# Real Estate Photography - Equipment List



## Jon_Are (May 25, 2009)

I'm wondering what gear would be essential for a real estate photographer. I think I have an idea, but I'd be interested in others' input.

I would especially like information about lens requirements (indoor shots in particular).

I shoot with a Nikon D80.

Thanks!

Jon


----------



## Josh66 (May 25, 2009)

I would assume that the most important things would be a good tripod and a good wide angle lens.


----------



## Steamy-Lens (May 26, 2009)

A good Fisheye lens.


----------



## twozero (May 27, 2009)

Steamy-Lens said:


> A good Fisheye lens.



I wouldn't think a fisheye would be ideal, the curvature wouldn't be too appealing.

my guess would be a nice wide angle (possibly ultra-wide), a few strobes/flashes, wireless triggers (pocket wizards or the like), a nice tripod and some patience with PS. of course you will want more than JUST a wide angle, but a wide angle is a must.

then be ready to get up early or work late (depending on the season, i suppose). let the sun be your friend!


----------



## WTF? (May 27, 2009)

yeah, fisheye wouldnt be the best idea, you want things to look like what they look like.
wide angle lens is your #1 thing to get, then you just need some lighting equipment i guess, strobes, softboxes, etc...


----------



## skieur (May 27, 2009)

A wide angle zoom with a full frame equivalent of 28mm to 75mm would do the job.  Too wide an angle and you will distort the house which is not what the real estate company would want.

skieur


----------



## Jon_Are (May 27, 2009)

Yeah, I think the fisheye is a bad choice. 

I guess my biggest question is with regard to aperture requirements.

Here's what I have now:

*Nikkor 50mm f/1.8
Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5*

Getting very soon:

*Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8*

Will these suit my needs (at least for now)?

Jon


----------



## twozero (May 27, 2009)

speed won't really be an issue. you are going to want to shoot around f/11 (or there about). since everything is static, you can shoot at whatever shutter speed necessary.

for interior shots, make sure to expose a few for the outside, that way you can layer in a correct exposure of whatever is viewable from the windows.


----------



## skieur (May 27, 2009)

Jon_Are said:


> Yeah, I think the fisheye is a bad choice.
> 
> I guess my biggest question is with regard to aperture requirements.
> 
> ...



Yes, they will certainly suit your needs.  You should watch your camera angle for outdoor shooting, since shooting toward a bright sky will considerably darken the house exposure-wise.  I would probably go with an ISO of 200 or so and darken a bright sky with a graduated neutral density filter.

skieur


----------



## Jon_Are (May 27, 2009)

I appreciate the replies and good advice.

It didn't even occur to me that a fast lens is not really a requirement, particularly since I'd want some decent DOF.

As for lighting, I suppose I'd need some supplemental flash in some shots? I have an SB-600; would I need a second? How about an umbrella(s)? Light stand for sure. Pocket wizard??

Despite spending some time lately at thestrobist.com, indoor lighting is my big weakness (just 'cause I haven't done much of it).

Anyone own a huge house I could practice in? 

Jon


----------



## manaheim (May 27, 2009)

*Chris rubs his hands together in glee...*

Hi Jon. I do quite a bit of this so I can help out here. I agree with what a lot of people have said, but I'm going to get a bit more specific, particularly since you have a Nikon and I shoot with Nikon.

Some of this varies a LITTLE depending on commercial or residential, but not too much. Just be aware as you shift from one to the other that requirements may change a bit.  This also assumes more mainstream real estate.   Pricier residential places would justify more equipment, more setup, etc.  Standard RE is gonna be shoot and move, shoot and move.


The following are the core things:
Flash - You need at least one flash. I have an SB600 and an 800, but I actually use the 600 more. It's a workhorse and it recharges quickly.
Wide Angle Lens - 18mm is NOT going to do it on a partial frame camera... not even close. You need the Sigma 10-20mm 4/5.6. It's the widest angle lens availabel for partial frame cameras without going fisheye. This is going to be your primary lens for 80-90% of your shots, interior and exterior. This is a MUST HAVE. It's also the most expensive thing in your must-have kit at ~$500.
Tripod - You can initially probably get away with anything reasonably sturdy... just don't buy some $50 best buy special. There are a number of threads on here about good less expensive alternatives to the usual Bogen/Manfrotto.
Mid-range zoom lens: usually 20ish-70ish is about what you need. There are a variety of options available.
A circular polarizer and any adapters you need to fit to other lenses. (Generally the 77mm thread on your 10-20 will be the biggest so you can usually step down from there) You will need the cpol for a lot of your exterior shots to cut down glare and bring out those nice blue skies.
A cable shutter release. Gotta have it. A -lot- of your shots will be tripod-mounted, slightly longer exposure with a flash fill bounced off the ceiling wall BEHIND you. Gotta have it. Don't buy the cheap-ass ones... they break.
Keep your lens hoods on-hand (be aware the CPOL adapter may interfere)
I highly recommend a shoulder bag that you can access gear from without taking the bag off. Don't get one too big- the key is to be mobile.
A screwdriver and a roll of duct tape. Odd, I know, but I can't tell you the number of times I've had to remove things or tape something up and out of the way temporarily. (always put stuff back!!!)
If you have everything listed above you can pretty much survive without any issue on any shoot you will ever do. Now on to some of the more advanced stuff:
Graduated ND filters... you need these when the sun is positioned such that the sky gets overexposed and turns white when your subject (house) is exposed properly. The truth is that most RE agents won't notice or care that you had this problem and you can generally maximize your skies by planning the shoot when the sun is positioned properly relative to the house- that being said, a couple extra ND filters isn't all that expensive, so you could easily slip this up to the required kit.
A second flash and remote triggers. (Sb800 and cactus triggers, likely) Remember the key is to be mobile and fast and while occasionally a second flash will be handy, you're not going to have the time or patience for anything more than that flash and MAYBE a small light stand to put it on (generally just the stand they give you with the flash will be fine... stick it behind a plant somewhere)  No umbrellas or any of that craziness.  Keep in mind cheaper remote triggers are less reliable, but you're NOT going to use these that often, and when you do an occasional misfire will not be a big deal.  Stick with the cheap.
Deeper zoom lens. A 80-200ish range lens will come in handy if you want to get finer details that are further away from you. Generally speaking (particularly in residential) this lens will rarely get used.
Higher quality glass. While fast glass isn't necessary, the effect of higher quality glass tends to be noticable. Since this also tends to be fast, you wind up with F2.8 lenses. The very first one I would buy would be the 24-70mm 2.8. A wider one would be good, but the Sigma is a pretty solid lens and you're not likely to get any better at that width, esp. since super wide lenses also suffer all kinds of quality issues by their very nature.
That's the bulk of it. As you shoot more, you'll tune your needs a bit, but I would bet you money that this will be pretty damned close to what you'd wind up with on your own over time.

Good luck with it!


----------



## Jon_Are (May 27, 2009)

I checked out your website, Chris; stunning photography (not just the properties, but the artsy-fartsy stuff as well).

I've read about the Sigma 10-20mm, and have considered getting it instead of the Tokina 50-135mm I was set on (not necessarily for RE, but just because it would fill a gap in my arsenal). Bonus: The Sigma is actually less expensive.

I hope you don't mind if I pepper you with questions for a bit, either here or via email. I recognize your username as one I've come to respect around the forum.

I've got a million questions, but I'll try and take it easy on you. Here are two:

1. I was under the impression that only higher-end real estate would even consider hiring a pro photographer; I would think that the average listing would not budget for that. I figured I would concentrate on a nearby market, maybe targeting only realtors who work with homes selling for around 400k and up. Am I correct?

2.  I assume I would need to create a portfolio. How in the freak can I accomplish this without access to a couple of gorgeous homes? I know it is said to not "give it away", but I'm wondering if my best bet is to offer a free shoot of a nice home to an agent. Any thoughts?

Thanks again, Chris.

Jon


----------



## manaheim (May 27, 2009)

Jon_Are said:


> I checked out your website, Chris; stunning photography (not just the properties, but the artsy-fartsy stuff as well).


 
Thanks!  I'm particularly fond of the farts. 



Jon_Are said:


> I've read about the Sigma 10-20mm, and have considered getting it instead of the Tokina 50-135mm I was set on (not necessarily for RE, but just because it would fill a gap in my arsenal). Bonus: The Sigma is actually less expensive.


 
hehe, that is a bonus.



Jon_Are said:


> I hope you don't mind if I pepper you with questions for a bit, either here or via email. I recognize your username as one I've come to respect around the forum.


 
Ah, I've fooled you!  Sweet.   Absolutely happy to answer questions.



Jon_Are said:


> I've got a million questions, but I'll try and take it easy on you. Here are two:
> 
> 1. I was under the impression that only higher-end real estate would even consider hiring a pro photographer; I would think that the average listing would not budget for that. I figured I would concentrate on a nearby market, maybe targeting only realtors who work with homes selling for around 400k and up. Am I correct?


 
This is my impression as well.  I haven't actually done much residential stuff myself yet, but I've been starting to tap the market to see how deep it goes.  So far my strong impression is that, for the most part, the market will not bear my prices.  My hope is that the higher-end RE market will, but I have only just started networking into that.

By and large "normal" agents are perfectly happy with running through the house and snapping a few crappy shots with their point and shoot... because that's what they ALL do, and it works essentially "ok".  Getting them to understand that there may be value in higher-end product for this is a bit of an uphill battle, and I'm still not sure I could pull more than maybe $3-400 out of them for a shoot... and for my time and money there's WAY more work involved than a commercial gig and way WAY less money... not worth it.... again, for me.



Jon_Are said:


> 2. I assume I would need to create a portfolio. How in the freak can I accomplish this without access to a couple of gorgeous homes? I know it is said to not "give it away", but I'm wondering if my best bet is to offer a free shoot of a nice home to an agent. Any thoughts?


 
So time for me to come clean on my residential stuff... 

What I have been doing is the same thing I did to get into the commercial market... run around and take pictures of nice examples. 

Ok, I do a bit more than that... I network with people I know and worm my way into nice examples and offer them copies of the pictures for the privelledge. (sp?)  I understand and fully agree with "don't give things away for free" thing... you need to be careful with this.  For me, personally, however ... I consider this you effectively paying someone else.  You are paying them in pictures for the opportunity to develop some materials that you can use to sell yourself.

Looking at my site... the residential section?  The white house is actually my last house... the two interior shots are from my friend's place (he is listing his house and wanted some better pictures) ... the other three houses up there are just some nice homes in my nearby ritzy town of Concord.   I actually have about 5-10 more I need to put up, just haven't gotten to it yet.   I've had a couple amusing conversations with some homeowners who have come out to ask me just what the hell I was doing on their lawn with a camera. 

Now... If you look at the _commercial_ section I believe the first image is of a Marriott... I took that for my father in law who sold them the exterior surface materials for the building.  I _used_ to have about 12 pictures up here and _every_ single one of them was like my current residential set... not paid gigs in the strictest sense, but just examples of what I -could- do... but _now_ I think the only one that remains from my old starter set is that Marriott one.

What I'm driving at here is that this is just kind of the way you have to do it.  You are absolutely not going to sell anyone on your amazing photographic prowess with promises.  You need to have something to show... and what's more is you actually need to at least PRETEND that what you have was stuff done for hire.   (I made a point to ensure that most of it was... granted, I was hired by my father in law and he paid me a whopping $50, but I was hired!)

I used these to work my way into a couple commercial real estate clients, landed a couple "trial" jobs, convinced them that I actually know what the hell I'm doing and provide some good services, and now I'm a regular!

I hope that was articulate.  I'm listening to a concall while typing this.  I'll re-read this again later tonight and clarify if I screwed anything up.


----------



## Jon_Are (May 27, 2009)

Interesting story, Chris. Like any venture, it takes a certain amount of acting like you belong/know what you're doing. I know a great house I'd like to grab a shot or two of; preferably when nobody is home. 

A few more Q's:

1. How do I deliver the goods? Do I upload them directly into a MLS site? Do I send them via email to the agent? On a CD? Does anyone ever request a hard copy?

2. How in the world to I determine what to charge? Do I take a retainer up front? Or just send an invoice after the job is completed?

Thanks again,

Jon


----------



## Sw1tchFX (May 27, 2009)

SHAMWOW!

Strobist: Working Around the House


----------



## skieur (May 27, 2009)

From Manaheim:



Wide Angle Lens - 18mm is NOT going to do it on a partial frame camera... not even close. You need the Sigma 10-20mm 4/5.6. It's the widest angle lens availabel for partial frame cameras without going fisheye. This is going to be your primary lens for 80-90% of your shots, interior and exterior. This is a MUST HAVE. It's also the most expensive thing in your must-have kit at ~$500.
O.K., so how do you deal with the distortion created by the 10-20mm Sigma
as well as the deception of size and space?

skieur


----------



## CrimsonFoxPhotography (May 27, 2009)

skieur said:


> From Manaheim:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
There are programs that can be used to handle this, though I have never used them to know if any tradeoffs exist.  I found it interesting when people on here were saying that fisheye was a bad idea, go with a 24/28mm instead...those lenses may not provide as much distortion as fisheye, but it's still pretty apparent when used on a full frame body.  Strictly speaking, anything wider then 50mm is distorted...it just depends on whose eyes are watching.


----------



## skieur (May 27, 2009)

CrimsonFoxPhotography said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > From Manaheim:
> ...



Yes, there certainly are.  As to the main tradeoffs, often the centre is straightened but the edges are still distorted, and/or the need for cropping which reduces resolution.  Sure anything wider than 50mm is distorted but through adjustments in camera angle and distance it is possible to minimize the distortion caused by a 28mm shot.  When you go wider, it becomes much less possible or not possible at all.

skieur


----------



## Steamy-Lens (May 27, 2009)

Sorry about the Fisheye crack, but I have agents as friends and they use fisheye's and ultra wide lenses to make the rooms look larger than they are to get people to the house. You can't sell a house very well If you can't get them to it..

Read this .

Google Image Result for http://www.vistaview360.com/_property/petit/0living2.jpg


----------



## manaheim (May 27, 2009)

Sw1tchFX said:


> SHAMWOW!


 




Jon_Are said:


> Interesting story, Chris. Like any venture, it takes a certain amount of acting like you belong/know what you're doing. I know a great house I'd like to grab a shot or two of; preferably when nobody is home.


 
heheh... if you're doing exteriors (please don't break in!)   Just be fairly stealthy and quick.  Generally I try to stay physically off of people's properties, but a quick jog to the center of their yard for a couple pics and back goes generally unnoticed. 



Jon_Are said:


> A few more Q's:
> 
> 1. How do I deliver the goods? Do I upload them directly into a MLS site? Do I send them via email to the agent? On a CD? Does anyone ever request a hard copy?


 
This is an area I know a bit less about because I've only done it once officially.  What I can say is this... you'd be way better off getting an MLS account and uploading the images yourself personally.  The MLS system does some rather arbitrary and unfortunate crap to the images sometimes and you need to be mindful of the result.

That being said, I think just knowing the exact specifications of the MLS system's expectations of the images will probably get you 90% of the way there... then you can provide pre-sized and pre-corrected images to your clients and all they have to do is upload them.  I would think this would probably be ideal.

For my commercial clients I generally upload images to an FTP site for them, or put them up on an FTP site for them to grab.  I can tell you from what I've seen that a lot of the residential real estate agents can't even click an http: link to download a file.   Seriously.  In which case you may plan to have multiple options to suit the needs of the level of client, but assume you'll be delivering corrected pre-sized images to them on a CD.



Jon_Are said:


> 2. How in the world to I determine what to charge? Do I take a retainer up front? Or just send an invoice after the job is completed?


 
I personally like to provide a quote before the work is started and then send an invoice after the job is completed and images are accepted.  I invoice upon acceptance or 30 days after submission, whichever comes first.  With commercial clients I go on a proof/select/correct system, but with residential clients my thought is "Here are your images" because the needs of a residential real estate agent tend to be much more clear and cut and dry than a commercial one.  (you need pictures of all the obvious aspects of the house, period.)


----------



## manaheim (May 27, 2009)

skieur said:


> From Manaheim:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
The distortion is actually -really- not at all bad on the Sigma.  One of the nice things about it.  That being said, I use ptlens to make some adjustments automatically, or you can do it via photoshop.  It's rarely exactly perfect... mostly noticable at the very outside extremes of the image, but still not bad.  Check out my website... a significant majority of the images up there are taken with that lens- particularly any one that shows an interior space.

As far as the deception of size... again, not really as bad as you suspect, though occasionally it does have that effect.  Frankly... meh.   It's marketing.  It's not always accurate.

Keep in mind, too, that MLS displays these images as something like 400x300 pixels or something.   If there are issues there, they're not going to see them.  (This is not the case for my commercial clients, by the way, but the commercial clients want you to do everything possible to make every space seem as big as you possibly can... I would actually assume a residential agent wouldn't cry over such an effect, either... but it is a different market)

At the end of the day, my buddy just sold his house in under 10 days, have over 30 parties to come see the place, and had three actual offers from three parties.  The real estate agent said she has not seen that kind of traffic in a house in years... and a significant number of people made a point to comment on how amazing the house looked in the photos.  Everyone is quite convinced that the photos made all the difference here.


----------



## manaheim (May 27, 2009)

CrimsonFoxPhotography said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > From Manaheim:
> ...


 


Steamy-Lens said:


> Sorry about the Fisheye crack, but I have agents as friends and they use fisheye's and ultra wide lenses to make the rooms look larger than they are to get people to the house. You can't sell a house very well If you can't get them to it..
> 
> Read this .
> 
> Google Image Result for http://www.vistaview360.com/_property/petit/0living2.jpg


 

Oh yeah, I meant to say... fisheye is absolutely on my list of things to get.  Somtimes you want to go crazy wide... and keeping in mind that you CAN adjust for the distortion.

Another trick is to pan and take a few shots and stitch them together for a super wide view of a room.  Photoshop handles this mightily and it gives you that wide view with minimal distortion.


----------



## Jon_Are (May 28, 2009)

FWIW, from everything I've read (not just here), the Sigma 10-20mm is _the_ lens to have for real estate photography.

My biggest, most puzzling, most difficult question remains: How do I determine how much to charge?

Jon


----------



## manaheim (May 28, 2009)

Jon_Are said:


> FWIW, from everything I've read (not just here), the Sigma 10-20mm is _the_ lens to have for real estate photography.
> 
> My biggest, most puzzling, most difficult question remains: How do I determine how much to charge?


 
Yup, that's the sticking point.

Think of it this way, perhaps...

Assume you're probably going to spend about 3-4 hours per house.  Not just in capture, but also in corrections, uploads, etc.  How much are you willing to work for per hour?

That is not to say that the market would bear your prices (thus my dilemna), but at least it will give you a sense of where you should be comfortable.  If, in the end, you determine that the market wants to pay you less than you are comfortable with, you may want to consider a different line of photographic work.


----------



## abraxas (May 28, 2009)

I've done residential real estate photography for nearly 15 years. Somewhere over 2,000 homes.

My current equipment consists of a nikon d300 and a sigma 10-20, and of course, a nice tripod.  

I work totally in available light, meaning natural light from windows and lamps and ceiling lights in the home.  No flash- ever.  Everything I produce is in HDR.

If you don't know what you are doing, "acting" like you do will just get you in trouble and lose you potential clients.  The best thing is to do your homework and talk to real estate professionals.  I wouldn't even worry about a portfolio until you know what they would expect (uploaded to MLS, cd, hardcopy, emailed, etc.)

Good work if you can get it.  I can live off of 3-4 virtual tours a month.  When things are busy I do about 25-30.


----------



## manaheim (May 28, 2009)

I wasn't suggesting you pretend you know what you're doing so much as assert and show that you have the skills to do the job... without actually having done the job.  There's a subtle difference.

"live off" means different things to different people... could you give us a sense of what you charge?

How did you get into it?  

It's interesting that you choose to do ALL HDRs... the couple houses I've done it became immediately clear that I needed to do at least some, so generally I wound up doing about 50% of them that way, but I wouldn't have necessarily chosen to do all of them that way... (personal preference)


----------



## Jon_Are (May 28, 2009)

> If you don't know what you are doing, "acting" like you do will just get you in trouble and lose you potential clients.



I think this is in reference to my remark:



> it takes a certain amount of acting like you belong/know what you're doing.



To clarify, I was not suggesting this is all it takes to be successful. In fact, I was specifically referring to having the 'nads to shoot a random house in order to create a portfolio.

Anyway, nice images, Abraxas. Your HDR: How many images do you typically combine?

Thanks for contributing,

Jon


----------



## abraxas (May 28, 2009)

Jon_Are said:


> > If you don't know what you are doing, "acting" like you do will just get you in trouble and lose you potential clients.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's why I suggested talking to some real estate pros- Define their wants and needs.  At this point portfolios are irrelevant.


----------



## Jon_Are (May 31, 2009)

> I work totally in available light, meaning natural light from windows and lamps and ceiling lights in the home. No flash- ever. Everything I produce is in HDR.


 
This is the direction I've decided to go in. 

Abraxas - Do you do HDR? Or a blending of exposures? Have you tried both methods? Which software do you use?

I expect I'll use the HDR angle as a major selling point, something to make my product unique. How much do you emphasise HDR in your marketing?

Thanks,

Jon


----------

