Real Estate Photography

Greetings. I am trying to start a real estate photography business. Not sure if this should go under the practice and technique forum but I'll start here. I spoke to a successful real estate photographer in my area and was on-site at a listing he was shooting. He only had his camera and his tripod and said he shot everything dark, to avoid blowing out highlights, and corrected exposure in post. I have been practicing photographing interiors this way and, granted I have a learning curve to work through with lightroom, the images look terrible. I usually try to get things right with my camera too eliminate too much post-processing, but I don't have experience shooting interiors. I have Nathan Cool's book, "Photography for Real Estate Interiors," and, while I haven't read it yet, his workflow is a combination of flash and flash/ambient light blending in photoshop. While I have the Nikon speed light system and a lightstand I've never had much use for them, so if I am going to incorporate flash when shooting interiors I will also have a learning curve there as well. Most photographers I know are real perfectionists, including myself, but at this point I am trying to figure out a workflow that is "good enough" and get my portfolio built and website up as quickly as possible. My husband may be losing his job in the next few months. I am a busy mom and I have to be focused on bringing in income, not trying to be the best real estate photographer in the world. There will be time to work on a better technique in the future. The attached file is a work in progress. If I am going to underexpose to preserve highlight I obviously have to learn how to correct for it in post. I haven't been shooting for years and am very rusty. My question is, would it be conceivable to give realtors decent real estate interior photos without the use of flash. I know there is a demand for real estate photographers in my area but am at a point where I need to decide on my workflow before working on a portfolio. Thanks for your comments.

This looks like a high ISO shot which is NOT what you want. It sounds like the photographer that you are following is working on the cheap. In high end real estate, the photographers use multiple lights, often gelled, to balance the light around the room, high light features and balance the light outside of the windows. Even a speedlite with a dome pointed straight up can give you good results. You just have to care that the objects closer to the camera are not over lit.

I'm not sure that I get the idea of "shooting dark" and correcting. If anything, I might go the other way.

This looks like a high ISO shot which is NOT what you want. It sounds like the photographer that you are following is working on the cheap. In high end real estate, the photographers use multiple lights, often gelled, to balance the light around the room, high light features and balance the light outside of the windows. Even a speedlite with a dome pointed straight up can give you good results. You just have to care that the objects closer to the camera are not over lit.

 

I'm not sure that I get the idea of "shooting dark" and correcting. If anything, I might go the other way.

Thanks got your comment! I’m curious, why is a high ISO bad for real estate purposes. I set the ISO high because I was planning on “shooting dark,” per other photographer’s advice, which I interpreted as underexposing entire image so as to not blow out highlight detail. Would a lot of grain really make a difference if images were just going to be viewed online for real estate purposes?

I’ve done these for my wife who works in real estate. I used a tripod, bracketed and did HDR (natural style - those crazy hdr listing photos look terrible!) and sometimes flash with off camera strobes on low settings placed strategically. Make sure to correct tilt and perspective (3 point perspective looks terrible in interiors) and go for longer exposure instead of high iso. Making a kitchen look great and bright is critical.

And network! Buy a coffee for any realtor who will give you 15 minutes. Get cards and ask at real estate offices if you can leave some. After you build up a portfolio make a 3 minute PowerPoint and go to real estate offices and ask if they have weekly meetings, and if they do, can you bring donuts and give a 3-minute presentation. Follow up with realtors you shot for and ask for feedback and how quickly the listing sold, and if the answer was impressive (within a couple of weeks) mention it in the presentation.

andylynn says it well.

And sometimes, depending on the client, good enough is good enough.

. . . My question is, would it be conceivable to give realtors decent real estate interior photos without the use of flash. . .

IME, No.

The main reason is: if a Real Estate Agent desired a spread of images that were made without Flash, when Flash was required, then the Real Estate Agents would be making the images themselves.

***

. . . I set the ISO high because I was planning on “shooting dark,” per other photographer’s advice, which I interpreted as underexposing entire image so as to not blow out highlight detail

I don’t know what ‘shooting dark’ means – ask that other Photographer. However, an interior Real Estate scene is almost always static, so even IF the advice meant to underexpose so as not to blow out the highlights, that does NOT mean you needed to use an high ISO. EXIF reveals you pulled that shot at: F/10 @ 1/500s @ ISO 3200, you could have made the same exposure, keeping the same DoF, if you’d pulled the shot at: F/10 @ 1/15s @ ISO100 – there was no need to use ISO3200 for that shot.

Underexposing will exacerbate the appearance of noise: especially when using high ISO levels. The Nikon D90, which you appear to be using, when compared to more modern cameras, is not very capable at high ISO.

***

. . . Would a lot of grain really make a difference if images were just going to be viewed online for real estate purposes?

Yes.

Perhaps best explained with a sample, as much as I could make like for like cameras, lenses and scenes:

The top image is your sample, resized to 700px along the long side.

The bottom is made with a Canon 20D and the kit lens set at 21mm, the exposure, F/5.6 @ ½ sec @ ISO800 (no flash) – obviously a very dark scene.

Noted that the lamp on the mantle-place is blown out and has fringing, but, as a like for like comparison I think it is obvious that the general Noise and especially the Colour Noise in the top photo is quite distracting and disconcerting.

***

Additionally note that the top image has converging verticals, which are also disconcerting.

WW

Thanks got your comment! I’m curious, why is a high ISO bad for real estate purposes. I set the ISO high because I was planning on “shooting dark,” per other photographer’s advice, which I interpreted as underexposing entire image so as to not blow out highlight detail. Would a lot of grain really make a difference if images were just going to be viewed online for real estate purposes?

That's exactly backwards. If you want to underexpose the image you shoot with a lower ISO. High ISOs are bad for most shots where you don't need them to get the shot. Sports, reportage, special effects. Having a high ISO available is great but otherwise, it's a poor choice. (Less so today than a few years ago but the fact that I could TELL that it was shot at a high ISO means that it was too high.)

The fact is that there is clearly noise throughout the image makes it poor quality for a real estate shoot. People are going to make decisions on whether or not to see the house based on your pictures. If the agent/seller wanted this type of image, they would use their cell phone. As a professional, you have to offer them better.

Greetings. I am trying to start a real estate photography business. Not sure if this should go under the practice and technique forum but I'll start here. I spoke to a successful real estate photographer in my area and was on-site at a listing he was shooting. He only had his camera and his tripod and said he shot everything dark, to avoid blowing out highlights, and corrected exposure in post. I have been practicing photographing interiors this way and, granted I have a learning curve to work through with lightroom, the images look terrible. I usually try to get things right with my camera too eliminate too much post-processing, but I don't have experience shooting interiors. I have Nathan Cool's book, "Photography for Real Estate Interiors," and, while I haven't read it yet, his workflow is a combination of flash and flash/ambient light blending in photoshop. While I have the Nikon speed light system and a lightstand I've never had much use for them, so if I am going to incorporate flash when shooting interiors I will also have a learning curve there as well. Most photographers I know are real perfectionists, including myself, but at this point I am trying to figure out a workflow that is "good enough" and get my portfolio built and website up as quickly as possible. My husband may be losing his job in the next few months. I am a busy mom and I have to be focused on bringing in income, not trying to be the best real estate photographer in the world. There will be time to work on a better technique in the future. The attached file is a work in progress. If I am going to underexpose to preserve highlight I obviously have to learn how to correct for it in post. I haven't been shooting for years and am very rusty. My question is, would it be conceivable to give realtors decent real estate interior photos without the use of flash. I know there is a demand for real estate photographers in my area but am at a point where I need to decide on my workflow before working on a portfolio. Thanks for your comments.

 

[ATTACH=full]1301022[/ATTACH]

You could start out by shooting and curating best 10 to 15 of your work which you can use in the online portfolio as most of the client are now searching online. There are multiple options like Pixpa, Squarespace and Format which can help you to build an online portfolio.

Yes, you likely need to add your own lighting. You should use a tripod and choose an aperture for a good DOF (or learn to focus stack). To see what your goal type of shot is, look at realtor dot com listings for your area or a nearby ritzy one and look at the highest priced houses. Those will likely have the better photos. As someone who wants to move, I've looked at tons of houses on realtor. One piece of advice is to make sure you're photographing the house and not just the belongings in the house. I've seen lots of photos that show what the current owners have without any inkling of how the rooms flow together and what type of structure the house has. If you shoot a room with a door in the frame, have the door open so it shows into the next room - closing the door is like not inviting someone into the house.

It takes almost along to take bad pictures as it does to take good ones, so "good enough" isn't saving you anything.

. . . . One piece of advice is to make sure you're photographing the house and not just the belongings in the house. I've seen lots of photos that show what the current owners have without any inkling of how the rooms flow together and what type of structure the house has. . . .

Good point. The spread needs to be a "picture story" not "a collection of pictures".

Additionally, where I work, the trend by Real Estate Agents, especially when selling higher end properties, is to remove "belongings", to depersonalize and de-clutter, much of which is assumed done as part of the shoot.

They're also looking for the tone (i.e. general colour tone) to be neutralized or as they say "toned-down" or "blended-in" - this is done in Post Production.

This trend may or may not apply in your area - but my point is you need to understand exactly what the marketing trend is, in your area.

WW

The OP's image indeed does display a lack of basic photography knowledge and IMO some very good feedback and advice has been forthcoming in this conversation responding to that observation.

However the OP specifically asked -

"My question is, would it be conceivable to give realtors decent real estate interior photos without the use of flash."

so again IMO, it's kind of polite to also answer that question.

WW

Uhm, yes, it would indeed be conceivable to give realtors decent real estate photos without the use of flash. I already answered that in my first post. Those of you who say that it isn't don't know what they're talking about.

You did. As to "Those of you who say that it isn't don't know what they're talking about." - that's your opinion.

In the context of the OP's question and seemingly lack of basic skills, I reckoned that "if a Real Estate Agent desired a spread of images that were made without Flash, when Flash was required, then the Real Estate Agents would be making the images themselves."

Perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of Post #18.

My reading of the conversation is that there is only one response which stated flash was a MUST - perhaps I missed others.

WW

In fact, yes, I believe that I probably did misunderstand the meaning of Post #18.

Sorry for any inconvenience.

WW