« Leica Q3 43 Reader Comments | Main | Open Mike: Judged (Editorial) »

Monday, 07 October 2024

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

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

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.)

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.

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.

The SmugMug site looks good and works fine, including asking me for a password to download.

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."

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.

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.

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 ;).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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).

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.

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

House room photos with all the interior lights on will make people think the house is dark even when sunlit. Take properly lit photos.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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/

The comments to this entry are closed.

Portals




Stats


Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007