HDR vs Flash photography: Property Photos (large room)

[@davidhatton2321]

HDR....by far the best. I'm an architect with 30 years working with clients who, by a large margin prefer the HDR if it is done right. The option not discussed is to highlight areas with a speed light as individual exposures for the HDR merge. Thanks for the video. I amazed at the photographer trolls that come out......I'd love to see their work!!

[@RedCarpetSeries]

I'm on #teamhdr too! it just needs to be flawless. but yes, ultimately it's up to the client

[@JPMitchell31721]

There are other ways to process the HDR than the way you did. It could have been done to look more natural and superior to the flash one, so I would go with HDR.

[@TourThis1]

***** arrogant

[@JPMitchell31721]

TourThis1 stupid opinion

[@derekthomson3025]

I agree with your remarks about HDR. But It can look shit if you don't invest the time to monkey about with it. I like my HDR shots to look natural, (with an unbuggered-about-with-it-look), but sometimes, for one reason or another, that eats up a lot of time. And consider that if you havea lot of shots to process.

[@chinhvannguyen1685]

I can use flash bracketing and one speedlight on aperture mode or manual mode, setting I TTL or manual flash. TKS

[@RensiRantetoding]

Not sure what settings you use on Photomatix for the HDR but definitely don't use the Tone Mapping. I always use Exposure Fusion. I agree on what you said that HDR sometimes make the edges of doors and windows look dirty. However, you can trick that by taking another shot using flash and then do masking on photoshop later for the dirty part.

[@schoensangalli6972]

I noticed only one of the mantle sconces were lit in the final shot but I learned much from your experiment.

[@TriciaMaestre]

I felt the HDR shot gave the room a warm tone to it. For a magazine shot probably not but for a Christmas card shot or something on a personal level the warm tones seemed really nice to me.

[@joanna74able]

Whoever said HDR is not photography is a berk. Dom, you rock, personally I would bang away until I got it right (photography's dirty little secret) but you make a lot of sense in your videos, great stuff.

[@andwestuk]

You explained how to do that very precisely and slowly and then said here`s how the shot turned out now and showed it for about 1:millionth of a second. Thank God they have a great fast reacting pause function on KZbin. What was your thinking behind that then as I would have thought only about 1 in a million would have done something so daft

[@pjos111]

I really like the HDR in this one as it does look and feel so much warmer.

[@photourstorino2001]

Hi, I think that the tonal-mapping (am I correct?) is not so good because photos look like a drawing. However You should fix the vertical lines. Greetings from Italy.

[@stephenkingking7634]

Hdr looks better. The photo is not for people who know photography but for people who want to see the room in it's best way. I see this all over the place. A picture should look like porn for the viewer and not for critics that know photography. :)

[@onsitestudios]

How about a third option? Learn how to properly light a scene.

[@Dombowerphoto]

Explain. Fully. And with reference to equipment and time requirements

[@onsitestudios]

Dombowerphoto Well, to start, get the flash off the camera. Shorten the shutter speed so the interior lights to blow out into a big ball of white, and add more light units to fill the room properly. Does it take longer? Absolutely.

[@Dombowerphoto]

so you think that a fast shutter speed and thus dim looking internal lights is a good look?

[@onsitestudios]

Dombowerphoto No, I think a PROPER shutter speed that ensures nothing is over exposed (like your candle sconces are) and then an ADEQUATE amount of fill is added to ensure a proper all around photograph is made. Does it take more time, practice, and equipment to do it? Absolutely. Is it worth all of that? Ask my clients. I applaud your effort to show people a better alternative to HDR, but you fell short on the execution.

[@isleofperspective3751]

+onsitestudios i wholeheartedly agree here. yes, if you're not a photographer but want some ok shots of your property, video is okay. however if you are aspiring to be a photographer and willing to invest in learning, there are much better ways to properly light the scene before you take the photograph, so you can ensure the best possible results.

[@wra7h]

Great video, I think HDR looked the nicest, afterall you could always fill in those shadows with a little photoshop/lightroom and bring the exposure up slightly

[@Disinf3ctant]

I bracket three exposures and also several exposure where I have speedlites in dark spots and blend them into the HDR as well. I've only been doing this for two and a bit years, learning on the fly. The one thing I've figured out is that realtors and home owners don't necessarily care about realistic lighting or brightness. They just want everything super defined, super bright, super wide. It actually makes me cringe doingn that to some photos but this is what makes the impact when people are scrolling through dozens of properties on a web page.

[@lukasgisbert]

2 completely different photos, hard to chose which is better, I would probably say that each one will fit well in there own context. Thanks for the video.

[@DeeBee2013]

The HDR image looks warm and cosy

[@KrisKasprzak]

excellent job showing the options. Personally i think the HDR has the best ballance of exposure and color. the flash looks flat and color balance feels cold. the natural shot has too many blown out highlights. All aren't bad, but i think the HDR wins. Having said that it will also depend on room colors, amount of natural light etc. I can see in other cases where flash or natural will win. Again great job!

[@clydedigital]

The second shot at 2.46 looks perfect to me -- you are exposing for the room there but the outside trees looks correctly exposed too. I don't know if you'd need hdr or flash.

[@wandererstraining]

Hey, I liked your slow shutter/flash photo the most (I think I would have liked it just a tad warmer, still), but I think that the HDR could have been done better than it has. It was over saturated and there was too much local contrast. Instead of HDR, couldn't you just have used exposure blending? That's what gives me the best and most natural looking pictures. I'm using Enfuse on Linux, but Enfuse and user interfaces to use it are also available for Windows and OS X. Also, aren't there some times where either HDR, exposure blending or manual exposure blending are more appropriate? I mean, I don't think anything is completely black or white, and it depends a lot on the execution. I'm just learning, but the other day, I was playing around with high dynamic range in my living room, and by using 9 different exposures with one stop between each (was easy to deal with, just had to batch export them from RAW using the same settings and then import it in my Enfuse GUI), I got a very decent result, exposure and color-wise. Here's the link to see it: www.flickr.com/photos/jonathanfv/15529776218/in/photostream/ Sparing the composition and the presentation and thinking of the shot only as a technical test, do you see major problems with the image (besides the ghosting in the tree branches)? It was a very though situation, as the sun was incredibly bright (my flash would not have been powerful enough to fill in the dark spots enough, which where in the left side and top/right corners of the image). So bright that if I had the left side of the apartment well exposed, the right side of it (the chair and the floor around it) was completely blown out, and if the right side was well exposed, the sky would still be overexposed and the left side would be very dark (like, 2-3 stops darker). I will be very glad to have your opinion on the matter. Thank you!

[@apcurtis1978]

@Dombowerphoto No, I think you did the HDR well. Its easy to turn a shot into another over done, fake HDR shot. the hard part is finding the balance. and for me you've got it right here.

[@linefox2]

Agree on that, i like the slow shutter with flash, it gives a cozy look to it. And the shot looks happy with no drama :)

[@gregbroadbent1417]

Thanks for posting. Every example is a personal preference so seeing another point of view can only help improve everyone even if you don't follow it.

[@SuperHammer63]

I think the slow shutter with flash shot looks the best!

[@vinvin1715]

I have come back to this video AGAIN, and I still like the HDR best for this room. It is dramatic and best suites the room. The other pics look washed out. I have seen HDR used in many USA style pics. With great affect. DOM your still doing a great job, would love to see more hints and tips on this subject. Probably more so than your GYM vids. You learn and share. We are greatful

[@Nomadik62]

Very useful simple testing of options. Your thoughts on HDR are real as there are many a picture that looks "dirty". The flash and slow speed is the most pleasing result. I have just photographed a new contemporary style house that had no furniture or fittings (for a builders promotion). Lots of windows and a bright sunny day. I used a Remote positioned Nikon SB800 synced with on camera flash- D800 camera. Surprisingly- results were disappointing due to the lack of light within the house. Yet the house was painted mostly light-greyish white; tiling was masonry grey; floor - pale grey imitation boards; ceilings white and high (living area was 5 metres high; some walls rammed limestone grey earth. And despite all this lightness and whiteness- the photos were dull and flat. The flash light simply got absorbed or lost in the distances. Well positioned floodlighting would have provided greater contrast no doubt- but the time and cost would have been unjustified. Our assumptions can be deceptive to be sure.

[@KimiMotoVlog]

@Dombowerphoto you're HDR shot looks really nice.. it's so warm it makes the room very inviting. the warmness of the HDR photo may have complimented the wooden floors and tables, that's why it looks really pleasing despite HDR photos being 'fake'. if anything, i think the warm ambient light really makes the wood standout (and overall picture), something the flash won't do unless of course aided by filters.

[@bundi3180]

Thanks for the tip.. I think the HDR just had a warmer tone but if it's at the expense of lower quality I'd just use the flash warm it up in Lightroom.. Quick question though at which point do you use the umbrella? You did a video of your apt using using your flash and other diffusers not too long ago and the umbrella gave the best results. (i.e. a room without a window/)

[@franzevna]

This is a magic phrase I should use too ))) for my audience. Thank you for the video, it helped me to compare a result in advance to decide what technic to use.But, yes, "there is no clear answer as to what OTHER people find best". I like the last one.

[@nerwin]

I have to say, they all look really good.

[@paladin696969]

I have never been a fan of flash, and this I think proves the point, there is a big difference between where flash has been used, the colours look cold and a bit clinical, HDR shows nice warm natural and softer tones

[@DanielKirkwoodVideo]

New subscriber, your helping me a lot in becoming a better photographer

[@AlexMooreLunchroom]

The trembling, spinning, seasick shaky-cam makes this video very difficult to watch. I would be interested in what you have to say but I can't watch this video without feeling sick.

[@lamaking1978]

I've been playing around with this but I'm still not totally comfortable with the end results. Primarily because what I see on my 3 inch screen does not compare to what I see on my desktop. I sometimes find it to be darker than what I thought it was. I think possibly my flash isn't really as powerful as it should be either. I have two settings as well....e-ttl and i-ttl and I'm not sure which one to use. I've tried both but I'm still not sure.

[@mileshennisimagery3001]

The HDR image looks more warm and inviting to me with better color saturation. The flash images appear more flat. To each their own though, it's all subjective. I personally think the HDR would be the best choice.

[@Dombowerphoto]

@336mrk but do you not think the hdr just looks too fake?

[@Carrrott]

@Dombowerphoto I normally do not like HDR, because as you say it looks too fake, but it this case it has just the right balance of tones and looks very very nice indeed, i feel the flash just makes it too flat and blahh, great video thanks

[@kkp4297]

whatever the human eye sees in a well lit room is the BEST. The human eye is the benchmark. Natural is the best. No crappy overprocessed hdr images with soot-stained windows and altered colors. I don't get why some people like that shit.. The HDR photo does not accurately show the color of the wall, making it look dirty. The best looking image will be a manually blended image, not through photomatix

[@Dombowerphoto]

@bundi3180 Eh? Not sure what you are asking there. i would use an umbrella if i am shooting a person not if i am just shooting a property. Never used an umbrella when doing property photography.. the video you are talking about is a light modifying kit for portraits not for property

[@Dombowerphoto]

The other option is to use coloured gels on the flash to warm them up or balance them to the internal lights or external sun

[@user-rh6uz3lx4b]

Why isn't your website up and running? I started following you after I saw you on Chelsea & Tony's Show. Funny shiz mate! Cheers!

[@amansoori]

The HDR shot draws my attention more towards the details. If these pictures were to lure me into looking at more photos of the house I would say the HDR wins.

[@treedio]

The last one is the best, Dom! Thanks for the vid. It is very informative.

[@apcurtis1978]

I like the HDR too, gives a warmer feel to the room

[@motokokusanagi85]

@Dombowerphoto Cheers Mr Dom, just had a look, much better on there. Still can't make up my mind which I prefer though. The HDR is great with all the textures on show and reminds me of something you might see in a home improvement magazine selling some expensive boutique table or something. The last on is best for giving that open space, lots of natural light look, you can really feel the ambient in the room.

[@elpiegrandes]

prefer the flash approach. although you've achieved relatively good exposure with a single flash it would be interesting to see the room lit with one or two additional off camera lights to create a different feel (more contrasty?)

[@CardboardStories]

Saw your blog post, I really like the one shot using a slow shutter speed. The HDR in this doesn't look too bad, it's the overdone ones out there that give HDR a bad name.

[@studiocorax8790]

I prefer the HDR, it has a warm and pulling effect on me, after that comes the slow shutter no flash, the blown out windows are o.k. because I find the warmth and variations of the light in the room to be superior over the ones with flash. Though I can see how the slow shutter speed with flash produces a 'clean' image which probably many sellers like. The worst I find the fast shutter speed with flash. This is of course a matter of taste, but it strengthens my own negative ideas about the flash.

[@Smokin07ram]

I would have tried setting up a flash off camera, out of frame, camera right and bounced it off of the camera left wall ceiling junction (out of frame). I think this would have added lot of depth to the shot. if you were concerned about color cast from the wall paint you could bounce it off of a reflector...My two bits

[@DavidTothill]

All you needed was a drum on your back and it really would have been a one man band ! I actively dislike HDR, but have to say it was the more compelling of the shots (IMHO)

[@bshupejr]

The way you do the shot depends on what the client wants. My personal opinion, I think the HDR looks better because the bulk of the shot looks great and the small details which may not be great dont effect the overall feel of the shot. To be honest, the flash looks very flat and boring but may be more accurate. If I was shooting this and HDR was not allowed I would shoot it with a bunch of speedlights stashed around like behind the couch and such to balance out the light and liven up the colors.

[@mackjulian]

I actually liked the 1/50th slow shutter speed image the best. Could see the outside trees thru the windows and the nice yellow paint on the walls. The others just looked dull to me.

[@ApexIXMR]

A 3-frame composition, using Exposure Bracketing or manually adjusting between shots, can give you great results without the Dynamic Range-robbing method of using flash or the contrast-robbing & surreal methods of HDR.

[@freeze3kgt]

I actually like the HDR version a lot better, it seems warmer and more inviting

[@0ldSandwich]

I'd have to prefer the 1/50 shot. It keeps the image looking natural/notsodamnHDRy, bright enough to keep the room looking appealing, and keeps just enough detail from outside without diverting the focus from the room to outside the room.

[@Dombowerphoto]

@SuperHolybasil i would love to have the time to spend on the shot to do that. however when you just have 5 minutes to shoot each room,and a crappy work computer that doesnt have photoshop.... you got to use what you got

[@flipkid1287]

great tutorial, but I believe it would be better if you showed the setting you put on the flash (1/2 or 1/4 power?) and the camera including iso, shutter speed (you showed this), and aperture.

[@offspringy]

On this particular house i think i prefer the Slow shutter with no flash, makes it look very warm and cosy, however i did like the HDR but with white balance it would have looked ace :D

[@HendrikDelagrange]

HDR looks great but it is too recognisable; HDR looks unnatural because our own eyes never see that much range and different colours of light. It looks processed. I prefer the 1/20th shot, may be with flas, but not necesseraly. There's some thing very pleasing about natural light.

[@qcu89]

Try to use HDR Efex Pro, it's expensive but gives you a lot of posiblities to edit HDR.

[@trongs01]

if there is some way you can reposition the flash to the centre but not having it too obvious i think that would be ideal. but for now i would go with the last one.

[@cha3119]

Just considering the property you were trying to sell or highlight in a magazine, the pine floor clashed with the elegance of the rest of the room. I thought that the floor was a detriment to begin with. That notwithstanding, highlight the unique design features - the pattern in the ceiling, the windows, the fireplace, the molding between the walls and ceiling. I think you work on composition - where the eye naturally travels in the photo. It would take a couple more speedlights with gobos.

[@thany3]

First of all, the flash looks great, as long as it's used with long exposure. That poses another problem: you're not using a tripod. You really need a tripod to create long exposure with flash, beause your lens (I believe I spotted the Tokina 11-16) will not have good enough IS to compensate for longer than 1/20sec. A tripod is also *completely* neccesary if you want to do bracketing.

[@andyQ123]

I preferred flash with slow shutter speed. HDR can look a bit fake in my opinion, and less natural.

[@nchomeier]

I would probaply do something similar (mixing slow shutterspeed and flash). However one of my friends asked me if ND grad filters could be a solution? I've never tried that indoors myself, but now I'm wondering if I should try it out? Or is it too time consuming?

[@freshmaker4o]

Slow SS + flash certainly gives you the most natural look, otherwise the HDR, if not overdone, like often people tend to do when using HDR software. Photomatix can give you great results if using it moderately.

[@AlTyler138]

1/250th flash looks the best, exposed well all over and good detail unlike the HDR which plays with the colours to much and messes it up a bit. HDR is warmer but like i said colours are a bit off. And can always warm up the flash shot later on if needs be.

[@kcarsonsChannel]

I do think the slow shutter speed one is the better choice among them, the slow shutter speed is giving a more realistic and natural colours than others. If the light coming though the windows are too bright, I suggest the blinds can be lowered to block some light to let the camera have a much slower shutter speed, let the room light to fill them up. :- ) The one with the flash isn't bad ,but the temp. of the light can be lower(warm?yellow) , and one more flash to fill up the remaining darkness

[@TechViewOpinions]

the HDR looks like what would be in a magazine, the slow speed with flash looks like the most natural. Which is best? I'll go with the HDR. The warmth of the wood colors was great.

[@jaguarjj]

so to wrap up i understand that mixing 2 pics one with slow shutter to light the room well and another at a faster shutter with flash to fill in the shadows and show details in the blown out windows and doors using layer masking feature in photoshop would be the best solution am i right?

[@cedwardbrice]

I like the flash at 125th for indoor but i dont like the windows/outside. i think the HDR does the best at that. maybe you can combine elemnets of the 1/250th and HDR via layers and create a image with the best of both worlds.

[@georgiedaniell9827]

Maybe HDR for magazine shots as it's more vibrant? I think the Slow Shutter Speed with flash would be better for Real Estate photography though as it's more realistic to what you actually see when standing in the room. Thanks for the video.

[@mikek1681]

The problem I've had with bouncing a flash off the ceiling is if the ceiling isn't white, you get a color cast from it that can be hard to remove in post. I've used LR HDR and had pretty good results.

[@Dombowerphoto]

+Mike K totally agree, a few places i have shot have had a red wall or red ceiling and then bouncing flash is totally pointless as it just looks shit

[@criticaltinker]

+Dombowerphoto Use LR CC HDR, it's more clean than any other HDR software.

[@ManicEightBall]

There's something about the HDR where the way the lights act as practical lights rather than filling the room that just make the place look less inviting. On the other hand, the flash (250th) fills the room with light. Maybe there's something between the 250th and the 50th that would make a compromise, but I think it's definitely between those two for best shot. IMHO

[@chungdha]

HDR is way better if you got time to photoshop the pictures instead of using a plug or software which does it for you.

[@mafnbjg]

What kind of camera is that? And for flash, do you have to have an adapter or whatever that is under the flash?

[@Dombowerphoto]

then the outside would look blue... that is if you change the white balance to the same temprature as the flash and bulbs which is around 3000k.

[@Bruce0586]

No question in my mind. The cleanest look was the flash with the 50th of a second shutter.

[@mubblemann]

Correct your verticals!

[@elwelkin]

It would be really nicet if exist a software that help to change the ancient light out there, oh photoshop cc probably?

[@bwinn10]

@Dombowerphoto any video tips comming are way? im just learning how to use the video on my 7d

[@AutoFOCUSED.]

I don't think it would take any longer than it takes to do HDR. You wouldn't need 12-18 different images. IMO, all you would have to do is get two good exposures. One for outdoors and one for inside. I couldn't see how that would take long. I guess if you really wanna get technical you could take a dozen shots but isn't a flash essentially doing the same thing? Exposing the room properly when the exposure outdoors is correct? I would just do two shots of each room and edit in post.

[@FMJFilmMedia]

The HDR and the slow shutter without flash look best. If I had to choose I would go with HDR. I have a Canon 6D (5D III has it also) with HDR built in and works great and maybe a little tweaking in Lightroom. It is true it depends what client is looking for in a photo, a Home magazine might want it to look warm.

[@mariahcamilleri9028]

FMJFilmMedia n

[@ragnarocking]

I like the way the HDR photo looks, though it's unrealistic and not appropriate for sales (which I'm assuming this photo will be used for).

[@COArsenal]

Part 2: Interior photographers who shoot with flash bring in multiple off-camera lighting setups, coupled with modifiers to spread the light so the hotspots you got don't show up. HDR is a fantastic way to show a room...IF you know what you are doing with the set up (i.e. bracking, using a tripod, knowing how to find your initial exposure) and then what you need to do in the software. HDR is the best way to show a room as the eye sees it. After watching the video, I know why the site is gone

[@wicksmith6589]

Sloppy HDR vs. flash isn't that convinving. The deep magenta cast to the HDR photo should not have happened. If using Lightroom, my tip for HDR images is to select your brackets, view the best interior exposure and use the white balance tool to balance all the images to eliminate any color cast. Then run your bracket through Photomatix. I tend to use Fusion rather than details Enhancer to tone the image, and I select a preset that looks a little dull but with nothing exaggerated. Then back in Lightroom I use contrast, clarity and other sliders to get the result I want.

[@royvankuik]

Well last setting looks the best. But.. couldn't you make the HDR a bit less extreme?

[@DhasseLOL]

Just take 2 images, one bright one dark, and merge with either selecting blue channel of dark image and mask, or use as many lumosity selections you want. Really fast and easy, with usually good results. If it's not good it's easy to adjust the mask. Looks so much better than HDR.

[@BobGentry]

There's a bunch of different ways to process a photo and everyone will have different opinions. In my opinion, you processed the HDR improperly and and didn't do a "natural setting" so you're giving HDR a bad wrap.

[@mornaistar]

Yup i'm with you on that, I like HDR with that warm feeling but i think when you are trying to compare it to flash its possible to do a more realistic HDR than that! Like WAY MORE realistic. That's the beauty of HDR - options!

[@JosephAllen]

Thanks for the tips! IMHO, I prefer the HDR, but ease up on the tone mapping. It's like saying you hate Adobe Lightroom just because someone railed the 'clarity' slider to the right. I think HDR work flow is fast enough or faster (don't have to twiddle with flash angle or compensation), and in post, just use batch processing.

[@MalMilligan]

***** I use HDR in my real estate photography workflow but I shoot every shot with a bracket and then with flash - in case I need it. Each style has it's merits and drawbacks. Since this excellent video was posted, thee are a few more settings available in Photomatrix - 2 of them are game changers for RE photographers trying to produce art quality work. It is invariably the pundits who cannot use Photomatrix properly that declare HDR as always strictly inferior. The same type of people resisted digital photography because they did not understand it. The bottom line may be that flash workflow is 2 to 4 times as fast as HDR. This is an excellent video Dom - one of the best ever made comparing HDR to flash. Thanks Man !!

[@shanegallery]

Once you've created your HDR image, open it in photoshop - do any tweaking and then layer the flash exposure on top (flash should be 1/60th or higher so it cancels out any weird light casts from lamps etc). In photoshop with your flash exposure layered on top of your HDR, set the blend mode of the flash layer to COLOR and then reduce that flash layer to about 80% opacity - it should result in a correct/natural color balance for your image. Important to learn to use the HDR process properly. (I like Lightroom CC HDR (2016 right now) best) After doing the flash layer/color blend you need to check for any weird coloured shadows under tables and for some reason can make red leather and sometimes velour sofas and chairs look DIRTY. Just use your brush set on color at 100% - sample correct color and paint over any areas that have 'HDR grunge'.

[@MalMilligan]

I'll try that Shane - sounds cool. Thanks !! There is a guy I listened to (Randy Henderson) that uses HDR in his workflow but he throws in a flash image with his bracket. He was tired of getting chromatic aberration on edges from green light reflecting off trees in the summer and red light reflecting off trees in the fall. And he figured out a way to eliminate it by throwing the flash shot into the mix with Photomatix. He runs his HDR processing in batch mode because he shoots 3 or 4 houses a day. I've used Photoshop for 23 years and Camera Raw since it was available... I watch lots or LR tips but I do everything in PS and ACR as many people do now in LR and PS. Im also fooling around with the Aurora HDR software but the last time I tried it they did not have batch mode so for a professional re shooter, it's not efficient with big jobs. Lately I've been using all my flash images for the workflow unless I have a problem image and I'll do it in HDR. Cheers -

[@Hightreewalker]

Mix them all three (the one with flash not too much flash, use manual flash setting just to light up only the darkest areas), use transparancy for the three layers in your photosoftware and experiment with the amount of transparancy per layer until the image looks completely natural or whatever you prefer would be an option. I know nothing about HDR at this point but the HDR-shot you showed looks great but too much artificial to me. Of course this could only be done with a tripod

[@Dombowerphoto]

@andwestuk there is the magic button on there that is called pause.

[@officeaddict33]

What kind of flash do you use? Novice here looking for some insight from the experts. Thanks. :)

[@Dombowerphoto]

sure if i had hours to spend in post, however shooting 5-10 rooms taking about 12-18 different images and shooting 3-5 houses a day means in the end i have no time to spend ages in photoshop.

[@JeremyBuehlerJWB]

I like the final flash pic at the end - I feel the HDR doesn't represent the space as well.

[@Ideaindex3008]

I like HDR better because it look warmer and that so important in interior photography, if flash is necessary for fill in lighting, i would be careful with the white balance.

[@00gusman00]

Slow sync is a winner. I think the HDR is great as an image but does not get the job done. The purpose of the photo is detail in all areas, as a photographer you do not know what a potential buyer wants to see in the image, therefore including as much detail as possible should be the objective. If it's your own shoot, you can take artistic freedom and choose to portray a mood. Not so when there is a purpose to meet.

[@Gibson408]

I like the shot with no flash at 1/20th imo :) I know it blows outside out but gives the green a nicer colour. Maybe a room with a different colour would show off the flash technique better, but in the end if you want to show outside aswell then the last shot is better. The HDR is to dirty, for a cloudy moody landscape then HDR can really look great if used well. To sell a property uhh no :)

[@cha3119]

continued... I think the HDR had benefits that made the room look very inviting but still isn't in shape to release to print. Photoshop the blown out areas just down below saturated, not too unnatural. The wood floor looks like a log cabin, I would decrease the drama there by lightening it up. Details in ceiling need to be brought out - each photo had a big light dropoff into the cornice above the windows opposite - need to work some speedlight with gobo for that area. Nice place, though.

[@edwaggonersr.7446]

I prefer the flash shot, the colors look true to me.

[@HealthFitnessMartialArtsDEng]

Great tips and videos as usual! What your asking depends on the type of shoot you're going for and what a client may want, right? In my case, I like magazine quality. My educational background is as an architect and my profession is realtor. I've been fortunate to mix both so I can do Architectural style real estate marketing photos. Clients like light, bright and warm for the most part, I believe. Some agents don't mind cold shots but I don't know why. My conundrum (and I wrote you about earlier today in one of your other tips) is trying to use small portable flash(es) to balance out bright exterior exposures with the interiors so I can take less exposures and stitch them together in PS or figuring out how to use HDR to achieve good quality and spend much less time in post. I'll send you an email.

[@loudcrytrumpet3542]

when i look at a magazine I see pictures like your HDR image NOT pictures like the flash + shutter image... The HDR image in this video is absolutely BEAUTIFUL..!!! as a matter of fact i would go on record to say that the HDR looks PRO and the other image looks NOOB....!!! HDR All the Way...!!!! ALL DAY LONG...!!! and I would also add that the flash actually ruined the image all together. 1) HDR 2) image with no Flash at all 3) image combined 4)flash image.. put the flash in the garbage can