# Standing out in the Real Estate photo market



## animotionphoto (Aug 22, 2012)

So my area is saturated with photographers and franchises doing real estate photography on the cheap. My target are higher end homes. Most realtors are open to discussion but are not willing to pay what it's worth. After much homework, the average price for photography is $120 for 25-45 high quality well taken photos with a virtual tour included. Some virtual tours even have 180 degree panoramic shots and digital linked map layout of the property. To compete with this, I would have to be faster, keep high quality, and more importantly offer something the others don't that the agents want. Anyone know of a software or idea that might achieve this? BTW, I use Zenfolio for hosting, which has it's own perks for this purpose.


----------



## Designer (Aug 22, 2012)

Dang!  This is a toughie.  If I understand correctly, you have to purchase and learn new technology just to keep up.  Additionally, the realtors themselves are probably taking the photos, which might not be great, but they dont' know that, and they would be reluctant to pay someone to do what they think they can do cheaper.  

If I have all that correct, then what you have to do is show them something that is significantly better (they can see a real difference) and probaly cheap enough so they are willing to pay you.  Tall order.

Show them photos that look more "professional" than theirs, and quote them a price and turn-around that they can't compete with.


----------



## animotionphoto (Aug 22, 2012)

animotionphoto said:


> So my area is saturated with photographers and franchises doing real estate photography on the cheap. My target are higher end homes. Most realtors are open to discussion but are not willing to pay what it's worth. After much homework, the average price for photography is $120 for 25-45 high quality well taken photos with a virtual tour included. Some virtual tours even have 180 degree panoramic shots and digital linked map layout of the property. To compete with this, I would have to be faster, keep high quality, and more importantly offer something the others don't that the agents want. Anyone know of a software or idea that might achieve this? BTW, I use Zenfolio for hosting, which has it's own perks for this purpose.



Well, actually these realtors arent doing the photos themselves. These are higher end houses. There are however about three franchise real estate photo businesses who subcontract out photographers who work for peanut and take many many shots. Then, the rest is their virtual software that fancies it up. I have that already, but I refuse to do it for less than $200. So, if I'm gonna compete, I believe I need the right tools to be fast and fancy too. But I want to offer something completely different that they might want. I just can't put my finger on it yet. Ironically, I used to work in the RE business and I cant figure out what to come up with. Maybe a monkey with an organ grinder will work haha.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 22, 2012)

I wouldn't even bother with it.

If the agents can't connect your higher prices with actually selling the house either more quickly or for a higher price, they're not gonna pay you more. Do you think your work will actually accomplish the goal of Selling The House More Quickly, Or For More Money, Or Both? This probably translates to: Does your superior work translate to more qualified prospects agreeing to some out and look at the property in a given week? If not, then you're offering a product nobody with a lick of sense wants. Just because your work is better doesn't mean it's worth more.

My guess is that mediocre photos bring the feet in the door about as fast as awesome photos.

The exception might be super high end homes where the agent might be actually pulling together a presentation or a book, and presenting that to prospective buyers (or their staff). I don't know how that works, but I think there's a lot more "fly to Barcelona to meet with Mr. Smith and present to him 4 or 5 high end estates in Napa and Sonoma counties he might be interested in acquiring". If you're up at that end, though, you're not worried about the $120 bottom feeders.


EDIT: Maybe there's a play putting together glossy booklets and multimedia presentations for more downmarket homes? Bring the '$100M estate' sales methodology into the $1.5M mini-mansion?


----------



## orljustin (Aug 22, 2012)

I wouldn't get out of bed for $120.


----------



## CCericola (Aug 22, 2012)

Maybe include a portrait of the realtor to use in their ads? Partner with a graphic designer for flyers, brochures, ads etc...?


----------



## skieur (Aug 22, 2012)

The guys that I run into that are very successful with real estate photography are using Sony with a 10mm to 20mm lens and a 18mm to 50mm zoom. In camera panoramas and in camera HDRs make for speed with minimum tripod use. A tilt/shift lens or DXO are also used by some.

skieur


----------



## animotionphoto (Aug 22, 2012)

No, for everyone who just replied. BTW, Thanks. Offering books, agent's photo, glossy booklets won't cut it here. All agents use their website and third party "properties for sale sites" to promote themselves, contact info, and they paste the slide show codes provided by their photographers into their site or third party. The only difference between the agent's properties are the prices of the properties and quality of their virtual tours. The agents I'm selling to list homes at 500k - 5Mil. What I'm looking for is some new software for real estate or architecture that does something others don't.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 22, 2012)

Well, if your higher prices don't translate into More Prospects In The Door pretty directly, then your target market is reduced to extremely dumb real estate agents with too much money. The dumb might not trim it down much, but dumb+extra money is gonna drop it to pretty much zip.


----------



## animotionphoto (Aug 22, 2012)

skieur said:


> The guys that I run into that are very successful with real estate photography are using Sony with a 10mm to 20mm lens and a 18mm to 50mm zoom. In camera panoramas and in camera HDRs make for speed with minimum tripod use. A tilt/shift lens or DXO are also used by some.
> 
> skieur



I was still writing the last post while you inserted this one. So, In-Camera panorama and HDR? Ive seen some guys' results from using the HDR method here, whereas 3 bracketted shots + or -2, then edit on PS. I totally like that idea but was stuck with the timeliness issue. But, you mean in-camera, right? Sony? What model?


----------



## animotionphoto (Aug 22, 2012)

What I meant by panoramic was the 180 degree videolike view. Did I explain this right?


----------



## KmH (Aug 22, 2012)

Study up some on salesmanship.


----------



## yv0nne (Aug 23, 2012)

I shoot real estate ..I just take the photos then someone else does all the editing. 
A full tour for the real estate agent costs $129. It includes 60 images+ 4 360 shots.
The turnaround time for a completed tour is about 2hrs after I upload my images ..so usually in 3hrs they have a complete tour in their email.

Does that help? No idea. I don't know what the techs use to stitch the 360 together but I know I love just having to hit 'Upload' then let them do the tedious work aha


----------



## bratkinson (Aug 24, 2012)

Although I don't do real estate shots, or any other commercial photography, for that matter, my instincts tell me you need to 'establish yourself' first.  One doesn't get to be a Rolls Royce salesperson without lots of experience selling cars, first.  

You're dealing in an extremely limited, extremely competitve, low-priced market.  Unless your name is Babe Ruth or Pablo Picasso, you're not going to simply 'break into' the market at the top level.


----------



## fjrabon (Aug 24, 2012)

manually blended multi-exposure shots are one differentiator.  This looks more natural than even 'good HDR'.  Unfortunately, the very nature of that means it's time consuming.  I do those quite a bit and I've gotten more efficient at it over time, but it still take about an hour to get it right, and agents dont want to pay that much more for them (though they will pay a tiny bit more and hire you over otherwise similar competitors).  

But, at the end of the day real estate will simply never be a market that will be especially lucrative.  YOu can eek out a living and pay for new gear as you move up, but real estate agents know that you hit diminishing returns pretty quickly on all but the most expensive properties (like 20 mil+).  

The best way to get more work in real estate is to simply be very available, highly dependable and have quick turnaround.  Sadly, as long as you stay above some sort of minimum standards, great work doesn't mean a whole lot.  Merely good is fine if you do everything else right in this genre.  You're just not going to blow them away with quality, they simply don't care.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 24, 2012)

For $120 it is not even worth doing


----------



## skieur (Aug 24, 2012)

animotionphoto said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > The guys that I run into that are very successful with real estate photography are using Sony with a 10mm to 20mm lens and a 18mm to 50mm zoom. In camera panoramas and in camera HDRs make for speed with minimum tripod use. A tilt/shift lens or DXO are also used by some.
> ...



Yes, I do mean in-camera panorama and HDR.  In panorama you hold down the shutter and pan the scene at 12 frames per second.  The camera then stitches the shots together to produce a panorama.  For HDR it shoots bracketed shots at high speed and then blends them together in camera.  The best is the Sony A77.

The advantage is speed and the lack of need for a tripod or additional software and time is money.

skieur


----------



## fjrabon (Aug 25, 2012)

skieur said:


> animotionphoto said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



I shoot all real estate interiors on a tripod for the simple reason of height consistency. Agents do get annoyed if you don't take all your shots at the same height. Tripod solves that easily and makes for sharper images.


----------



## skieur (Aug 26, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > animotionphoto said:
> ...



When using DSLRs yes, but the A77 does NOT have a moving mirror, although it does use interchangeable lenses..  That makes a tripod unnecessary for sharpness in all but extremely low light situations.

skieur


----------



## manaheim (Aug 26, 2012)

I've done a lot of commercial real estate photography where the rates are FAR better for FAR less work.  In my market I make $1200-1600 for approximately 2-4 hours onsite and 2-4 hours of post-processing work.

Residential real estate is NOT worth your effort.  You'd be better off working at McDonalds.  Seriously.  Do the math.  Let's say you make $120 (which is WAY more than most real estate agents are willing to pay, mind you.)  Figure 30 mins total travel time, 1 hour shooting the exterior, 2 hours shooting the interior.  (and this is being quick!)  This isn't like commercial work where you can get representative shots- you have to get EVERY SINGLE ROOM.  AND... these days, in order to compete, you also have to do HDRs for most of these rooms.  That means more capture time and more processing time.  Figure conservatively about 4 hours of post processing time.  So what does that come to...?  About 8 hours?   A little less.  But you're looking at about $15 an hour.  $15/hr is not great.  

I suppose if you could pull this off 8 hours a day 5 days a week, that you could certainly work doing worse things for that kind of money... but dealing with real estate agents can be... quirky... and to me, it's just not worth it.  Working for someone who is going to make many thousands on this house sale, and thinks they could do just as well with their point and shoot, and why would they ever bother paying anyone over $75 to do it?  Yeah, thanks no.


----------

