Do any of you use professional Real Estate Photographers, or do you produce most of the images yourselves?

Everything produced in house with Canon EOS5D2 and Adobe CS4. It is not cost effective to pay a pro to do your photographs. Many times a listing will have to be photographed several different times depending on improvements, change of seasons, etc. A good realtor will spend significant time, effort, and money on becoming proficient in architectural photography.

I agree....you can pay someone to professionally shoot them, but if this is your long term career, make the investment to buy the quality equipment to do it yourself. Plus, you'll have a great product and can write it off on your taxes!

I just read something about how listings that had photos taken with digital SLR cameras sold for more than listings that had pictures taken with a cheap point-and-shoot camera (there's a summary HERE). Bear in mind that correlation does not imply causation, since agents who list higher-end properties are probably more likely to use higher-end technology, thereby skewing the results.

That said, having exceptional photos WILL draw more potential buyers to your listings. Obviously, I would at least preview all properties that seemed to meet my clients' criteria regardless of the quality of the photos, but I do know that photo quality did make an impression when I was shopping for my own house several years back.

I do know people who hire the pros, especially for expensive listings or properties that are architecturally unique...but in the long run the most financially reasonable approach is to get the right equipment and software--AND TRAINING--to do it yourself. I can't emphasize "AND TRAINING" enough; having thousands of dollars' worth of equipment and photo software is worthless if you don't know how to use it to its full potential.

Oh, one other non-monetary benefit as well...my vacation photos are much more snazzy than they used to be back when I had cheap equipment and couldn't use Photoshop.

I take all my photos myself. I invested over $1,000 (chump change for real photographers, ha ha) in a digital SLR and ultra-wide angle lens. I also have what is similar to Photoshop (the old, awesome Paint Shop Pro, before Corel acquired it and RUINED it) to do my editing.

It helps that I am a bit of an amateur photographer - but it's not hard to learn how to take good photos if you take the time to study and practice. When it comes to real estate photography it is definitely a learned skill more than anything - learning how to best capture a room, an angle, an exterior...plus looking for the right "detail" shot (not all "detail" shots should be published.)

Real estate photography is not just knowing how to take pictures but what ones to skip...what pictures do the house justice and what ones make the property look less attractive than it actually is (such as most bathroom shots - sometimes no photo is better than a photo that just does NOT show a room in its best light...)

PLEASE NOTE I am not advocating being dishonest - not at all - but some photos just do NOT do the property justice and should be sent to the recycle bin.

And never, ever, should photo editing EVER change a material fact about the property (i.e., removing power lines, pasting shrubs over neighbor's houses, removing fire hydrants, etc.)

Thanks everyone for the great advice! I'm well versed in photography and proficient in Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro (old BETTER version - you are so right Perky!), but I do need to invest in higher-end equipment - oh darn :grin:

Sounds like it just makes sense to do it myself and invest the time and money.

Great discussion! You guys are the best.

Joe

If it is cost effective to use a professional photographer or not depends on too many factors to give a blanket yes or no. A pro can run anywhere between $55 and $400 or more depending on the photographer, the area, size of the property, etc. Good photography equipment, software and computer equipment will run you between $3000 and $5000. Prorating that over 3 years at 12 listing per year, means equipment cost will run $85 and $140 per property not including your labor.

The comments above on shooting real estate requiring experience are correct. But shooting 2 or 3 properties a month won't cut it. Shooting 2 or 3 a DAY it what you need. You can volunteer to shoot other agent's properties to get experience. Be sure to include that time cost to the above equipment costs.

Processing the photo afterward can easily take more time that shooting the photos. If you are not familiar with the software it will take you twice as long.

In general you will get much better photos and get the photos quicker from a professional than you can get on your own. Plus you can spend your time selling property or following up on leads instead of sitting in front of a camera or computer.

Last, you can also take photography service off your taxes. It falls under advertising.

Thanks Neal! Also some very good points worth considering.

I think you meant that it can expensed, or deducted from your Gross Income, before calculating your taxes. There's a big difference.

My brother is a professional photographer so I do use him for most of my high dollar listings but the simple truth is the technology of cameras today is light years ahead of where it was even 5 years ago.

Nowadays, 10 mega pixels (mega pixels make up the size and over all 'quality' of the pictures the camera takes) are standard in most medium end cameras. In fact, few 'low end' cameras are even out on the market anymore - heck even cell phones are increasing their quality all the time.. The standard of quality is getting higher and higher.

Most digital SLR's will take stunning pictures (certainly good enough for the web) using nothing more than their 'auto' feature where all you have to do is point and shoot. Very little retouching (if any) is even needed if you just play around with the camera a little and learn the basic do's and dont's of basic lighting.

What I have found, especially in today's market is that good photos are a must, but 'pro' photos not as important as getting as much info as you can quickly cause the average first attention span to a listing for an online viewer is only about 20 seconds (for text and photos)

One little trick that I use often is to simply hold a video camera out in front of me and do a quick little vid introducing the property and some quick key points (such as if the property has an amazing view).

I have found that more interest arises out of my 20 second video than looking at a dozen pictures. Not saying I don't use pics, cause I do, but I'm saying the vid helps out tremendously for a quick attention glance to the listing. As long as you don't have 'bad' photography of your listing, I think 'good' photos are about as effective as 'pro' photos and retouching should be something that you do if you 'have to' not as a regular practice.

Remember that the attention time you are going to get from a user is going to be very small - so try to get your main sales point of the property over visually as quickly as possible. Focus on making sure the picture you pick for the main photo is the right one and the best one. It is not always just because it is the main front angle shot of the property. Sometimes, a backyard, balcony, or even a bathroom shot is the 'winning' main photo.

Make sure to TALK TO YOUR CUSTOMERS! Ask people who contact you what brought them to you - what stood out on the listing, and what you could have done better for the listing in their opinion. Your customers are the best source for determining what is the best way to sell to them.

The number of megapixels has less to do with the quality of a photo than you think. It is only a measure of the potential resolution of the camera. Other factors have as much or more effect on the photo quality. Len quality, focal lenght, lighting, angle, prespective, etc are very important to the final product. Point and shoot cameras tend to have small, lower quality lens with very short focal lenghts. They are great if you want a compact camera to take your typical vacation photo. They are not suitable for real estate photos.

Video is great for real estate if done right. It is better when used with photos. Each has their own strength and weaknesses.

True - some of my best shots were taken w/ my 2.1 mp camera. Until of course I tried to enlarge them past 5x7 for prints.

For our purposes all the mp count really does is just boost the file size! LOL

For a good agent, your 1 listing per month estimate is way too low. So the cost of a rig is really more like $40/listing assuming a 5 year life for the hardware. Plus you can "section 179" it right off your income. Plus you have total flexibility and can reshoot whenever and wherever you need to. However, the other advantages totally tip the balance in favor of doing it yourself. Having a killer rig is actually a listing tool that helps me get listings. I bring the rig to the LP and wow them right off the bat. If the hardware gets you even 1 listing in my area, it pays for itself straight away.

Furthermore, once you get good with your rig, you are really fast and efficient just like a pro. I can size up a scene through the viewfinder and pretty much hit my settings in a flash. Experience makes you quick as well as good.

Finally, it's just fun and I don't care how much the gear costs.

Also, if you're clueless about photography, I would also recommend taking a one-day class at your local Junior College. I've taken two of these, and they're generally quite good. There are lot of issues with understanding light and proper framing that the average person doesn't realize, so with just a little bit of instruction and a good camera (which are becoming cheaper and cheaper), you'll save yourself a lot of money in the long run.

Good advice! Photography really is a learned skill.

Yes, to be a photographic "artist" requires innate talent and eye for design along with learned skills, but for real estate purposes, it's more skill than art.