Real Estate Photography

[skieur]

In the process of buying and selling a house, I took particular notice of the extensive use of photography for Internet marketing.

Real Estate agents who do their own, tend to use a point and shoot and their work shows lack of colour balance and flash use failing to cover the whole room. Since most do not know how to post process, there are areas of their photos which do not show adequate detail as in darker areas due to shadows.

Pros tend to use a tripod, a 10mm to 20mm lens, a small aperture and a slow shutterspeed. The wide lens is deceptive in making the rooms look much bigger than they are and can also be the cause of line and perspective distortion. On an outside shot, it makes a bungalow look quite small and obscures detail important to the buyer. Sunlight coming into the room washes out details in that particular area of the shot and the windows in any scene are white-outs as well. In some cases it would be valuable to see the outdoor scene from a living room or eat-in area in the kitchen. Colour balance may also be a problem in that the light grey carpet in the great room shown on the Internet turned out in reality to be a light beige colour.

Panoramas and virtual tours are popular, but the range in software and expertise in putting them together produces a considerable range in quality. With some you can zoom in and see some detail, whereas with others all you see is blur and picture break-up. Distortion can vary from extreme to minor and tolerable.

Some HDRs are used by both real estate agents and pros but too often they look little different than the average point and shoot type snapshot.

I suppose the basic problem is that the real estate agents know what to shoot, but not how to shoot it and the pros know how to shoot it but not what to shoot.

The solution is for either the real estate agents to learn a lot more about photography or the pro photographer to learn more about real estate and marketting a house.

skieur

 

[Arch]

I had similar thoughts earlier this year when i was asked to photograph a newly renovated house and nursing home.
The thought crossed my mind to maybe get more business as a real estate photographer after seeing some of the images that estate agents were using to sell properties.
However in the end i decided against it, as most property businesses probably wouldn't see the benefit of the extra cost of a photographer.
I also had to admit that some of the property websites i had visited, the photography wasn't really that bad... there was the odd shot that i would cringe at (making a room look too dark and dingy) but in general it was ok for what they needed it for.
maybe just directing photography services at the compaines that mainly deal with the real big properties may be more beneficial for both parties.

 

[JohnS.]

The problem I see with real estate photography is (in the United States) it's hard to buy/sell homes right now and qualify for a mortgage. Plus, most people do not care about the quality of the photo's. Yes, there is a point where if they are just blurry and you can't tell if there's a car in the room or a paper cup, then that is obviously a concern. But most point and shoot camera's these days are 10+ mp and take very clear pictures. And real estate companies do not make the pictures that big on their website so blurriness isn't that big of a concern when it comes to blowing the picture up bigger. Also, most people want to look at the home in person, regardless of how crisp or sharp a picture is not to only see it themselves but to also talk with the real estate agent and discuss the house and make counter-offers. As far as I know, most people do not judge a house by the pictures, unless it has holes in the walls / floor / ceiling, stains that show water leaks, isn't big enough for them, doesn't look well maintained, etc.

IMO, real estate photography would be a hit or miss profession. More miss than hit. While I am sure some people would truly appreciate crisp, sharp, well-edited photo's, most simply do not care.

But if you were to do real estate photography for presentation (ie - brochures / pamphletes, open houses, etc.), then I'm sure you could have a little more business. Especially for people, businesses, home owner associations, etc. who want to make their property look very presentable and have the money to spend on a good photographer.

 

[pbelarge]

I have seen some of the realtors using professionals and the quality of the image is very good, definitely attracting buyers.

It may all depend on the realty companies and the type of sales they have. Smaller sales may equate to poorer quality of photos, whereas the $$ homes/estates pay for great images.

I also know there are a number of photographers who work with the realtors in the area I live. But the homes around here can sell for many millions of dollars, even in this economy.

 

[skieur]

The problem I see with real estate photography is (in the United States) it's hard to buy/sell homes right now and qualify for a mortgage. Plus, most people do not care about the quality of the photo's. Yes, there is a point where if they are just blurry and you can't tell if there's a car in the room or a paper cup, then that is obviously a concern. But most point and shoot camera's these days are 10+ mp and take very clear pictures. And real estate companies do not make the pictures that big on their website so blurriness isn't that big of a concern when it comes to blowing the picture up bigger. Also, most people want to look at the home in person, regardless of how crisp or sharp a picture is not to only see it themselves but to also talk with the real estate agent and discuss the house and make counter-offers. As far as I know, most people do not judge a house by the pictures, unless it has holes in the walls / floor / ceiling, stains that show water leaks, isn't big enough for them, doesn't look well maintained, etc.

IMO, real estate photography would be a hit or miss profession. More miss than hit. While I am sure some people would truly appreciate crisp, sharp, well-edited photo's, most simply do not care.

But if you were to do real estate photography for presentation (ie - brochures / pamphletes, open houses, etc.), then I'm sure you could have a little more business. Especially for people, businesses, home owner associations, etc. who want to make their property look very presentable and have the money to spend on a good photographer.

Speaking as a buyer, the photos need to be of sufficient quality to provide me with information that I want related to the property. I may want to see how flat or hilly some parts of the property are. In some cases I will definitely want to check back on the colour of the bedrooms, whether there was a walkout from one bedroom or not, etc. If the colour balance is off on the shots some answers would be difficult to get.

If the house is not close by, then it will not be easy to arrange another showing just to answer some questions visually.

skieur

 

[Shane Anderson]

I've bought and sold six houses over the last five years, ranging in price from $250k to over $750K. Here are some of my thoughts/comments:

1. Staging of the house is far more important than the quality of the image (up to a point). I want to see the hard features of the house, not your unwashed laundry, dirty dishes, family photos or the dog lying on sofa (all of which I have seen).

2. Use the photographs to show off the strong points of the property. UWA shots can make a bathroom seem a bit bigger, but they can make an open plan living area seem huge.

3. I honestly couldn't give a toss about white balance or other fine adjustments unless it's extreme. Paint is one of the easiest things to change about a house, but many people will be put off by anything other than neutral colours, so avoid showing those extreme coloured walls if you can.

4. Make sure the lighting is sufficient to see detail in the shadows, particularly if there are dark finishes.

5. Don't show me photos of dark rooms. People want to live in bright, well lit areas, not caves. If you can't light the room well enough to make it feel like there it has a huge window then it's probably better to not show it.

Keep in mind that unless you are shooting a premium property for a magazine or similar, the goal is to get the prospective buyer in the door.

I never buy property sight unseen, and if I want to recall details of specifics I take my own camera with me when I inspect the property. Of course there are people these days that buy property online, so their opinions may differ.

 

[ilovecrashing00]

In case anyone is interested I attached a link to a thread on another forum in which real estate photography is discussed quite thoroughly.

A thread for real estate, architectural, and interior design photography

Ed

 

[skieur]

Staging was mentioned. Having had my house staged, I find that staging ONLY WORKS for those buyers that are interested in the size of the rooms and spaces and how that space can be used to create the impression of a very classy, modern house. This worked better when fewer houses were staged and this was the profile of the average buyer.

At $5,000 to $10,000 staging was worthwhile if it caused the house to sell faster at a higher price.

However the market changed. Now, buyers are looking for renovated kitchens with granite counters, islands, new cupboards and hardware at a cost of approximately $12,000 plus. They are looking for hardwood floors in almost all rooms but the kitchen and bedrooms. In the kitchen ceramic is big for backsplashes and floors. In the bathroom, marble sinks and cupboard tops, fancy faucets and mirrors, etc. I have seen a price of $16,000 to "update" a bathroom, so 5 bathrooms equals ??.

Of course if you managed to do that while you owned the house, you probably did not find sufficient funds to replace your furnace, air conditioner, roof, appliances and windows, which is also expected by many buyers.

So, if you spent money on staging you may have lost money and not benefitted.

skieur

 

[Shane Anderson]

Staging was mentioned. Having had my house staged, I find that staging ONLY WORKS for those buyers that are interested in the size of the rooms and spaces and how that space can be used to create the impression of a very classy, modern house. This worked better when fewer houses were staged and this was the profile of the average buyer.

At $5,000 to $10,000 staging was worthwhile if it caused the house to sell faster at a higher price.

However the market changed. Now, buyers are looking for renovated kitchens with granite counters, islands, new cupboards and hardware at a cost of approximately $12,000 plus. They are looking for hardwood floors in almost all rooms but the kitchen and bedrooms. In the kitchen ceramic is big for backsplashes and floors. In the bathroom, marble sinks and cupboard tops, fancy faucets and mirrors, etc. I have seen a price of $16,000 to "update" a bathroom, so 5 bathrooms equals ??.

Of course if you managed to do that while you owned the house, you probably did not find sufficient funds to replace your furnace, air conditioner, roof, appliances and windows, which is also expected by many buyers.

So, if you spent money on staging you may have lost money and not benefitted.

skieur

You don't have to spend that sort of money to stage a house well. Staging should be appropriate for the price range and the intended buyers - I wouldn't bother much for an investment property for example.

But there is a lot you can do that doesn't require a lot of money. Declutter, arrange furniture in way that shows off room, paint over those brightly coloured feature walls, buy some nice looking bed covers, put some artwork up etc.

Staging is simply showing off the property in the best way possible - it doesn't necessarily mean getting a professional stager to come in rent you out $5000 worth of "modern" furniture.

Back to the original topic though, the fundamental issue is whether anyone is prepared to pay for technically better photos when good enough will do. I have a property on the market right now. Two weeks ago the photog came in with his 5DII, 16-something lens and a speedlight on a tripod. Spent probably 30-40 mins shooting (including some outside shots of the building). If you figure travel time and some basic post processing and getting the pics to the agent, probably 3-4 hours all up.

We got copies of the jpegs. Are they decent? Yes. Could I have done the same thing with my D5000? Certainly. Could I have done the same with my G10? Pretty close, and almost certainly good enough for the purpose. I honestly don't know what the photog charged the agent, but if I was paying for it I wouldn't have bothered. Some people will I guess.