The Seductive Inn

[KimC]

I was fortunate to stay at a beautiful Inn on Cape Cod last weekend. The Inn was originally developed in 1914 as a semi-private hunting lodge. The interior lighting was so spectacular, I couldn't resist taking a few interior images (these are the my first shots of this type). I did have an issue with white balance and some keystoning which my mentor kindly help me work thru today. No flash was used.

Interested in your thoughts -- thank you for viewing.

#1
ISO 10,000; F 1/125; F 3.5; 21mm


#2
ISO 10,000; F 1/125; F 3.5; 14mm

[Manfred M]

Kim - while I think that the shots are well executed, I find I am a bit indifferent to the colour balance and overall exposure in the shots.

I suspect you used an auto white balance here and that has resulted in these very cold looking rooms. I think they need to be warmed up to look more friendly and cosy. The other thing that strikes me is how very dark the rooms are. Were they really this dark and gloomy?

[Rob Ekins]

Hi Kim,
Beautiful spaces indeed.

Both images are very soft and noisy, did you use a tripod?

These types of shots are particularly hard to get right at night.

If I were shooting these scenes I would have done a few things differently.

1) Shoot multiple exposures and blend them: EXP-1:Lamps. 2:Ambient. 3:Ceiling. 4:Woodwork.

2)Moved either right or left a little in both, in image#1 the couch is a definite visual barrier into the scene, like wise the table in image#2. I can see that you wanted a strong 1PP which you achieved but the elements I mentioned take away from your efforts.

3) I would have shot a little longer in image#2 as the edges are quite distorted. (See elongated seating) This short focal length also affects components in the BG like the far tables and chairs making them look tiny, imagine a grown up standing next to the far lounge to get and idea of scale.

There is still a little perspective distortion in both images but over all great first effort, well done.

[Rob Ekins]

Manfred,
I suspect the low light level to be a result of hand holding the camera and being limited to the shutter speed used or Kim exposing for one of the lamps in the room not the overall ambient which would have blown out all of the lights.

[Mike Buckley]

Very nice compositions! I would probably crop the first one at the bottom to give the impression that I'm looking over the sofa instead of at it, but that's a very minor issue and one that is purely personal.

I don't sense that either room is particularly dark or gloomy but I do appreciate that they might have been considerably brighter. The light produced by your lighting fixtures is understandably blown, so you could have used more exposure without harming anything; once highlights are blown, increasing the exposure won't blow them any more.

I do agree with Manfred that the light sources appear to be quite blue.

I don't usually notice noise but I notice it in both of these images. (I don't pay any attention to noise that exists in my own images if it can't be detected at 30% magnification but these two images are being displayed apparently at far smaller magnifications.) Sorry to bring back the issue of the ISO, but you could have shot both images at 2 to 3 stops slower shutter speeds, which would have resulted in ISO values of 1250 or 2500 compared to 10,000. There's simply no reason to be shooting at such high ISO values. That's assuming you shot the images handheld. If you had used a tripod, you could have shot at as low as ISO 100 so long as people weren't getting in the way.

[Manfred M]

Manfred,
I suspect the low light level to be a result of hand holding the camera and being limited to the shutter speed used or Kim exposing for one of the lamps in the room not the overall ambient which would have blown out all of the lights.

Rob - those were my thoughts as well, but regardless of the cause, the issues for me are still the impact the images have on the viewer. I don't know the light level in those rooms and I would suspect that they are a bit dark, but I suspect they are a good stop or so underexposed. The light really looks like that very unattractive light that CF bulbs put out.

[Mike Buckley]

being limited to the shutter speed

I disagree. Considering focal lengths of 14mm and 21mm, the shutter speed that was used was not a limiting factor; much longer shutter speeds could have been used.

[Rob Ekins]

I disagree. Considering focal lengths of 14mm and 21mm, the shutter speed that was used was not a limiting factor; much longer shutter speeds could have been used.

Hi Mike,
Not every one can hand hold low shutter speeds, I know I can't, in fact 125 is where I usually give up

[Mike Buckley]

Understandable, Rob. I'm not nearly as good at hand holding slower shutter speeds as I thought I was. However, if Kim can't hand hold at slower than 1/125, it would be helpful if she indicates that detail alongside the EXIF data she provides. Otherwise, the EXIF data on its own has the potential to be misleading, especially in these days with so many lenses that have image-stabilization capability.

[IzzieK]

Kim...what a beautiful place to stay in...I won't chime in with the experts that preceded me as they know more of what they are saying than I will. I like the reflection of the central lights on the ceiling that seems to form like a cocoon in #2 shot. The first shot feels like a cozy place for a casual chat...

[Rebel]

Nice compositions Kim, looks a nice place... not very busy?

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured, some visible noise in the first, not so much in the second (some on the pillars). Did you use noise reduction in camera or during post-processing? I would consider trying both to see which handles noise best.

[KimC]

Manfred, thank you for commenting on my images. I appreciate your feedback and the substantial knowledge you have. Yes, the rooms were this dark. It was evening, and what they used for lighting kept with the "old feel" of the inn. I think the white balance may have given viewers the impression it was gloomy, which was far from the truth. I have warmed them up -- thoughts? Also, I haven't read all the comments yet, but I did see a few related to the images not being sharp. I didn't want to go above 10,000 ISO, and didn't want to reduce the shutter speed since the camera was hand held, so I was on F3 (mentioned above). Being on F3, I wouldn't expect the images to be tack sharp. Is my thinking correct?

Kim - while I think that the shots are well executed, I find I am a bit indifferent to the colour balance and overall exposure in the shots.

I suspect you used an auto white balance here and that has resulted in these very cold looking rooms. I think they need to be warmed up to look more friendly and cosy. The other thing that strikes me is how very dark the rooms are. Were they really this dark and gloomy?

[KimC]

Rob, thank you for commenting. This is really helpful feedback. As for #1, I have not learned how to blend images yet. With time, I look forward to doing such things. #2 - Boy, did I come to this realization when speaking with my mentor yesterday about my Cape Cod shots - being a new photographer, sometimes I get so taken in by the beauty of what I am seeing and I forget to totally work the shot! Case in point with your comment on this one! #3 thank you for that tip.

Hi Kim,
Beautiful spaces indeed.

Both images are very soft and noisy, did you use a tripod?

These types of shots are particularly hard to get right at night.

If I were shooting these scenes I would have done a few things differently.

1) Shoot multiple exposures and blend them: EXP-1:Lamps. 2:Ambient. 3:Ceiling. 4:Woodwork.

2)Moved either right or left a little in both, in image#1 the couch is a definite visual barrier into the scene, like wise the table in image#2. I can see that you wanted a strong 1PP which you achieved but the elements I mentioned take away from your efforts.

3) I would have shot a little longer in image#2 as the edges are quite distorted. (See elongated seating) This short focal length also affects components in the BG like the far tables and chairs making them look tiny, imagine a grown up standing next to the far lounge to get and idea of scale.

There is still a little perspective distortion in both images but over all great first effort, well done.

[KimC]

Thanks for your detailed comments -- always appreciate when the "masters" of CiC comment :-) I do agree the sofa is a blocker -- something I need to closely consider for next time and perhaps change the angles as Rob mentioned.

I changed the WB -- see below - interested in your thoughts.

ISO is my nemesis Mike. My concern was I didn't want to hand hold with a shutter speed of less than F1/125 (sorry I didn't mention that concern in my original post - will next time). That aside, we know I've hard struggles with ISO and I will continue to work on that.

Very nice compositions! I would probably crop the first one at the bottom to give the impression that I'm looking over the sofa instead of at it, but that's a very minor issue and one that is purely personal.

I don't sense that either room is particularly dark or gloomy but I do appreciate that they might have been considerably brighter. The light produced by your lighting fixtures is understandably blown, so you could have used more exposure without harming anything; once highlights are blown, increasing the exposure won't blow them any more.

I do agree with Manfred that the light sources appear to be quite blue.

I don't usually notice noise but I notice it in both of these images. (I don't pay any attention to noise that exists in my own images if it can't be detected at 30% magnification but these two images are being displayed apparently at far smaller magnifications.) Sorry to bring back the issue of the ISO, but you could have shot both images at 2 to 3 stops slower shutter speeds, which would have resulted in ISO values of 1250 or 2500 compared to 10,000. There's simply no reason to be shooting at such high ISO values. That's assuming you shot the images handheld. If you had used a tripod, you could have shot at as low as ISO 100 so long as people weren't getting in the way.

[Mike Buckley]

I really like the warmer look, Kim. Have you determined that you would not have been able to hold the camera still enough shooting at slower than 1/125 or are you guessing about that?

[John 2]

Lucky you Kim. The place looks as if you could sink into the cushions with a good book. I wanted to follow up on Robbie's suggestions at post no. 3 except that I have used some gentle HDR to simulate what he proposed. Used a programme called SNS and came up with this. Plus, minus one stop on the original Jpg (3 images) and it's had some sharpening and noise reduction as well (Nik). If I'm intruding, tell me to ......... go away:

[Manfred M]

Kim - I really think your updates work a lot better than the original images; the warmth of the setting that likely attracted you to this place can be seen and "felt".

When shooting in these lighting conditions, the photographer has to deal with all kinds of "unattractive" tradeoffs.

Let's start with large apertures. I personally would have taken that shot wide open. You have a fast and expensive lens (I own one as well so know how it performs). There are two potential issues when shooting wide open; depth of field and some loss of quality from shooting that way. For depth of field; if you prefocus about 6 or 7 ft in from where you are standing, I would expect that the image would be appropriately sharp throughout. Using hyperfocal distance, especially with an ultrawide angle lens lets you cover off a lot of sharpness issues quite easily. If you don't have access to tables (lots available for smart phones and tablets on the internet, try bracketing the distance; three or four shots where you pick different focus points should work fine.

The second issue is exposure versus high ISO. The blue channel in you camera is especially sensitive to noise as are the dark areas of the shot. Proper exposure or even ETTR exposure will minimize noise.

The third issue is hand holding at slow shutter speeds. Again your shooting an ultra-wide works in your favour here. I've gotten decent shots hand holding at 1/8 sec and occasionally when I've timed things well, even 1/4 sec. A good solid stance. bracing your arms (and camera) with your chest and holding your breath while smoothly pressing the shutter release can let you shoot in lighting conditions like these. Again 3 or 4 shots and picking the best one helps here.

[bnnrcn]

Your second edits look better Kim. I also like John's HDR version.

[KimC]

Izzie, Matt, and Binnur, thank you for commenting. Matt, it was very quite there -- such a treat, felt like it was our place ;-)

Kim...what a beautiful place to stay in...I won't chime in with the experts that preceded me as they know more of what they are saying than I will. I like the reflection of the central lights on the ceiling that seems to form like a cocoon in #2 shot. The first shot feels like a cozy place for a casual chat...

Nice compositions Kim, looks a nice place... not very busy?

Your second edits look better Kim. I also like John's HDR version.