Architectural - Wide Angle Fail: This is a cautionary tale: I'm guessing this RE agent just bought a new wide-angle lens and just couldn't resist. These were posted in our MLS. I...

mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

This is a cautionary tale: I'm guessing this RE agent just bought a new wide-angle lens and just couldn't resist. These were posted in our MLS. I apologize in advance if these cause a bit of vertigo. Be careful out there!

RichardQ Loc: Colorado

This RE agent obviously has fallen down an "Alice In Wonderland" rabbit hole! I assume he/she wanted to make tiny rooms look like dance halls, but ended up with "fun-house" nightmares.

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

I agree these are bad but unfortunately they aren't the worst I've seen. I've been internet house shopping lately and some of the stuff I've seen seriously makes me nauseous. So bad that I don't even want to inquire about the houses.

mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

waegwan wrote:

I agree these are bad but unfortunately they aren't the worst I've seen. I've been internet house shopping lately and some of the stuff I've seen seriously makes me nauseous. So bad that I don't even want to inquire about the houses.

Here's another horror... an actual screen grab from our MLS.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

mallen1330 wrote:

Here's another horror... an actual screen grab from our MLS...

The wide angle shots are not really that bad. They serve the purpose of documenting the condition of the property (including the stain on the wood floor). At least they are level. What would be the point in having them be beautiful? It's the house that is for sale, not the photographs. At least they are level.
The second sample with the cockeyed images is ridiculous - nothing redeeming.

mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

selmslie wrote:

The wide angle shots are not really that bad. They serve the purpose of documenting the condition of the property (including the stain on the wood floor). At least they are level. What would be the point in having them be beautiful? It's the house that is for sale, not the photographs. At least they are level.
The second sample with the cockeyed images is ridiculous - nothing redeeming.

The purpose of RE photography is to present the property in its best light in order to attract potential buyers searching on the net. Homes for sale are a product. Product photos for marketing are not just "documenting the condition...", but intended to sell the product. That's the point of "...having them be beautiful.."
As waegwan said, bad photos cause potential buyers to simply move on to other listings. Bad RE photos say: "that agent doesn't really care -- is not serving his clients well."

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

mallen1330 wrote:

Here's another horror... an actual screen grab from our MLS...

Yup that is some of the stuff I was referring to. IMO if that is all the more the seller and or realtor cares about showing the house they are not going to be interested in facilitating the sale. I'll skip it and move on.

CKBailey Loc: Omaha

I'm interested in learning more about Real Estate Photography and for as many articles, websites, and YouTube videos that I have read there are an equal number of opinions. Right now I have a wonderful Nikon D750, but just the "kit" lens 24-120. How wide is wide enough on a full frame camera so that my images don't look "scary". I am not independently wealthy :)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

CKBailey wrote:

I'm interested in learning more about Real Estate Photography and for as many articles, websites, and YouTube videos that I have read there are an equal number of opinions. Right now I have a wonderful Nikon D750, but just the "kit" lens 24-120. How wide is wide enough on a full frame camera so that my images don't look "scary". I am not independently wealthy :)

Since real estate images are either posted on-line (2 MP or less) or printed in brochures (even smaller) you are probably OK with what you have.

The super-wide versions above may be overkill but you might want a prime or zoom lens slightly wider than 24 mm in tight quarters.

Save the big bucks for more demanding forms of photography.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

I am a full time professional real estate and architectural photographer. The 24mm on your kit lens will work extremely well while you gain experience. Try composing two walls, use a tripod and make sure your camera is level. Many wannabes shoot way too wide. I do use a 14-24 a lot and I usually keep it on 24mm. Your tripod is key and a geared head like the 410 Junior works really well. Have fun.

CKBailey wrote:

I'm interested in learning more about Real Estate Photography and for as many articles, websites, and YouTube videos that I have read there are an equal number of opinions. Right now I have a wonderful Nikon D750, but just the "kit" lens 24-120. How wide is wide enough on a full frame camera so that my images don't look "scary". I am not independently wealthy :)

CKBailey Loc: Omaha

selmslie wrote:

Since real estate images are either posted on-line (2 MP or less) or printed in brochures (even smaller) you are probably OK with what you have.

The super-wide versions above may be overkill but you might want a prime or zoom lens slightly wider than 24 mm in tight quarters.

Save the big bucks for more demanding forms of photography.

Thank you for the advice

CKBailey Loc: Omaha

DavidPine wrote:

I am a full time professional real estate and architectural photographer. The 24mm on your kit lens will work extremely well while you gain experience. Try composing two walls, use a tripod and make sure your camera is level. Many wannabes shoot way too wide. I do use a 14-24 a lot and I usually keep it on 24mm. Your tripod is key and a geared head like the 410 Junior works really well. Have fun.

I have looked at your work by following a link from a previous question. Yes, I remember your thoughts on composing 2 walls and staying level, so your suggestion on the tripod is appreciated. I have a tripod that I used but it is at least 15 years old and I haven't researched that area yet. I am relieved to hear that my lens is acceptable for now. This interest is still in the beginning stages but I am a motivated learner.
Thank you,
Cindy

mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

CKBailey wrote:

I'm interested in learning more about Real Estate Photography and for as many articles, websites, and YouTube videos that I have read there are an equal number of opinions. Right now I have a wonderful Nikon D750, but just the "kit" lens 24-120. How wide is wide enough on a full frame camera so that my images don't look "scary". I am not independently wealthy :)

I have many lenses, but for real estate, I ONLY use my EF-S 10-18mm F4.5 (Canon crop frame). equivalent focal length range of 16-28.8mm. I find that I need the widest for small rooms like small bedrooms and baths.

I suggest saving $$ for a couple good strobes and remote triggers. I use Yongnuo YN560-III Speedlites, and Yongnuo RF-603C II Wireless Flash Trigger

See: http://photographyforrealestate.net for tons of good advise and tips.

Especially: http://photographyforrealestate.net/2014/01/27/bracketing-with-flash-for-exposure-fusion-and-hdr-revisited/

mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

selmslie wrote:

... Save the big bucks for more demanding forms of photography.

[begin sarcasm]
Do you care to qualify that statement? :-D :shock:

I hope that what you are referring to is the fact that: 1) architecture doesn't move, so we don't need high performance super fast lenses, 2) we can get as close as needed, so we don't need super telephoto lenses, 3) "decisive moment" is not an issue, so we have time to compose (with tripod) and augment lighting.

I assume you are NOT saying: 1) Architecture photography is easy, 2) RE Agents don't care about quality, 3) Less IQ is okay for publishing in print and on the web.

Working for architects, builders, and real estate agents, is the MOST demanding form of photography IMHO. I find that they are all very impressed with the amount of photo equipment I have -- even though I use only a very small fraction of it for their shoots. [end sarcasm]

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

mallen1330 wrote:

... Do you care to qualify that statement? :-D :shock: ...

You can be sure that I did not mean to imply that architectural photography it is easy, but residential real estate photography is a very special vernacular subset and I doubt that MOMA is going to collect much of it. It does not need to be good enough to frame and hang in a museum or publish in anyone's retrospective.

When someone is looking to buy a piece of residential property they are looking for information, not for an artistic image. It only needs to be good enough to whet their appetite. The series of images is telling a story about the property. Individual images don't need to stand out as artistic masterpieces.

What I meant by demanding is that, if all you need is enough for a 2 MP or less display, almost anything over 6 MP is probably overkill, especially since you are not likely to be cropping much out of the image. You just need to keep the camera still and level (a tripod helps), use a wide enough focal length and get the exposure right. You can do that with a modest camera.

Architectural photography of the outside of a structure is a horse of a different color.