Does this method of HDR look okay?

[unpopular]

For $150 for 25 photos, I don't make the walls vertical.

I give the client the option for me to do that and 100 percent of the time they say "I didn't notice that until you mentioned that the walls weren't vertical ".

Or instead of deliberately delivering a sub-standard product, why not charge according to the quality you can provide....

Just a thought.

 

[unpopular]

What I was getting at is that it cannot be done in camera?

Not easily. OP could have placed an ND over the windows and/or lit the interior separately. I would have taken two exposures...

 

[Parker219]

For $150 for 25 photos, I don't make the walls vertical.

I give the client the option for me to do that and 100 percent of the time they say "I didn't notice that until you mentioned that the walls weren't vertical ".

Or instead of deliberately delivering a sub-standard product, why not charge according to the quality you can provide....

Just a thought.

Because real estate agents don't want to pay $300 for listing photos. Most just take them with their cell phone.


Like I said, I give them the choice, they don't want to pay for it.

 

[unpopular]

You know. You're right. I'm tired and cranky.

I suppose if you gave everyone the highest quality there would be little incentive to pay more.

Sorry, Parker. I was being a turd.

 

[Parker219]

^ I get where you are coming from.

 

[Braineack]

Have you seen the photos most real estate agents use for their listings?

yeah, they are disgusting.

Have you played with LR's manual distortion correction tool? 25 photos would take about 5min extra to sure up.

 

[Parker219]

Have you seen the photos most real estate agents use for their listings?

yeah, they are disgusting.

Have you played with LR's manual distortion correction tool? 25 photos would take about 5min extra to sure up.

Yes, I have used that, I can batch interior photos for 99 percent of the edits / sliders. However the distortion isn't that easy. Every photo is different .

 

[Braineack]

gotcha.

 

[Trblmkr]

Any comments on the processing?

Looks pretty good. But the windows are still borderline blown out and arent using much from that first exposure that did the outside exposure very well.

I'd also go back and correct for distortion, plumb up those walls.

For $150 for 25 photos, I don't make the walls vertical.


I give the client the option for me to do that and 100 percent of the time they say "I didn't notice that until you mentioned that the walls weren't vertical ".

They want wide shots that are light, bright, and open.

When I shoot more high end commercial shoots, of course I make everything vertical.


Have you seen the photos most real estate agents use for their listings?

Guess it all depends on where you work, and how you want to be known in the business. Around here the going price is about the same as yours and they want 30-35 pictures. Sure they can do them with their cell phone, and the look like crap. When I do them, bare rooms or staged rooms, I know my pictures are going to be clean, sharp and lines will be straight.

 

[Overread]

From what I've seen real estate varies from a staff member sent out with a point and shoot and then has a market gap and then jumps up to a pro with lighting gear and all the tricks of the trade - with less in the middle. Which is surprising considering how much estate agents charge to sell a house

What I was getting at is that it cannot be done in camera?

Not easily. OP could have placed an ND over the windows and/or lit the interior separately. I would have taken two exposures...

To do this in camera chances are the only way would have been just the right time of day to soften the outside light and then back that up with several flash units with diffusers indoors. It can be done; but would be expensive, time consuming, more complicated and also likely very limited on the hours of the day when it would be viable to shoot.

HDR makes fantastic sense in this situation; a handful of shots and then a little bit of time (comparatively speaking) in editing and you're done. You can do it almost whenever; in much more varied lighting for a fraction of the overall equipment investment and for a lot less time (esp a lot less time at site).

 

[pixmedic]

pics look good to me.
hell, makes me want to buy that house.

 

[407370]

I went looking for listings of multi million pound houses just to see the pics and none of them looked any better than the OP posted, actually several of them looked significantly worse.
Does the market for top class Real Estate photography actually exist?

 

[Parker219]

I went looking for listings of multi million pound houses just to see the pics and none of them looked any better than the OP posted, actually several of them looked significantly worse.
Does the market for top class Real Estate photography actually exist?

I have friends in the industry that charge $400 for 25 Real Estate photos. In an area with a population around 500,000 people they get 2 assignments a week.

For residential real estate, $400 is the maximum I have seen photographers charge and still get work.

I guess 2 a week is at least enough to pay the bare minimum of most peoples monthly bills, plus they have plenty of time to do other things.

 

[oxo]

I use Photoshop a lot, all i did was make a pen tool selection of the windows and drop the green and blue channels slightly in the curves tool, for me this gives a better balance to the image and also lends itself to a better depth of light and shade.
I could have gone further and lowered the floor sheen some but as this is just to show my take on the image in a quick format i didn't

 

[Watchful]

The thing about real estate photos is: no one ever buys a house based on photos, it just doesn't happen. They read the number and type of rooms, look at a picture to see it isn't gutted and set an appointment to go look at it if it fits their needs.
Agents know this and will pay 1.35- 1.75 each for 3 or 4 dozen 3 fold glossy 2 sided pamphlets at most. I used to make and sell the pamphlets to them.