g._snow Posted June 27, 2019 Posted June 27, 2019 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.
ed_farmer Posted June 27, 2019 Posted June 27, 2019 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. 1
g._snow Posted June 27, 2019 Author Posted June 27, 2019 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?
andylynn Posted June 27, 2019 Posted June 27, 2019 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. 1
JDMvW Posted June 27, 2019 Posted June 27, 2019 andylynn says it well. And sometimes, depending on the client, good enough is good enough.
William Michael Posted June 28, 2019 Posted June 28, 2019 . . . 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 1
ed_farmer Posted June 28, 2019 Posted June 28, 2019 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. 1
Sandy Vongries Posted July 4, 2019 Posted July 4, 2019 (edited) No area of expertise for me, but recently looking at photos of houses my kids are looking at, bad photos, even awkward ones have a big impact. i would suggest looking at a few dozen retail listings online May help get a handle on things. Edited July 4, 2019 by Sandy Vongries
conrad_hoffman Posted July 4, 2019 Posted July 4, 2019 For me either, but a few years ago my parents sold their place in Maine and I was astounded at how good the photos were. IMO, the bar has been raised extremely high and "good enough" probably isn't. There's a lot of bad HDR out there, but as shown above it can work wonders if done right. Great views out windows can't be blown out. Shadows need detail. Everything needs to be sharp and I suspect low end lenses might not cut it unless you know how to get the most out of them in terms of optimum apertures. IMO, ISO has nothing to do with exposure per se. The room isn't going anywhere so you can usually shoot with a low ISO. Use the tripod, use the aperture you need and if the exposure is a half second or more, so be it. Noise on smooth walls won't cut it these days.
Johnadamsportrait Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 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.
Hector Javkin Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 This isn't my area, but this book looks good, and it might help you. As others have said, shooting a static subject at 3200 ISO when you have the opportunity to use a tripod is a bad idea, particularly when you're worried blown highlights. High ISO reduces the dynamic range, so that it's more likely to result in blown highlights or lack of detail in dark areas.
hjoseph7 Posted July 14, 2019 Posted July 14, 2019 (edited) Actually to become a good Real-Estate Photographer you got to have a good set of lamps/flash. I hate to say it, but if you are photographing indoors a High ISO is not going to cut it. The clients prefer pictures that were taken with low ISO, 400 max. Also there is the issue of photographing under various lighting conditions. Like Fluorescent, Incandescent light, candle light and window light sometimes all in the same room. You are not only going to need specialized flash, or slaves you will also need a good set of color filters for your flash to balance the light. If you are shooting outdoors you might need to get a Tilt-Shift lens. Edited July 14, 2019 by hjoseph7
ed_farmer Posted July 15, 2019 Posted July 15, 2019 This is along lines of what you want if you wish to separate yourself from the competition . . . Win more listings with 3D
bethe_fisher Posted July 15, 2019 Posted July 15, 2019 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. 2
ed_farmer Posted July 15, 2019 Posted July 15, 2019 I'm also going to comment that you need to get a whole lot wider than the image that you posted here . . .
William Michael Posted July 15, 2019 Posted July 15, 2019 . . . . 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
William Michael Posted July 16, 2019 Posted July 16, 2019 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
William Michael Posted July 16, 2019 Posted July 16, 2019 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
William Michael Posted July 16, 2019 Posted July 16, 2019 In fact, yes, I believe that I probably did misunderstand the meaning of Post #18. Sorry for any inconvenience. WW
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now