manpower, saftey resources etc. If you have a professional looking website architects and clients will say "well at least we know they are established" (which we are). If you have no website, they will say who are these guys! Head is wrecked because I think we need it immediately, as in 5 years ago and I can't get others to see that.

CabanSail

The cost of Web Design is outside of the scope of this Forum. You will get good advice for it on other forums on Boards. I can see your problem with costs though.

Do you have a budget to create this website & content?

If funds are tight & there is an urgency to get the website launched, then maybe get the framework of the Website up & running with just some straight shots of the buildings. You could take a variety of shots & host them in a Pix.ie, Flickr (or similar)account & then put them on here to get opinions on which is best & how you may improve them. If you ask for specific C&C (Comment & Critque) as to what you want to achieve. This may well get you some images which are acceptable for now. Then you can consider replacing those images in the future when funds are allocated.

Just remember to budget your time into this project too. I do not know what you do, but your time has a value too. If you cost the company, say, €60 per hour (wages, insurance, overheads etc.) and you spend 20 hours fiddling around getting the images & putting things together, then it's cost your company €1200 for something which will probably look just passable. A Professional Photographer may charge,say, €80 an hour but may get the job done in a day, so that would be about €640 The bottom line may well a lot less & you get a good result. Now these are just figures I pulled out of the air, but you can see the point I am making. If you do it yourself & then get it redone then you have both costs to bear.

Anouilh

beanok77 wrote: »

We want the photos to look professional

There are many sites on the internet with photos of buildings that you could try to copy. Don't be disappointed if your buildings look out of proportion or with strange angles, as architectural photography is an expensive business. Tilt-shift lenses are often used.

This group is useful:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/65489562@N00/discuss/

and they discuss technique and lenses.

I took a highly over-exposed photo of a house recently and found working on it useful:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/living_in_europe/discuss/72157594188104994/

As you will see, the house is not straight and looks more like a photo from a fantasy than a proper architectural photo.

You'll enjoy this project very much, as buildings are wonderful, even on dull days.

Thoie

beanok77 wrote: »

I had great will and confidence when I first thought of putting a website together but my will is deteriorating rapidly.

I know, and I feel bad for disillusioning you, but I think you were on the verge of biting off more than you could chew. As Cabansail said, this isn't the right place for webdesign, but when considering who to go with, ask for links to existing sites they have already done and see the quality difference yourself. Also ask for sites they've done for roughly the same cost as yours to make sure you're making valid comparisons. All websites designers will ask you to provide the content, otherwise how do they know what to put in If I know nothing about your company, I could easily make a site saying something like "Beanok, established in 1732, are world reknowned creators of dog kennels, including the famous 7 storey ladder access house for Jack Russels".

One corner cutting technique (that I'm not 100% sure I like the idea of) - maybe hire a professional to take your main opening images of one key building that you're particularly proud of, then hire other photographers (who might not be as good) to do the other buildings for smaller pics within the site. Make sure when you're hiring the photographers that you think ahead of all the places you want to use the photos - if you want web only, some photographers might provide relatively low res shots a bit cheaper, but you wouldn't be able to use those on printed materials if you wanted to do a booklet later. Clear up the rights issues with a photographer in advance if you plan on using the photos in web, print, newspapers, posters etc, so that you don't get any nastry surprises.


Again, as Cabansail and I have already pointed out, your company needs to take the cost of your time into account when thinking about this plan. While it may seem that it's cheaper to use an existing staff member for these kind of "professional" tasks, it's often a false economy, particularly when you factor in the amount of time they will spend researching/learning, and at the end of the day you can still end up with something nobody's happy with. As you're aware from your own industry, professionals cost a lot because they've spent a lot of time/money on training and equipment. It would be all very well for me to decide I'm going to build a house tomorrow because I don't want to pay what your company would charge me, but after my house has fallen down 3 times and I've had to buy more materials because I destroyed the first batch when learning, it would be easier and cheaper for me to have just called you in the first place

Anyway, chin up - take the photographs anyway for your own enjoyment and who knows, you might end up with something worth using!

Anouilh

beanok77 wrote: »

For example if the weather is bad is there anyway I can make it look better?

I always work the clouds into a shot, though flat grey light is not much fun to work with at certain times of the day. There are plenty of Irish groups on Flickr with successful shots of buildings. Rummaging here might give you more confidence:

http://www.teloos.co.uk/bizlist/architectural%20photography/1.htm

I find one way of getting a nice shot is to start by lining up some obvious line along the bottom of the building in the bottom of the frame and work upwards, then walking forwards and backwards and from side to side. Everybody here might have tips that could help?

Anouilh

Thoie wrote: »

Again, as Cabansail and I have already pointed out, your company needs to take the cost of your time into account when thinking about this plan. While it may seem that it's cheaper to use an existing staff member for these kind of "professional" tasks, it's often a false economy, particularly when you factor in the amount of time they will spend researching/learning, and at the end of the day you can still end up with something nobody's happy with.

Anyway, chin up - take the photographs anyway for your own enjoyment and who knows, you might end up with something worth using!

Taking a positive stance, as you do here, Thoie, all the advice will be of value, even if you do go on to hire a professional photographer, as it will be easier to communicate with him/her, the more you already know.

Looking for the plumb line in buildings and making sure your verticals are truly so will give a sharp result.

This also has some well designed blogs, which will help with web design:

http://www.blogcatalog.com/directory/art/architectrue

Dades

I would suggest getting the website up and running first. If your own shots work out badly, you can always replace them with professionally done stuff if it becomes clear they look amateurish. But you might surprise yourself.

Regarding looking for a website you can update yourselves - this will always be more expensive as there is much involved in making it editable to the layman. If the cheaper option has decent examples of what he/she has done go with them. They will probably be cheaper in the long run with updates etc.

With websites, imo, less is more. Simple layout, easy to read text and some nice images. It shouldn't cost the earth for a "brochure" site.

sheesh

Covey wrote: »

Sheesh, I have to disagree.

A €20-30 tripod is not what you need to promote a business in this economic climate, or any for that matter.

Why do you need photographs. Why do you need a website? Why do you need text and what does all that say about your company? What is the image you want to portray?

Answer all of those and get them all right and you're on the right track imo.

Sorry for replying to this so late.

Well if he needs a tripod to take pictures and if his manager will not pay for a proper one maybe a cheap tripod is better than no tripod.

I'm not talking about promoting his business I'm focusing very specifically on what he might need to take a few photographs of some buildings.

Personally I think he should pay a pro but what are you going to do.

jaqian

Dades wrote: »

With websites, imo, less is more. Simple layout, easy to read text and some nice images. It shouldn't cost the earth for a "brochure" site.

Bit of advice... stay clear of Flash on your website, as not everyone has flash installed (or if they do its out-of-date)and you want them to be able to access your content on the first go and not to have to download some program.

Just my 2c

enzyme

Hi everyone.
I work as a professional architectural photographer. I know ye are all going to say I'm a little bit biased but there is a huge difference in the type of photograph you yourself can take and what professionals can take using the proper equipment. I use a medium format hasselblad with a view camera to correct the verticals. It is a 39 megapixel camera. Relatively few types of photographer need this type of camera and trust me it's a slow process taking the shots but the end result will have a huge difference in the quality of the photo and yes especially in the current climate if your website looks like it was done from a template which is probably what you would get with a budget of €300-€400 and if you just used snap photos it does have a big impact on ones judgement of your company.

<<Snip>>