First Real Estate Gig

I'm working on starting a real estate photography business. This was my first shoot and she asked me to do another one next week so I feel good about that, but I showed these pics to friend of mine who is a real estate agent and she said they were "better than what someone could do with their own camera but not as good as what a professional would take." I plan to experiment with different methods and workflow (HDR, off-camera flash, flash-ambient blending etc.,) but for this house I did not use flash (simply because I left the batteries in my speed lights the last time I used them years ago and they weren't powering on,) bracketed, and corrected exposure in lightroom/photoshop. Shooting interiors is a lot more challenging than I expected, so any advice from those of you with experience in real estate photography would be greatly appreciated. I'm specifically wanting to know if my lens is not wide enough for smaller house like this one. The agent did mention that she wished she could have seen more of the kitchen. Right now I have a Nikon 16-85mm. Thanks in advance for your comments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There seems to be a pinkish tint to what look like white walls and trimwork, which isn't flattering to my eye, and some pictures are washed out...perhaps shooting at a different time of day would have improved those shots..

These are better than some I looked at for my kids. You might want to do some minor Post work - just a little would make a big difference. I think you did very well for a first time. Keep it up!

One major purpose of Real Estate Photography is to make the residence appear inviting to the Prospect. There are many elements: two key elements are the appearance of spaciousness and that spaciousness having no clutter. Another key element is to show the "rooms".

 

The wrap of this house does neither very well: The Kitchen, Bedroom and Bathroom images are akin to catalogue images for bench-tops, white goods, beds, toilets and shower screens; some of the Lounge and Dining areas are better displayed, but, some showing more of the ceilings, akin to ads for ceiling fans, or have foreground clutter which is severely deleterious to any "sales" brochure - (that red chair!).

 

The two preceding paragraphs may appear severe: they are meant to be. Hopefully they will be accepted in the manner they're written and that is indeed to only assist you – Real Estate Photography is not an easy business (where I am) and to make any money you’ve got to get the Purpose of Marketing sorted, way before you apply nuances of Photographic Technique.

 

On the technical side of things – you’re not balancing the outdoor window light exposure with the interior exposure; there are few converging verticals; there is a pink to blue tint in many of the interior shots (mixed Colour Temperatures); Ceiling Fans always perplex me – after consulting many Agents, they all prefer them NOT rotating.

 

On the question of is the lens wide enough? – don’t know for sure, difficult to tell if another Photographer could have crafted more out of those small rooms or could have stitched two shots together.

 

WW

On the "tight shots" versus "wide shots" - I concur with Phil's comments: where I work Agents will either want a shoot for a large spread, in which case there are tight shots included; on the other hand many shoots comprise wide shots only for a small budget spread, being a brochure and ads comprising five to seven wide shots only.

 

Real Estate marketing varies. I was recently in Chicago and there were many small-roomed homes for sale I particular noted that tight shots often punctuated and accented the larger wider rooms shots - this is not as typical for the same type of small house here.

 

My point being you need to know what YOUR marketing trend is - and that fad will change from time to time.

 

WW

With all due respect, this thread belongs in the Business of Photography forum.

(Aside comment as acknowledgment and appreciation for the suggestion) - Thanks michael. That point has been noted and it had already been discussed and considered earlier. The OP has been receiving early input and responses, so it's not a big issue leaving it here for the time being.

(Aside comment as acknowledgment and appreciation for the suggestion) - Thanks michael. That point has been noted and it had already been discussed and considered earlier. The OP has been receiving early input and responses, so it's not a big issue leaving it here for the time being.

 

Okeydokey, William.

With all due respect, this thread belongs in the Business of Photography forum.

 

I questioned that myself before posting but thanks for commenting

I questioned that myself before posting but thanks for commenting

Another aside -

 

It is best always post where you think it best fits. Some Opening Posts may fit into two or three categories. The point is to seek and get responses that are useful to the OP. A Moderator has the ability to move any thread with the view to harvesting more or better suited responses.

 

21.07.2019 - THREAD WAS MOVED to BUSINESS FORUM

Edited July 21, 2019 by William Michael

Much better than your original post on this subject! It looks, to me, like you need a wider lens for this work. You do have some tint in some of the photographs but I don't think that it's because of the mixed lighting but because of colored walls causing white cabinets to pick up some color. I prefer to see the interior lights on rather than off and I don't have much of a problem with the windows being blown or near blown. This is a pretty good effort. Much better than the vast majority of realtors are going to get by doing it themselves.

You shot everything with the lights on which can complicate things with white balance if there are different kinds of color temperature lights on in the house at the same time and causes all kinds of unwanted reflections when not using external speedlights. Some will swear with house lights on, others with the house lights off. I shoot mainly with lights off (bathrooms are exceptions) and never had a complaint about that (sometimes it’s good to have indirect light on for atmosphere or in interiors that are too dark without lights on).

 

 

There are a lot of blown-out highlights in your examples but which shouldn’t be a problem with a neutral and natural HDR workflow and which I would recommend for starters. You also need to take care of keeping all the verticals straight which can also be done quickly as an import preset in Lightroom and with some additional fine-tuning while editing (I also use an import preset for white balance, and then fine-tune when needed).

 

 

Shots 1 and 2 aren’t that bad compositionally but shot five and six, as well as the bedroom shots, are lacking a balanced composition. For the bathroom shots, you could benefit with going a bit wider. Don’t hesitate to shoot verticals for tight spaces like small bathrooms or toilets (I always skip toilets, agents will seldom ask for a toilet shot, but if they do ask, vertical is the way to go).

 

 

Tight shots vs. wide shots is another one of those “vs.” things among real estate photographers. Agents will always want wide shots or shots that communicate as much as possible of a room in a single image, remember the aim is in providing information to the potential buyer. But wide shots doesn’t mean making rooms look like a ballroom and making them look much bigger than in reality because that’s a recipe for disappointment when the potential buyer visits the home. I most often shoot at 10mm on a DX (Sigma 10-20mm) BUT I crop the image afterward to get to a more realistic scale of the room. Why not shoot tighter, to begin with? Because shooting wider allows for more and better fine-tuning in the composition of the shot in post than you have time for when on location when on a busy schedule. But shooting wider doesn’t mean not taking care of the main composition in-camera and making sure that that’s covered. In the cases where the composition is off in your examples you have placed the camera too high, for example.

 

 

So you first have to cover the wider shots, and then you can also throw in some additional tighter shots. Think of your wide shots as the ones that provide all the information of the space and the tighter shots as the bonus ones that aren’t necessarily information based but can provide a sense of feeling and atmosphere of the place. I have begun to incorporate more of such tighter shots in my shooting when shooting in homes and interiors that call for it.

 

As far as shooting verticals, I was told by another real estate photographer that I had to shoot everything horizontal, otherwise agents would not be able to use the images on the mls website. Is that not true?

 

You shot everything with the lights on which can complicate things with white balance if there are different kinds of color temperature lights on in the house at the same time and causes all kinds of unwanted reflections when not using external speedlights. Some will swear with house lights on, others with the house lights off. I shoot mainly with lights off (bathrooms are exceptions) and never had a complaint about that (sometimes it’s good to have indirect light on for atmosphere or in interiors that are too dark without lights on).

 

 

There are a lot of blown-out highlights in your examples but which shouldn’t be a problem with a neutral and natural HDR workflow and which I would recommend for starters. You also need to take care of keeping all the verticals straight which can also be done quickly as an import preset in Lightroom and with some additional fine-tuning while editing (I also use an import preset for white balance, and then fine-tune when needed).

 

 

Shots 1 and 2 aren’t that bad compositionally but shot five and six, as well as the bedroom shots, are lacking a balanced composition. For the bathroom shots, you could benefit with going a bit wider. Don’t hesitate to shoot verticals for tight spaces like small bathrooms or toilets (I always skip toilets, agents will seldom ask for a toilet shot, but if they do ask, vertical is the way to go).

 

 

Tight shots vs. wide shots is another one of those “vs.” things among real estate photographers. Agents will always want wide shots or shots that communicate as much as possible of a room in a single image, remember the aim is in providing information to the potential buyer. But wide shots doesn’t mean making rooms look like a ballroom and making them look much bigger than in reality because that’s a recipe for disappointment when the potential buyer visits the home. I most often shoot at 10mm on a DX (Sigma 10-20mm) BUT I crop the image afterward to get to a more realistic scale of the room. Why not shoot tighter, to begin with? Because shooting wider allows for more and better fine-tuning in the composition of the shot in post than you have time for when on location when on a busy schedule. But shooting wider doesn’t mean not taking care of the main composition in-camera and making sure that that’s covered. In the cases where the composition is off in your examples you have placed the camera too high, for example.

 

 

So you first have to cover the wider shots, and then you can also throw in some additional tighter shots. Think of your wide shots as the ones that provide all the information of the space and the tighter shots as the bonus ones that aren’t necessarily information based but can provide a sense of feeling and atmosphere of the place. I have begun to incorporate more of such tighter shots in my shooting when shooting in homes and interiors that call for it.

On the "tight shots" versus "wide shots" - I concur with Phil's comments: where I work Agents will either want a shoot for a large spread, in which case there are tight shots included; on the other hand many shoots comprise wide shots only for a small budget spread, being a brochure and ads comprising five to seven wide shots only.

 

Real Estate marketing varies. I was recently in Chicago and there were many small-roomed homes for sale I particular noted that tight shots often punctuated and accented the larger wider rooms shots - this is not as typical for the same type of small house here.

 

My point being you need to know what YOUR marketing trend is - and that fad will change from time to time.

 

WW

 

The agents that I feel like I will most likely attract while I'm just starting out will be paying for images to simply use in online listings. The reason why I question whether or not I need a wider lens is that, since they are limited to how many images they can use in a single listing, they will want to show as much of the space as possible in one image. Would you agree? I found it challenging to show that the living room had vaulted ceilings and still create a visually appealing composition. I shot the living room both ways, showing vaulting ceiling and another with what I thought was a better composition, and she did use both in her listing.

The agents that I feel like I will most likely attract while I'm just starting out will be paying for images to simply use in online listings.

 

OK Understood.

 

It is good that you have a beginning reference as part of your ‘business plan’.

 

On the other hand be careful that your assumptions do not to limit the breadth and range of jobs or your ability (i.e. mindset) to pitch for them.

 

***

 

The reason why I question whether or not I need a wider lens is that, since they are limited to how many images they can use in a single listing, they will want to show as much of the space as possible in one image. Would you agree?

 

Yes. I think they will want to show as much ‘spaciousness’ as possible. Perhaps my previous response was not clear enough, sorry for that. Expanding and clarifying now:

 

Firstly (and most importantly) I think that posting samples here was a very intelligent move, also possibly a brave one too.

 

Secondly, because I had read with interest and also responded to your previous thread (REF: HERE LINK) I’ve made my responses slanted towards a critique of the business practices rather than simply critiquing the images – and I hope those comments will be helpful to you.

 

That stated, IF you’re moving forward as a Real Estate Photography business, then IRRESPECTIVE of what you think that you’ll be shooting tomorrow, a wider lens will be a useful tool in your kit for a long time to come. On the other hand, I think that you're using a D90 at the moment? so, IF your 16 to 85 fits and works on an FX format camera, then buying another body might be a better business choice.

 

In any case - I would not run out and buy another lens tomorrow, without considering all the possibilities - WITH YOUR BUSINESS HAT ON.

 

IMO it is imperative that your purchases from now on are governed by Business thinking and not Photography thinking - with that in mind, it appears you've got your first engagement published and it appears that there are more in the pipeline. We seem to have identified that your Business will need a wider lens, but that need might not be "immediate".

 

My best advice is when building your kit for BUSINESS purposes, firstly identify what gear the business NEEDS (to the best of your ability identify EVERYTHING that the Business needs) and then identify the PRIORITY of those individual purchases.

 

***

 

I found it challenging to show that the living room had vaulted ceilings and still create a visually appealing composition. I shot the living room both ways, showing vaulting ceiling and another with what I thought was a better composition, and she did use both in her listing.

 

Interesting. I would have probably simply moved the red chair out of the shot in the fist one - the vaulted ceiling looks OK in that one - though it would be better with a wider top view (a wider lens) or if you could get back farther (maybe you were against the wall but maybe there was an option of shooting through a doorway or planting the camera against the wall etc?)

 

***

 

Also I interrogated the technical aspects of some of these images: the first for example, EXIF shows ISO3200 – and that is a seriously much improved result than the test image you posted in the other thread. You are to be congratulated at the improvement.

 

WW

I both do and buy architectural photography for my firm. A couple of lessons learned: 1) You need a wider angle lens. 11-12mm minimum on DX, 16mm or wider on FX, but no fisheye. Tokina's 11-16 mm is a cheap but effective UWA for interiors. 2) Make sure to perfectly level the camera to avoid converging verticals. 3) You might rent a PC tilt/shift lens and see if it makes sense for you. We find it enormously useful (but enormously expensive too). 4) Using a CamRanger will allow you to set your camera & tripod more deeply in corners and against walls, to take maximum advantage of your UWA lenses. 5) Always carefully correct for distortion in PP. 6) Bracket all of your shots as widely as possible, and recombine in PP to adjust for HDR issues, particularly with brightly lit windows. 7) Turn off or mask highly specular light sources. 8) If using in-place lights set a custom white balance using a white card. I know some photographers who carry around a box of incandescent bulbs that they replace into selected fixtures for a predictable white balance. 9) Keep the objective element or filter absolutely clean, as every spec will show up.

One other thought on lighting: Most homes today have an unpredictable mix of incandescent, fluorescent, and LED interior lighting, with a few halogen track lights thrown in. This makes for a very complex and variable white balance. You have a variety of options to compensate, both on-site and in PP. It will take some effort to decide what's best for you, but you need to be prepared to cope with weird lighting conditions. This is one of the few issues that will make or break your appeal to clients. Certainly there is no one right answer for all of the conditions you will encounter. If you choose to use flash be very careful of the reflective power of mirrors, Windows, framed art, and any other glossy surfaces. Diffusion is your friend.

I have no experience whatsoever in this type of photography. Things like going wider (and much more) have been covered. Some photos look (on my uncalibrated monitor) more exposed than they need to be. Perhaps resulting in blown-out windows and washed-out colors. Might exposure bracketing and blending in PP help?

I appreciate that 'light and airy' might be the look that you and/or your client wants. But some blended-in 'texture' in the windows would be an improvement.

 

Two things I noticed was that:

- the contrast seems a little 'soft' to me

- there is noticeable 'noise' on in the hallway photo (and in other interior photos too but only when viewed full-size)

 

Hope this helps,

 

Mike

Haha, great comment Ludmilla! :)

 

I must admit that photographing 'rooms and buildings' wouldn't appeal to me at all. Or weddings!!!:p But I accept that professional photographers need to make a niche and a living. I'm sure that photographing interiors and weddings are both skills that develop over time. Just as photographing 'events' or photojournalism do.

 

I'm just glad that I don't have to! I can just pick and choose (voluntary) 'assignments' - or just personal interest photos - according to my interests and availability.

I love taking photos of people in their home/work environments, their expressions, their body language, etc. Unfortunately I can't post these photos (without their permission) to PN. But a photo devoid of people is - with some exceptions - not so interesting.

 

PN has - for me - become much more vibrant and fun since you joined!

 

Mike

 

this thread is dire.

this thread is dire.

 

I graduated art school concentrating in photography way back in 2001 (a fact to some to some of you who commented on my first thread may come as a surprise seeing as how I made some grossly technical mistakes during my first attempt at shooting interiors. I was surprised at how many brain cells I lost while raising five kids and leaving my camera in it's bag for 10 plus years.) Trust me, I would much rather be shooting more interesting subjects rather than real estate interiors but I'm just trying to pay the bills, and thank you to everyone for your helpful comments.

Your work is OK-ish for representation in non-luxury or non upmarket segment! As for tech quality, many people told you the right proper things. My 5-cents: don't overexpose, watch WB, use flashes system.

 

I graduated art school

Did you pass Rabkin color tests? Did you calibrate the monitor?

 

I conclusion I find your shots OK-ish but they look too flat and this is the lens's case, you use a flat, cheap lens with plastic elements.

Your work is OK-ish for representation in non-luxury or non upmarket segment! As for tech quality, many people told you the right proper things. My 5-cents: don't overexpose, watch WB, use flashes system.

 

 

Did you pass Rabkin color tests? Did you calibrate the monitor?

 

I conclusion I find your shots OK-ish but they look too flat and this is the lens's case, you use a flat, cheap lens with plastic elements.

 

Good point...no I have not calibrated my monitor in ages

These are unacceptable to my Real Estate Clients. Every window is blown out, your verticals are all over the place, one or more of the shots looks like a fun house mirror shot at a carnival, white balance is off, on and on. Now the good part. All of this is curable. Stop playing with technology (HDR, Flambient, etc). Learn to shoot the camera. Shoot raw of course, shoot ambient, TURN OFF THE CEILING FANS. That's so tacky I can't believe you posted it. Also, what;s the purpose of the shot of the foyer and front door? If you're going to embark on this adventure, remember why they are hiring you. It's not to take pictures. They can do that with an Iphone. It's to show off the salient, sellable features of the house. That normally won't include the front door. The horizontal on your exterior shot was poor. I've been doing this (photography in general) for years, and I always blew off Real Estate photographers as rank amateurs. Right up until I started doing it myself. That's when I found out what a hard job it is. The photography itself is demanding and if you cant shoot a room at noon, with the blaring Florida sun shining through a huge window, you're in deep trouble. you were mostly in focus, but what lens are you using? You need an ultra wide angle (not fish eye), like a Nikon 10-20 or 12-24mm, a full frame camera and enough time behind the lens to know what you can and cannot do. THEN don't do things you can't do. When you are getting paid is not the time to practice something you saw on youtube. Flambient will not be successful unless both the ambient shot and the flash shot are perfect to begin with. it's not intended to fix poor images, and it won't. Learn to shoot ambient, and fix it in lightroom. If you can't shoot a home without a lot of technology to correct your poor photography, you won't last long. Work on it. You'll get it. That's the good news. You can learn the skills to do it, AND when you have those skills, you can shoot any damned thing.

I just saw this thread thanks to the very recent new posting. I'd like to offer a slightly different take than most of the other posts I quickly read. Thanks to zillow and other on-line real estate sites, and thanks to my lust for a retirement place to live I've been looking at very many real estate photos as a potential buyer (for many years now), from all around the good ol'USA. For more than a few of these on-line postings that we've seen, my wife and I have gone and looked at the actual properties. I would place the photographs posted by the OP in the top 20% of all the many 100's of property photos I've looked at. I agree that the posted photos could be slightly improved in PP (exposure mainly) but to this potential buyer, ME, the photos as shown are more than adequate to get me in the door, should the listing meet my MUCH MORE IMPORTANT other demands of price, location, etc.

 

Let's be honest, RE photos are not meant for posterity so wedding quality is over the top over-kill. They only need to add to the likelihood of getting a person's foot in the door. After the sale they'll be discarded. I've looked at some properties where the photos were of stellar quality and they maybe contributed to getting me to ask to see it, but then the actual house was comparatively a let down so the stellar quality photos maybe hurt the likelihood of a sale. I don't mean to downplay doing the best you can and giving every job 100% but expense and effort has to be weighed against value added. I don't know what RE photographers expect to charge but there surely are various markets with varying pay scales. Speaking as a potential seller I'd add that sellers too are looking to balance value-added of the advertisement with the expense. To conclude, in my humble opinion the photos shown are quite good and given the objective "quite good" should be "good enough".

 

One more thing: This posting is made a few weeks into the COVID19 era but using the logic and based on the economy of the pre-COVID19 world. How valid this will be going forward is anyone's guess - and that guess will probably be wrong.