A couple of recent comments that I think deserve your attention. I know you might already be tired of the topic of real-estate pictures, but I think it's always a good idea to take advantage of the vast expertise and experience that exists out there among our far-flung audience; it always interests me.
And on the topic, the World's Best Photography Magazine (does it still deserve that title since "Lens" went dormant?) has an article this morning called "A Camera in the East Village, Capturing the Now and the Long Ago." Its summary is "The photographer Susan Schiffman shoots rent-stabilized apartments in the neighborhood intended as portraits of the unseen tenants who live in them." Do you remember that several artists made books of "found" images they culled from Google Street View when it was new? I will confess that the idea crossed my mind of doing the same thing with selected real estate photos found online. But of course, with me, the ideas come easily and the execution comes hard. Without further ado:
John McMillan: "That's a very nice first effort, Mike. As someone who's done this in around 3,000 homes since I was using a Konica-Minolta 7D [2004–6 —Ed.], I'd be happy to correspond with you in depth, but here's a few quick thoughts:
"The tonality of your interiors has a calm, artistic softness that may be suitable for framing, but seems less effective at catching a buyer's attention when arrayed with competing listing photography. At minimum, I'd raise the LR Clarity control, or equivalent, for a little more pizzazz. Bold, bright and colorful is the prevailing style (which can be difficult because new homes are painted and decorated just the opposite).
"Most real estate work these days is done with HDR or layered editing. A single exposure just can't compete, especially if window views are involved. Forget the early days of overcooked, oversaturated HDR—the quality level of most photos in major markets I see is quite high. I outsource my HDR editing, because I never got comparable results. For a lower price, I also offer a single-exposure package, using supplemental flash. This does a good job in most homes, too. With the broad DR of my Pentax K-1 and a big old Metz flash aimed at the back wall, I can handle most interior scenes and preserve some of the window views.
"Your pricing seems good, but as a pro, you would have to cut down the time per job. Going back twice for a twilight shoot is fine, with an extra charge. Going back four times is a fiasco. Agents will call you Wednesday and expect to list, pictures in hand, on Friday night. Few expect perfect photos; most want good photos quickly.
"Regarding perspective correction, please just do it. Houses are supposed to be upright, boxy and straight. Anything else creates unease in the viewer, who might already be wary about structural problems in an old house. The photo of the back door with shovels and brooms is one bad example that doesn't fit with the many other photos you've corrected. As for the bathrooms, bend your knees and lower your viewpoint. Not every room should be shot from eye level; think about how you use the room.
"You'd likely enjoy this work. I know I do. It's candy for the curious eye. But like other photo trades, it's oversaturated with competition, dominated by large corporations (I work for the biggest), and always threatened with technical disruption."
And on the topic of pay for lower-end work:
Robert Roaldi: "In 2005 I was between jobs and landed a fluke contract taking pictures of used cars at dealer lots for a web-based company that produced online ads for dealerships. I was paid per car, taking a set of standard photos of each. The dealership staff are all self-employed and none of them laid a finger to help, even though getting good photos was presumably to their benefit. I had to locate the cars, find keys, take photos, rinse and repeat. I was lucky to do 6–7 cars per hour. I had to have a computer and a car and barely made minimum wage, not counting expenses. I did not make enough money to pay for oil changes let alone other maintenance of my own car, so, like many jobs in the gig economy, it was fundamentally unsustainable. It cost me money to go to work. I used a 4-MP Canon G3 to do that job, by the way—nice camera for its time. I see that some dealership sites now show 15–20 photos per car; no idea how they manage to do that. Anyway, I become buds with one of the used car managers and got a good deal on a used Mazda Protégé, so there was that."
Thanks to John and Robert, and everyone else who commented.
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:
In every field it seems like the jump from happy amateur to profitable pro is a totally fractal explosion of knowledge, technique, and equipment requirements. Leading into a massive pain in the ass and loss of fun. Possibly some money.
Luckily there are people who don't foresee that, and we end up with artists and other treasures. Not me, sorry. If everyone thought about consequences, we might not even have children. Optimism is essential to life. Sorry - blind optimism...
Posted by: Bruce Bordner | Saturday, 12 October 2024 at 10:31 AM
"the ideas come easily and the execution comes hard" might be a good title for a photography blog
Posted by: ray hunter | Saturday, 12 October 2024 at 01:19 PM
Speaking of photo magazines, not sure about "greatest", but there was a "great" story in the Washington Post about an iconic photograph that many of us know but don't know much about.
Gift link: https://wapo.st/3Nm7RGg
Published a couple of weeks ago, but I missed it then.
Posted by: robert e | Saturday, 12 October 2024 at 03:29 PM
In 1969 I was working for a newspaper in Southeast Missouri cleverly named "The Southeast Missourian." I'd only been there for a little more than a year, but decided to go back to school to get a master's degree in journalism so that I might have some prospect of working at a larger paper (and in fact, my next stop after the master's degree was at The Miami Herald.) In any case, the Missourian in (I think) late December published a real estate section which attempted to picture every new house in the circulation area built in the year. The Missourian did not have a staff photographer, but they had me, a reporter who owned a Pentax Spotmatic with 35, 50 and 135mm lenses, and had a dinky little photo lab in the basement. Anyway, the very kind editor of the paper offered me (IIRC) $5 for each house I photographed and printed, as a kind of bonus send-off for when I returned to college. He also gave me a long list of new addresses. In one weekend, I photographed (on Plus X, I think) about fifty houses, and in the next few nights, printed them. I'd roar up in my car, stop in the street, shoot the house, and roar off to the next one. I don't think I spent more than a minute per house, including the time to get out of and back into the car. The photos sorta sucked, but they used them. The $250 I was paid would be the equivalent of about $2,300 today, and I was forever grateful to John Blue, the editor. I'm not sure about this, either, because it was so long ago, but IIRC, the houses mostly cost in the $25,000 range.
Posted by: John Camp | Saturday, 12 October 2024 at 03:31 PM
Just to add, I lasted at my only paying photo job for about 3 months. I landed at my second career in scientific publishing after that photo gig, where I spent 10 years before retiring. That contract opened my eyes to the gig economy, where lots of people work hard but only a few make any money.
Posted by: Robert Roaldi | Saturday, 12 October 2024 at 04:35 PM
Much thanks to robert e for the tip on the Washington Post photo story about the circumstances surrounding an iconic DC photo. It had me wiping away tears while reading it.
And many, many thanks to you Mike for providing a forum for all of this to come together. Always great stuff! As we all know - it’s very difficult to have a career as a self-employed photographer. Props to those who have pulled it off.
Posted by: Mike Kent | Sunday, 13 October 2024 at 11:19 AM