Okay, last post on real estate photography—y'all are used to how I sometimes chew a subject to death, right?
Here's my second project. Really nice people—the woman is a voice artist and audiobook narrator, and has a giant soundproof booth in her office, which also has black walls (we didn't picture that room). I tried to take the advice y'all gave me after the first project: correct the verticals in every case, show where the furniture meets the floor (mostly did that, with a lower camera position on the tripod), and give the shots a little more color and clarity for some "pizzazz" as John McMillan said.
A few reactions to all the comments last time: some suggestions were not possible. When you shoot a project like this you're always shooting around things that are in the way, trying to get a clear unobstructed view; for instance, in this week's house, the yellow VW was not a prop. It's not operational, so that's just where it lives. Also, you're always trying to show the good features of the house, in this case the full sunlight it gets from the south-facing front windows, which, helped by the fact that the house is on a hill, would make this house friendly in the winters when the sun is low in the sky. Also the elliptical and circular archways in the openings between rooms. I even managed to get the archway in the bathtub alcove, which was the only iPhone shot in this bunch—to get it, I put the iPhone on its widest setting and wedged myself into the corner and crouched as far down as I could, struggling to keep my knee out of the shot. Then there were Photoshop heroics I had to go through to make it look like it does. So someone might say, "you should have moved more to your left," but no, I couldn't, unless I could move the toilet. The bathtub picture looks okay, but it looks great considering the constraints of working in that space!
This is fun work. I enjoy it. I do the corrections one picture at a time, but I want that freedom, and I enjoy doing the work—I even enjoy the fact that it, like the photography, can be pretty fast and loose. I'm not a perfectionist with pictures. And don't even tend to like fastidiously perfected pictures. Not for nothing do I have a whole mini-collection of books of old snapshots.
I have to say it's almost a relief to be doing a job again. Being useful to others who appreciate it.
Fuji X-T1 next to an old Olympus OM-2n
'Tell a dream, lose a reader'
I actually had a dream about a camera last night. My brain constructed a detailed and tactile phantasm of a camera that never existed. Regarding a real camera, though, may I just say that I still love the Fuji X-T1's files—they look better to me than my X-H1 files ever did. Possibly because of lack of experience with the X-H1. And they look better now than they used to—I'm impressed with the improvements that I'm seeing in Photoshop since the last time I did a lot of work with Fuji files, pre-COVID. Or rather, not Photoshop, but ACR (Adobe Camera Raw), since I use ACR for 95% of my post-processing. They've made a lot of improvements in the way the software operates, and its effectiveness. You can now apply a lot of HDR before it starts looking "HDR-ish," for one thing. It would make sense to go back and rework raw files from six, eight, and ten years ago.
I really do very much like ACR. I believe it's integral in Adobe Lightroom too. (I've never used Lightroom, although I own it.)
Rather than look for a new camera, I think I might simply buy a used X-T1 as a backup. They're cheap, and I don't feel like I need anything more.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
Stan B.: "If you continue to make this a permanent gig (realize that may not be entirely in your control) you might consider adding a 10–18mm Sigma to your kit. Strange I should be recommending a lens I'm returning, but I've made the decision to go for every bit of quality I can squeeze from my aging X-T[x]'s, Q, and GR. In most cases, you'd be hard pressed to distinguish results from the 14mm Fujinon and it gives you the ability to go even wider should you need to—all in one affordable, tiny beast that sits quite handsomely on any X-T[x]!"
Chris Kern: "I’ve owned all the Fujifilm X-T[x] cameras: when I acquire a new generational model, I keep the previous body as a back-up and sell the oldest one. If you decide to acquire a second Fuji as a back-up to your X-T1, I would recommend that you pop for an X-T2. The reputable used equipment outlets aren’t listing much of a price difference between the two models, and the X-T2 has a much more capable sensor and processor than its predecessor, as well as a more flexible LCD mount—you can tilt it sideways for vertical shots—as well as a second card slot.
"With respect to processing in ACR as opposed to Lightroom, the controls are essentially the same, but you might want to give Lightroom a try since you already have a license for it. In addition to providing a capable asset-management system for storing and retrieving your files, I think the user agent [? This is a computer term I don't understand even after reading definitions —Ed.] is both cleaner and simpler than working with ACR and then editing pixels within Photoshop. I find functions like perspective correction easier to perform quickly in Lightroom—and while Photoshop (i.e., Photoshop proper, not ACR) has more powerful facilities for making substantial image modifications, if you just need to remove an occasional distraction, Lightroom’s non-destructive AI tools do a remarkably capable job."
Adam Isler: "Re: 'Rather than look for a new camera, I think I might simply buy a used X-T1 as a backup. They're cheap, and I don't feel like I need anything more.' Funnily enough, I feel the same way about my X-T4. I dread the idea of moving to 40MB raw files (from 26) and filling my hard drives that much faster. And I love shooting with the screen hidden, so I spend less time chimping, not available on the X-T5. I know one of these days the old (4 1/2 years is old?) beauty’s going to 'obsolesce' so I started checking on the availability of new X-T4s in preference to the latest and best."
Roger Bradbury: "I used to take photos for Airbnb some years ago. Nearly all the shots were taken with a 12–24mm (18–24mm equivalent) zoom on my now elderly DSLR. I mostly shot from the room corners as it made wide angle distortion far less obvious. More than once I had to get in the bath or shower tray to get the shot. Before going to the house I'd look at it on Google Maps, to see when I could get a shot of the front with some sun on it. If I couldn't, I'd at least try for sun on an adjacent wall. I set the ambient exposure so that my highlight alert wasn't going off, and mostly I wouldn't need to adjust it unless the light outside changed dramatically. But my on-camera bounced-off-the-ceiling fill flash would need adjusting for every room.
"The only thing I'd do differently now would be to bring a second flashgun on a stand, in case there was an open arch to a room beyond where my flash couldn't reach."
FWIW, I definitely like this set of pictures better than the last set. Well done!
Posted by: adamct | Tuesday, 15 October 2024 at 10:50 AM
I am enjoying your exploration of real estate photography.
We sold a house almost a year ago- the photographer for the real estate agent made quick work of the needed photos.
I noticed he went wider on most shots of the interior without much distortion keeping away from objects which would accentuate the WA effect. If I might make one or two comments I still think you could go wider on some shots. Second comment is a bit more light, for example the hallway shot is too dark, needs some supplemental light or reflectors, perhaps just room lights turned on.
Continue on doing more jobs- this is fun to read about.
Posted by: JoeB | Tuesday, 15 October 2024 at 11:24 AM
I'm not sure now if you said, do you use a tripod indoors or are all the shots handheld?
If I were looking to move, those are the kinds of photos I'd want to see. Because it's not easy to get a feel for the size of the rooms, having bits of furniture in place helps.
I'm surprised that no one has thought of bringing mannequins to a real estate shoot, adult and child, to show the room size.
Posted by: Robert Roaldi | Tuesday, 15 October 2024 at 11:38 AM
BTW- You really need to straighten out the verticals on the door (on the right hand side) of that giant red shed!
[
That's the way it is.... --Mike]
Posted by: Stan B. | Tuesday, 15 October 2024 at 01:35 PM
Well, you made these spaces look good, even inviting, without looking like you were trying too hard. I think the first dwelling had more warmth to it.
Sure, there's profit to be had from optimizing and streamlining a process for maximum throughput, consistency and economy. But there's another kind of profit to be had from doing things in a way that allows attentiveness, thoughtfulness and enjoyment.
I'm kind of impressed with the Smugmug presentation. Nothing striking or exciting about the design or layout (I would even call it bland), but it doesn't get in the way or call attention to itself, either.
[You just made me like it better. --Mike]
Posted by: robert e | Tuesday, 15 October 2024 at 01:44 PM
Looks good to me, other than a few burned out highlights. I don't mind white windows myself (some do) but I don't like white squares on a carpet. This is where exposure blending can help a lot.
Posted by: John Krumm | Tuesday, 15 October 2024 at 02:31 PM
Exactly- and that's the way it should stay!
Posted by: Stan B. | Tuesday, 15 October 2024 at 02:39 PM
I'm fascinated by the number of people I have heard say that they 'own' Lightroom (presumably because it is part of their Adobe subscription) but they never use it. I switched to LR as my primary editor years ago for a variety of reasons, predominantly because it catalogs your images. Cataloging is way better than browsing. Much easier to find images when you have 10s of thousands. Editing is easier too and it never alters the original file nor does it make copies in order to edit. It just keeps a data file of your edits to apply each time yo open that file and you can make multiple digital copies without actually clogging you storage with multiple copies of the image, just the edit instructions Try it. You'll like it.
Posted by: James Bullard | Tuesday, 15 October 2024 at 03:07 PM
Was your dream camera a DMD?
[The "DMD" was one of many cameras over the years that I thought there was a need for and that I thought should exist. It does exist now, in the Fuji X100[x] and Ricoh GR series and several others. I don't currently have anything that fits the description, however. --Mike]
Posted by: KeithB | Tuesday, 15 October 2024 at 03:17 PM
Well done... I see the same lighting quality but much more normal looking perspective.
Posted by: Matt O'Brien | Tuesday, 15 October 2024 at 03:48 PM
I keep seeing notes from photographers who like the early generations of Fuji files from the X-E1, 93mmX-Pro1, and X-T1. Nostalgia? Different in-camera data processing? Emotion? Regardless, another XT1 body would be a reasonable investment.
Posted by: Kodachromeguy | Tuesday, 15 October 2024 at 04:18 PM
"Rather than look for a new camera, I think I might simply buy a used X-T1 as a backup."
One very common category of video on photographic channels in YouTube is the "Is (fill-in-the-blank) still valid in 2024?", with a 20 minute presentation on why even an ancient 3 year old camera can still produce good photos.
If you like your X-T1 files, then yes, get a spare for redundancy and keep using it. FWIW, if you can find one, an X-E2s will give you the same sensor and processor in an even smaller package for times you wish to go light without compromising the end result.
My Fujis are multiple generations behind the current crop and I'm still using a duo of Nikon D700 and D300. If it ain't broke...
Posted by: Albert Smith | Tuesday, 15 October 2024 at 05:56 PM
I used to take photos for Airbnb some years ago. Nearly all the shots were taken with a 12-24mm (=18-24mm) zoom on my now elderly DSLR. I mostly shot from the room corners as it made wide angle distortion far less obvious. More than once I had to get in the bath or shower tray to get the shot.
Before going to the house I'd look at it on Google Maps, to see when I could get a shot of the front with some sun on it. If I couldn't, I'd at least try for sun on an adjacent wall.
I set the ambient exposure so that my highlight alert wasn't going off, and mostly I wouldn't need to adjust it unless the light outside changed dramatically. But my on-camera bounced-off-the-ceiling fill flash would need adjusting for every room.
The only thing I'd do differently now would be to bring a second flashgun on a stand, in case there was an open arch to a room beyond where my flash couldn't reach.
Posted by: Roger Bradbury | Tuesday, 15 October 2024 at 06:18 PM
“In addition to providing a capable asset-management system for storing and retrieving your files, I think the user agent . . . ” [? This is a computer term I don't understand even after reading definitions —Ed.]
It’s the chunk o’ software that the user of some sort of computing system directly interacts with and that serves to convey commands that have meaning to humans to the deeper levels of software that cause the hardware to perform the tasks the user has requested. Some people refer to this as a “user interface,” but I prefer to avoid that term because “interface” is better reserved for other, more technical, contexts.
(As Thomas More says in Robert Bolt’s A Man for all Seasons, “I trust I make myself obscure.”)
Posted by: Chris Kern | Tuesday, 15 October 2024 at 09:17 PM
Great improvement. I see the pizzazz. And more floor. I would have photoshopped out the little bit of bed lower edge in one bedroom. Sorry. It’s easier to be cheekier down here in Australia. Professional photography is problem solving. No wonder you’re enjoying it.
Posted by: Richard G | Wednesday, 16 October 2024 at 05:39 AM
A well-judged set of pictures, Mike.
I noticed the sign in the kitchen that reads ‘Stop and smell the coffee’, and just outside the window stands a dismounted cyclist. A stop for coffee and cake is a big part of cycling culture in Europe, so the sign and the cyclist made me smile.
Posted by: Sean | Wednesday, 16 October 2024 at 06:18 AM
Re: photo of the kitchen window/sink in 10/16/24 post…
I think this and other similar photos could be improved by exposing for the window, then manually adjusting your flash exposure to bring the interior lighting where you want it.
Posted by: Jim | Wednesday, 16 October 2024 at 09:03 AM
Looks good Mike! I'm currently working my way through a house shoot for an architectural firm; I do a lot of this. Photoshop AI will credibly remove the VW in less than 4 seconds! (Be sure to remove the shadow as well). - Assuming you want to remove it - I think I would!
Posted by: Ger Lawlor | Wednesday, 16 October 2024 at 10:13 AM
There is only one camera to do this job easily, the Pen F as it has keystone adjustment built in. Add the lens you want and off you go, camera corrected images.
Posted by: glenn | Wednesday, 16 October 2024 at 11:36 AM
These are MUCH better. However, you can really make good use of the Generative AI features in Photoshop - after all, this isn’t art its business. You could have lassoed that VW and made it gone - and not so distracting. The same with distracting light fixtures, that sign hanging above the sink, etc. Also use that AI healing brush for small things. Anything that draws your eye but isn’t important should go.
Posted by: Kristine Hinrichs | Wednesday, 16 October 2024 at 03:19 PM
I like this set of photos, Mike.
It provides a good sense of the house.
Best wishes,
Rod
Posted by: Rod S. | Wednesday, 16 October 2024 at 04:45 PM
As someone who quite enjoys photographing architecture, I have also really been enjoying this series of posts and many of the comments.
My ex-wife and I sold our house last year. If I had not been living in a different province, I would have done the pics. The ones used, I found over saturated with flat lighting. The house had also been staged with more modern and colourful furniture. I found the pictures they used a little on the 'crass' side, but we ended up getting a very good price. Perhaps the pictures played a part in that; working to draw attention to the listing? Reading a few of comments on your past post, it all makes sense now!
This set of pictures are very good Mike. I like the yellow VW and how it matches the yellow flowers at the front door. I quite like the look of the house from your pictures. The angles are great and so is the light. I would definately take a look if I was in the market and didn't live 3,000 miles away.
Posted by: David Drake | Thursday, 17 October 2024 at 03:20 PM