Kind of a whirlwind weekend! The first observation: whenever I do something other than work on TOP, it takes me away from...working on TOP. Over the years many people have suggested I do many other things, but the problem is, if I'm not working on the blog then the blog doesn't get done. And I need the blog to get done because that's the largest part of how I've made a living since 2009. (I've had to diversify a bit in recent years.)
The real estate photo job was veeeeery interesting. A friend who is getting into real estate sales, Michelle Kremmin, asked me to do the photos for her first "big" house, meaning a listing with a substantial asking price. It's the first photography job I've done since COVID (other than a few favors for friends), and also the first time I've ever done a listing photo assignment (I did a few shots for my own houses when I sold them). Here's the listing, but I'll suggest you look at the photos on your phone, as it appears they are optimized for that. They don't look great on my 27" computer. Probably my fault. I couldn't find image specs for the realtor Michelle works for, nor could I locate anyone who knew if they have any official image standards. Maybe such a thing doesn't exist, but it's obvious I gave them pictures that are too small. Live and learn.
To see the pictures better you can look at the set on SmugMug. Can you guess which ones were shot on the iPhone? Some are obvious. Maybe all. (Please tell me if that link works. It's supposed to show you a page with all the images already open, and it's supposed to ask you for a password if you try to download anything. If a few people could test that out for me I'd appreciate it. I'm new to SmugMug.)
I ended up delivering 38 pictures and charged $16 per prepared shot. No idea if that's cheap, expensive, or somewhere in the middle. I don't know anything about the market. I quoted Michelle $400 for 25 shots and then asked her permission to provide more. The only one she didn't use is the closeup of the three plants in the bay window. The pictures were all individually corrected but in some cases not quite to the point of being printable. I just poked around the web for recommendations and ended up making the images 1200 pixels in the long dimension and sRGB. My friend and Corcoran School of Art '85 classmate Jay Townsend recommended SmugMug.
To answer the question of how my fealty to the truth would hold up, I did do a little Photoshopping, but mainly on things that could have been moved, such as a cord I forgot to hide, and things that are temporary and ephemeral anyway, like leaves. They're all pretty accurate and truthful pics of the real house.
As far as spaces are concerned, it's interesting. I've always been sensitive to the rendering of spaces, and I'm not in favor of making things look bigger by using wide-angle lenses. But on the other hand, people are getting accustomed to what we used to call "ultra-wide-angle" perspectives, because of the fact that many phones have very wide camera/lens modules. So my pictures kinda split the difference. They're a bit wider than I would have shot 10 or 20 years ago, but not so wide that they misrepresent the house (it's a big old house, with high ceilings and large rooms).
Main discovery: the job was a lot of work—five visits to the house including two to check the light and direction of the sun; three shoots, one main and two "cleanup"; a fair amount of driving; a fair amount of fretting and planning about weather; hours spent in Adobe Camera Raw...
...But, I enjoyed it. If I didn't enjoy it, it would've been a pain. But I decided pretty early on that I was mainly having fun, and that made it easy to just go ahead and embrace the work.
It helps that houses have been a lifelong interest, although nothing I've ever really talked about. This interest has never had anything to do with my professional life; I just like houses is all. I love looking at floorplans, enjoy watching homebuilding videos (and used to enjoy several magazines about it, especially New Old House), and am always alert for interesting houses as I wander the little corner of the world I inhabit. I have a mental collection of houses around and about that I particularly like (for instance "The Handsomest House in Hall" at my Flickr page). Since the Internet came along, I also make a recreation of poking around on realty sites snooping into houses of all sorts. I'm interested in residential architecture but no other kind, particularly. I've read most of A Pattern Language.
Listing photos would be a nice way of getting to do interior photography without being a real interior photographer, seems to me. Architectural Digest quality interior photography is very fastidious, involved, equipment-heavy work. And anyway, does anyone buy it any more?
My old Fuji (a 2014 X-T1) was pressed into service, and I also did some of the shooting with the iPhone, which worked pretty well but which I won't do again. I did most of the shooting with a well-loved Fuji lens, the XF 14mm ƒ/2.8 R (21mm equivalent). I shot with lots of "air" (more in the shot than needed) so I could do geometrical corrections later. There are various tricks when shooting to make geometrical correction easier in post. My rule is that I try to do geometrical corrections when I can, but when I can't—in a tight powder room for instance—I make the converging or diverging verticals and horizontals strong and obvious. My other lenses are primes, and my thought is that I should consider a standard zoom for outdoor, details, and other supporting shots. Or maybe I just don't need it.
I'll probably ask my son if I can have the X-H1 back. If he wants to keep it, I might get an X-T50. It has the sensor and stabilization of the X-T5 at a slightly lower price.
Mostly, I'm hungry to research the whole shebang. I'd like to talk to realty companies, RE photographers, and agents, and learn more about standards and conventions in the field. How much do photographers charge? How many agents actually hire photographers? I also need to figure out if I actually want to do more of this work going into the future, and how exactly to position myself—for example, do people confine themselves to specific areas of the market? I've already considered charging more to photograph cheaper, worse-looking houses—I figure it's more work to make the houses look nicer, so you'd need to be paid more, right? Not less.
Is anyone out there a real-estate photographer? I'd love to hear from you.
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:
Bruce Katz: "Architectural Digest guy here ;-).
"I think you will find in short order that RE photography is not sustainable for the time and production values you have put into this project. To be competitive in this market, the entire shoot you did needs to be less than two hours in production time—including the post-production. You're competing with agents that shoot work themselves, or folks who offer photography, virtual walk-through videos, virtual staging and drone coverage for a few hundred dollars per project. Not a market that needs or can pay for creative work in any real fashion. If you want to try your hand at interior work, I would look toward the interior design / contractor / builder / architectural markets where the budgets are a little better and the production values are appreciated a little more.
"The upfront time necessary for success is considerable—marketing plans, portfolios, website, insurance requirements—it's a full time thing to make a go of it. Good luck!"
Mike replies: Thanks Bruce. Thankfully, though, I'm not trying to make a go of it...considering maybe one house per week during the temperate season as a weekend project. That might not work, I realize. Your insights are always valued however.
Christer Almqvist: "Three thing about the pictures: 1.) They were fit for purpose (old house). Subtle colours and not too dramatic light. 2.) A few ones could have profited from keystone correction, but there were other where converging lines were not disturbing. Not good was when verticals on one side of the picture were true verticals but the ones on the other side were not. Perhaps shooting from a bit lower than eye level would have been beneficial (garage picture). Converging lines in pictures of small spaces are OK. 3.) You charged much too little. (How much did you make per hour?)"
Mike replies: Interesting question. Wish I had kept track of hours.
Frank Linden: "I knew a guy who was doing this professionally in Sydney years ago and went to observe him at work one morning where he got through two residences. He was using a crop-sensor Canon with the 10–18mm zoom that was gaffer-taped to always be at the widest angle. He shot everything around ƒ/8 or ƒ/11 and for interiors he would do three exposures, one base exposure, one with flash bounced off the ceiling for fill, and one for the outside light. The camera was always on a tripod. All post production was done offshore, Philippines I think, where they would do all the exposure blending, verticals corrections etc. He was an employee of a company that did real estate photography so they had the whole system set up. They were not doing high-end places, more mid- to lower-end.
"The main thing I learned is that this is mostly photography as a commodity, knowing what the market wants and providing it. When I left him that day he was having a late lunch then off to shoot his third and final house of the day."
Mike replies: When I wanted to start a portrait business years ago, Carl encouraged me to cost everything out precisely and then figure out exactly how many shoots I would need to do per day to make a living. Then he told me to simply ask myself if I wanted to do that many portraits every day, week-in, week-out. Well, I carried out his suggestion seriously. And it was SCARY. I would have had to do something like two portraits a day three days a week and three portraits a day the other three days, with one day off. Not even counting the work involved in attracting and booking the commissions in the first place.
At the time, if I did one portrait in a day, it would take three and a half hours all counted, and pretty much wreck me for the rest of that day, and then I'd need to spend the next day doing something else to recover.
Richard G: "Here’s a link to Jamie who supervises a troupe of realty photographers. It’s hilarious."
Joel F Bartlett: "Having shot interiors and exteriors after remodels for a local design-build company for well over a decade, I’ll risk offering a a few observations.
"I shoot with designers looking over my shoulder and as a result, I know what they want to feature in the photos. You’ll need to chat with the listing agent to understand what they see as important things to emphasize for the listing. Shoot some other things too as they may be handy. Your job is to make the viewer imagine what it would be like for them and their possessions to live in that house.
"Shoot wide, you/they can always crop.
"How big an image? As big as you’ve got. I shoot with an APS-C camera, a Leica CL, and deliver a full size image after any agreed upon cropping. They can always make it smaller.
"SmugMug is my friend. I’ve used it for almost as long as it has existed. That’s how I deliver my images and show my own work.
"Dressing the set. Hopefully the agent helps here. The worst possible experience you can have is to be dropped into a house by yourself with the current family, pets, and clutter and you’re expected to make it look like Architectural Digest. They’re not paying you anywhere near enough to put up with that.
"Getting color 'right.' If the room was recently painted, the agent might hand you three Pantone samples and ask you to make the colors right. You’ll have to repeatedly explain how the color of the light in the room varies as there are multiple sources. I have repeatedly had this discussion with designers as I shoot kitchens with two different color LED lights, a weird fluorescent, and both direct and indirect sunlight (reflected off some odd colored wall). I will often shoot additional shots with a white color target to help deliver something like what the client wants.
"If the client wants both interior and exterior (through windows) color 'correct,' change extra as you’ll be spending some time in Photoshop.
"Lights? When I started doing this, I used studio strobes to attempt to get uniform lighting. At this point, most remodels are overlit so I don’t have to bring additional light. I use available interior and exterior light and do some post-processing as required. Lightroom’s graduated filters are your friend. Or, if you ever have to shoot a very dark bathroom, votive candles are your friend too.
"Rights? The agent will want to freely use your photos in any possible way for perpetuity. Price accordingly.
"Pay? It ain’t what it once was.
"In spite of this, I’ve enjoyed working with my clients."
Mike replies: Thanks Joel. Re "getting color right," you'll like this—Phil Davis, Professor Emeritus of Photography at the University of Michigan, author of Beyond the Zone System, and my de facto technical editor at Darkroom Techniques magazine, and a top car photographer in Detroit in the 1950s, had a dining room in the house he built at Whitmore Lake that had a George Nakashima table and a large plate-glass north-facing window. He understood color theory very well, so he painted all the walls of the room slightly different colors to enhance the effect of the light that was naturally reflected on each wall. You sensed the effect immediately upon entering the room but it was difficult to put your finger on exactly why it looked like that. Really quite stunning, and something I had never seen before and haven't seen since.
Those look very nice, perhaps more honest than many real estate photos in that you didn’t use a room expanding super wide. When we sold our house in Alaska, we did it ourselves, and I took the photos with my Olympus 7-14 lens. We sold it the first morning to an eager couple.
https://www.juneauphotographs.org/Photography/Architecture/Sleepy-Court-House
Posted by: John Krumm | Monday, 07 October 2024 at 03:20 PM
Sold our house in the NYC suburbs last year. I have no idea how much the real estate agent paid the photographer, but I do know we paid $6,000 for ‘staging’ the house so it would sell quickly. There’s serious money going around in that market.
(And the house did sell quickly, within a week, at a much higher price than we asked.)
Posted by: John | Monday, 07 October 2024 at 03:33 PM
I'm blown away by the perfection (the house and your photos). There are no (non-adobe) houses in the Rocky Mountain or Pacific Coastal states as old as 1860. I presume it was framed when 2x4s actually had those dimensions, to last for the ages.
Posted by: Allan Ostling | Monday, 07 October 2024 at 03:33 PM
Glad you enjoyed this photo job, Mike. It's healthy to use your camera for such objective purposes...keeps one foot on the floor.
Looking at your photos, they're lovely. FWIW, my own tip would be to put a wider angle in your bag and to watch your angles of view. Your images tend to drift up and not show the floor or furnishing grounded on the floor. That's an important bit, as that can leave viewers subliminally feeling a "bit off" about the house.
The "hot" things in real estate imagery these days seem to be "virtual staging" (i.e. dressing rooms with CGI) and drone tours (ex: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DAQsOi1RVom). So you might want to shop for a little DJI drone, too!
Have (more) fun.
Posted by: Kenneth Tanaka | Monday, 07 October 2024 at 03:36 PM
The SmugMug site looks good and works fine, including asking me for a password to download.
Posted by: Robert Roaldi | Monday, 07 October 2024 at 04:00 PM
Mike can you enlighten me regarding the figure of
$8,346 taxes is this a one off or annual payment, not something I'm familiar with in my part of the world.
[Those are the annual real estate taxes that go to the State. State meaning State of New York in this case. They fund local government and schools. If you have a mortgage, they are usually added to your mortgage prorated over the year so that you don't jeopardize the bank's lien by failing to pay your taxes. You also owe State income tax, Federal income tax, and, in my case, self-employment tax. I believe real estate taxes are tied to the assessed value of the house and property, so smaller houses on smaller lots are taxed less. --Mike]
Gary Merken corrected me: "As for the taxes about which an earlier commenter asked, I don't think you explained it entirely correctly. The $8,346 is the property tax. It's not a state tax imposed by New York. Rather it's locally imposed, by the village or town or city, and used to support local government and public schools."
Posted by: Michael | Monday, 07 October 2024 at 04:02 PM
Photos scaled to 2400px wide is a common on-line social media standard. Printed brochures usually prefer higher resolution. So you probably need both.
For fancy homes I'm now seeing video walk-throughs, and drones.
For this kind of portfolio work, LightRoom is extremely useful. Import, Tag and organize folders.
LR makes it so easy to Rescale, Tag, Crop, Adjust Geometry, Spot, Amp up the saturation, etc. Just remember the GOLDEN RULE of LR: Move the photos ONLY within LightRoom once they have been imported.
I've long used SmugMug, and even the lowest-price tier is very convenient for everyone, from photographer to Realtor to brochure designer. LightRoom has a plugin that lets you instantly create SmugMug galleries directly.
Put the high-res on SmugMug, and batch export the 2400 photos from LightRoom to a folder. Zip and/or email.
Posted by: Tom Stermitz | Monday, 07 October 2024 at 04:43 PM
Many of the photos in this genre that I see are ill considered and often garishly over-processed. I think your sensibilities are likely to create much better photos than the average.
If you keep at it, consider an app like Sun Seeker that shows the position of the Sun on a map at different times. It helps to plan around light location.
Posted by: Yoshi Carroll | Monday, 07 October 2024 at 04:53 PM
Looks good to me, but I have absolutely no idea :).
For the amount of work you describe, the amount you charged sounds WAY too low. I suggest removing that number from the blog so future clients won't stick to it or even be scared away. I'm pretty sure you wrote about the problems of being too cheap before... Idea: Charge a percentage of the listing price. I personally dislike that a lot but it works for real estate agents (at least around here), so...
Last suggestion: Only ask back the X-H1 once you actually have another job lined up or it'll end up back on the shelf unused ;).
Posted by: Ralf | Monday, 07 October 2024 at 05:19 PM
Hi Mike, you made the house look nice, if I was in the market for a house there it would work for me. Now a question for you, would you like to try out ViewPoint by DxO for the perspective corrections? If so please get in touch. As I am a product liaison for DxO. And I can help sort you out with this.
Posted by: Michael Wayne Plant | Monday, 07 October 2024 at 05:51 PM
The smugmug page works exactly as you say it should. I'm going to guess, with not much confidence, that the iphone shots comprise a few over-sharpened looking exteriors and possibly the bathroom with suitcases (there's an odd phrase). These are, of course, several degrees more accomplished than most RE listing photos. Listing shots these days are so wide that they convey very little about the space as a space, even as they squeeze more of it into the frame.
I didn't get a chance to compliment those striking shots of Lake Seneca the other day. Bravi! I found myself reflexively yearning for more black in the BW shot, but I expect that would belie the experience, as perhaps confirmed by your friend Mary's shot. So now I want to lighten those shadows; but of course I'll just keep oscillating depending on mood--it's one of those scenes... Regarding her shot, there's something Magritte-like about it--in a good way, a fun way. Have you considered affecting a Derby hat and a pipe? Anyway, the two shots worked well together.
Posted by: robert e | Monday, 07 October 2024 at 05:52 PM
The SmugMug link worked perfectly for me, although I didn't try to download. You did a nice set of shots for the home, enough that I'd be interested in a tour if I wasn't a whole country away. :)
My only forays into real estate photography was for selling my own home and when a friend pressed me into service for three rentals he was selling from his father's estate. It's harder than it looks. When I told the agent selling our home that I wanted to do the photos, she protested and said she was going to send her own photographer anyway because I surely wouldn't do it "professionally". When she saw the photos, she cancelled the other photographer, which felt pretty good.
Posted by: Doug Vaughn | Monday, 07 October 2024 at 06:24 PM
Nice! Your pics do not have that fake HDR look prevalent in real estate photography. Good job, but somewhat underpriced if I may say so.
Posted by: André Moreau | Monday, 07 October 2024 at 06:59 PM
If the house sells for the asking price, then the real-estate agent's 6% commission will be $43,200. I'm thinking you could have charged $1,500 for your work, she wouldn't have blinked an eye, and she still would have gotten a bargain.
Assuming the real-estate agent is an independent contractor, then for federal income tax purposes she'd deduct her selling expenses (including the cost of the photography) from the gross commission to arrive at a net profit.
As for the taxes about which an earlier commenter asked, I don't think you explained it entirely correctly. The $8,346 is the property tax. It's not a state tax imposed by New York. Rather it's locally imposed, by the village or town or city, and used to support local government and public schools.
Posted by: Gary Merken | Monday, 07 October 2024 at 07:27 PM
The shots all look excellent to me (on both sites) and display nicely on my 21 inch computer screen. Indeed, I'm impressed by the general lack of perspective distortion, since that can become troublesome when using a 21mm (FX equivalent) wide angle lens.
With respect to the content provided, I'm personally disturbed by the fact that no duct vents are evident in any of the interior photos. Only steam (or hot water) radiators are shown. Given the frigid winters common in the area, this potential buyer would want far more clarity about the claimed hot air heating system. E.g., is it achieved by (ineffective) ceiling ducts? What fuel? And what costs? Where is the basement—and where is the boiler—and how wet does it get down there when the rains hit? Ditto re. electrical service—a shot of the breaker panels would be of interest; also the roofing detail. More coverage of the garage could(?) help too—also more views of the main LR and the acoustics potential.
Posted by: Bryan Geyer | Monday, 07 October 2024 at 08:22 PM
Pictures look fine on my 27" calibrated monitor. I don't think the price is high, especially for that area. Lack of its own dock works against using it as a VRBO property.
I think you did a good job on the pictures. There were only two that struck me as outrageously wide angle.
[Which ones? --Mike]
Posted by: MikeR | Monday, 07 October 2024 at 09:16 PM
If you want to keep doing this, you should consider shooting wider for all the shots. The iPhone superwide is a good choice at 13mm and I believe you already own it? You may have used it on one shot. You want the rooms to look huge.
The Realtor websites around here are 100% horizontal shots, no verticals. The going rate for real estate photos 25 years ago was $400 a session. Maybe it hasn't increased that much because selling realtors can shoot the scene themselves? If you keep up on this, you will get used to doing it all in one shoot.
When last I talked to someone trying to break into the business, she discovered the established photographer threatened the Realtor that he wouldn't ever shoot for her again if she used someone new. The threat worked, as the Realtor wasn't sure the new photographer would stick with it. I hope you don't have that kind of competiton.
Posted by: Jack Mac | Monday, 07 October 2024 at 09:34 PM
Real estate photography is a cutthroat business, primarily because those that perform the service as their primary means of income need all the volume they can get if they want to make anything approaching a living wage. Usually they get paid per house, not per image, and the fee (at least in my area of the USA) is nowhere near $400. Maybe they can ask that if they add on drone, video tour, and create a floor plan... They also do not care about the lighting or the sun's position, staging, or photoshop/post production, since none of those things will help them get a higher fee.
Photographing true high-end real estate listings is vastly different, where the photo shoots can be big productions (but here we're talking about mid to upper six-figure commissions and infinitely more discerning buyers).
I much prefer to work with architects, as they want photographs that show off their creations in the best way possible and will pay for the added time and attention required to capture those images. Of course, they are using those images for their portfolio and to generate new business, not as a bare minimum to sell the property as quickly as possible.
Posted by: Aaron | Monday, 07 October 2024 at 11:36 PM
I recently did my friend's listing using my Fuji X-T3 and a rented 10-24mm zoom. The advice I found that I used the most was to hold the camera at chest-level and flip out the screen to compose. I shot with the goal of not correcting any of the verticals in post. Using Velvia/vivid plus the DR400 setting to lessen the blown-out windows got me most of the way to a finished product.
Posted by: Michael Girbino | Monday, 07 October 2024 at 11:50 PM
1. Wider angles and include furniture meeting the floor. 2. More outside shots / location shots - the garden (if any) is important. 3. For outside shots - patio / pavement etc. wet the pavement with a hose so that wood planks, tiles, stones, etc. sparkle in the light. 4. Fixed fee with minimum of (say) 25 usable shots - you'd want to deliver 40 or so - and $400 is way too cheap. 5. You're going to need to buy and learn to use a drone - nothing beats downward viewing angles showing a property as a whole and especially the roof (really important, since purchasers will want to see the state of the roof / chimneys (if any) in some detail.
Posted by: Bear. | Tuesday, 08 October 2024 at 02:05 AM
I think the photos are quite good and show the house well. I know nothing about real estate photography, but if I may make a suggestion, it is that some of the interior shots could benefit from additional lighting.
Posted by: Gary | Tuesday, 08 October 2024 at 03:35 AM
I liked very much the main picture looking up at the front of the house. I think you picked just the right amount of vertical perspective correction. I had the same thought as Ken Tanaka, vantage point a bit high, and too little floor in many shots: and then too much ceiling. A little sliver of ceiling fan is a distraction at the top edge of a picture. Little doubt you under charged. My wife and I are looking too often at these things. Universals here in Melbourne: decks or paved areas always just rinsed with water; any car in garage or carport has the headlights on and shot at dusk. The lit interior/early evening glowing exterior is a staple.
Posted by: Richard G | Tuesday, 08 October 2024 at 04:12 AM
Re 'I've already considered charging more to photograph cheaper, worse-looking houses—I figure it's more work to make the houses look nicer, so you'd need to be paid more, right? Not less.'
The pictures are good, but I’m not sure the attitude expressed above will endear you to owners of less expensive, less visually appealing homes.
Just sayin’
[Except I don't work for the owners. The brokers (agents) are the ones who pay me. It comes out of their fee. They're the ones who decide whether to hire a photographer or not. So no "judgementalism" filters down to the owners. --Mike]
Posted by: Sean | Tuesday, 08 October 2024 at 06:40 AM
Mike,
Oh, so the attitude is only a problem when the owner knows. I don’t suppose estate agents bake in photography costs when setting their fees, saintly industry that it is.
[Here, agents don't get to set their fees. They get a standard percentage, minus whatever fees their parent organization takes and whatever costs they have. On the house I shot the two agents (seller's and buyer's) might split 5-6%, so they each get 2.5% or 3%, which, if the house sells for the full asking price, equals $18,000 or $21,600 in this case. I have no clue what the agencies take from that or what other expenses the agent has. But the seller pays a pre-agreed set percentage commission in any case, and it's up to the agent to do what's necessary to sell the house for the best price. Obviously they are quite motivated, so they do whatever they think they have to do, which might or might not include hiring an outside photographer. --Mike]
Posted by: Sean | Tuesday, 08 October 2024 at 02:55 PM
The pictures look good & are a nice change from the HDR ultra wide angle pictures my wife shows me when snooping the neighbours’ houses when listed for sale. Well done from my perspective.
On the business model:
Real estate agents are paid commission based on sale price (I’m sure you know that). Charging more to photograph a cheaper house will make no sense to your target customers.
I know nothing about the market for house photographing services in your area but $600 for the work you describe seems like very little.
Posted by: Andrew | Tuesday, 08 October 2024 at 04:24 PM
Anybody remember the "good old days" when you got rolls of combined ND and daylight-to-tungsten conversion filter and taped it up outside the windows? Then you light the inside up to "standard", and the inside and outside balance decently in both color and density. Very elegant, but not as quick and easy as having enough dynamic range to do it all in post.
I got to photograph one house my uncle Fred designed, 50+ years ago. He was with me, and was used to using local photographers for that so he had some idea what he wanted (and didn't expect much from me; I was about to become a college student then).
Posted by: David Dyer-Bennet | Tuesday, 08 October 2024 at 11:31 PM
Um.
1. Realtors tend to be tough business people who will fight like barracudas over every dollar.
2. Here in California, one can sell a $1.5M house on the strength of twenty crappy cell-phone images.
3. There will always be somebody who will do the job cheaper than you.
Posted by: Steve Renwick | Wednesday, 09 October 2024 at 12:29 AM
If you like houses, you should enjoy a documentary produced by PBS here in Los Angeles about the "Case Study Houses" commissioned by Art & Architecture Magazine to introduce the world to midcentury modern architecture..
Artbound: Arts & Architecture: The Case Study House Program
https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/artbound/episodes/arts-architecture-the-case-study-house-program
Over the years we've visited a number of these houses on organized tours (and many others) and been allowed to photograph many of them. The best setups I found were the Oly M4/3 with the 9-18 zoom or Nikon D300 with a 10-20 zoom.
Here's a link to some photos - but the most recent are about 15 years old - shows how digital photography has improved!
https://www.jimhayes.com/sitemap.htm#Architecture
Posted by: JH | Wednesday, 09 October 2024 at 01:34 AM
House room photos with all the interior lights on will make people think the house is dark even when sunlit. Take properly lit photos.
Posted by: william | Wednesday, 09 October 2024 at 04:44 AM
I'm not a professional photographer any more, but I was, briefly: https://dave-morris.net/ My background is architecture, and for a few years I would shoot projects for other architects outside the practice where I worked until I was made redundant in the financial crash and, if work was scarce, would occasionally dip my toes into RE photography.
You're right about the expectations of RE photography. People expect the wide angles, two views from two corners of each room, and around here apparently the horrifically photoshopped blue skies, perfectly visible in every interior shot. I didn't like RE photography, much, but it was at least quick and the work was always there.
Working for architects was so much more pleasing for me. You can spend a lot more time on it, and I was lucky enough that they cared about my eye and my own reaction to a place. It wasn't just a visual record of the physical spaces - you got to try and represent the intention of the architects, and the use of the spaces by people. If afternoon light and particular views were important, you could make sure you planned for it. And the variety of urban compositions or individual material details meant scale and subject were really varied.
...And sometimes it was nice to just spend some time in a pleasant new kitchen extension, talking about architecture with a happy client while you waited for the sun to move around and perfectly rest on that sleeping dog, in the doorway.
I loved the work, but it turns out I didn't like the stress of running my own business. So now I'm back in the designer's chair, and I just shoot these places for my own enjoyment: https://www.flickr.com/photos/davemorris/
I do still love the craft of it, though.
PS. My own thoughts on the super wide-angle lenses, by the way: Keep those verticals vertical and, if they're available, the horizontals horizontal! It makes for a much more 'architectural' shot than RE photography normally goes for, but it also seriously diminishes the distorting quality of a 12-24mm lens.
Posted by: Dave Morris | Wednesday, 09 October 2024 at 06:14 AM
I think that your photos work better as a VRBO listing than as real estate. Too much of the photography is focused on what the current owner has done to decorate and on small details that are best seen in person. Further, as others have noted your POV is too high, making it look like you're pointing your camera downward.
Think like a buyer--what do the rooms look like? What are the dimensions and where are doors and closets? What do the walls look like and how new is the paint? What does the kitchen look like--where are the appliances placed and what kind of counter space is there in the kitchen? For the exterior shots, focus on the house and grounds rather than the sky above the house. Don't put distractions in your photos, like that post in the lake/patio shot.
[The post in the shot identifies it as a view from the porch. Often, these days, people include a lake view shot which turns out to have been taken from a drone. You can get a nice lake view from my house, too, if only there were a 50-foot tower. --Mike]
Posted by: Greg Boiarsky | Wednesday, 09 October 2024 at 11:59 AM
Hi Mike - Great that you did the real estate job. I've been doing real estate photography for the past 4 years for a small agency on an island in Maine. It's allowed me to get to see all kinds of properties in remote corners of the island that I would never get to see otherwise. I just do it as a retirement hobby and not to make a living and it's been quite enjoyable. Best wishes.
Posted by: Don Seymour | Wednesday, 09 October 2024 at 06:06 PM
I find 2048 pixels in the long dimension works best for most social media sites, especially Facebook. Not sure why, may have something to do with how they get downsized.
Posted by: Ken Bennett | Thursday, 10 October 2024 at 11:00 PM
I always like the photography at The Modern House. It helps that they only list wonderful, interesting houses, but the images are always so clear and really sell the places https://www.themodernhouse.com/sales-list/
Posted by: Phil | Friday, 11 October 2024 at 04:06 AM