John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

I think the camera part of the 'hire or do' real estate photography is an easy to use and flexible kit. Real estate images will range from wide angle whole house shots to tight inside room shots. That is where the gear flexibility comes in. A novice just sayin'.

edazz Loc: Florida via New York

I like realtors learning or being taught photography as much as they like home owners selling their own homes ,"For Sale by Owner". Let's face it, the real reason here is that you want to make a buck teaching photography by diluting the profession since your profession as a realtor isn't making it. You can't teach what you don't know! Stick to your craft and learn to market better. After all the thousands realtors make on one sale and spending absolutely nothing but their time, should be reinvested in better marketing.

fudney Loc: Seymour, TN

You can get by with a lower end DSLR with a lens in the 10-11-12- through 30mm range for interior shots, since you will be buying a crop sensor camera. You will also need a wide to telephoto for exterior shots. You will need a good flash, the on camera will not get it done, for dark or large rooms, especially with a wide angle lens on the camera. The tripod would be handy, but not necessary.

My wife and I searched for two years for a home in another state, which meant a lot of internet searching. The pictures on some were OK, on others horrible. We were not looking for multimillion dollar housing, so some of the photography suggested here, is indeed overkill.

I can tell you that what we wanted, as buyers, was something that represented the condition and design of the home and it's location and surroundings. We did not need the outside of the house and six pictures of one bathroom, with tape over the seat, in an interesting purple hazy glow.

I am not going to insult you, you probably understand what you are doing and understand you are not a professional photographer. You will probably take very good representative photos of what you are selling. On the other end you are going to try to teach people who do post, purple, fuzzy out of focus, photos of toilets with orange tape on them. Your biggest problem is going to convince your peers who believe these kind of photos are good enough, that they need to do better. I can think of things like,"I don't have the time.", " Why bother, they need to see it anyway", "I can't afford that kind of equipment.", being said to you constantly. Face it if your friends and fellow realtors could take the pictures you did, you could have let them borrow your camera, or rented it to them.

Have a good time, maybe you can help some and accept that some can not be helped. There will still be room for professional photographers, for your failed students.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

I took my own pictures of my last house for the Realtor to use...

DOMA Loc: Delaware

Pretty hard to keep it under $1000. A good used, ultra-wide angle lens, alone, would cost more than half that. I too am a real estate photographer and agree and disagree with a lot of what's being said in the threads. I think what separates my work from what a realtor can do is more than getting a nicely lit, sharp image. I spend a great deal of time setting up the shot, looking for the best angles, re staging wherever possible, using the foreground, background, depth of field and natural lighting to their best advantage. As a realtor, home owner or potential buyer walks the venue they see the home differently than what a photographer needs to capture in stills and virtuals for showing on a web site. In a sense, I'm saying teaching a realtor how to take pictures with professional equipment is hard enough, teaching them to be a "photographer" with a sense of color and composition, and is capable to handle any situation that arises, is something else again. Is marketing and selling houses a better use of their time instead of learning professional photography? I think so. My advice, give it a shot, talk to a few good realtors, see if the idea has legs. In answer to your first question, I think more like $2000 would be needed to get started.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Yes, it's possible to put together a basic kit of camera, lenses, software and essential accessries for the job, that has the potential to do an adequate job for $1000 US. In the right hands, presentable photos are possible with a minimum kit of gear.

However, how many real estate agents will have the eye for the work or will be willing to put in some months of studying and practice learning to use the gear and softwares well, let alone spend their time taking photos when they could be doing other things that they are better suited for?

As a former Realtor, real estate agent and a supplier to the real estate industry for 30 years... as well as a dedicated photographer for even longer... I can tell you this: Real estate agents would be better served taking that same $1000 and using it to hire a better equipped, more experienced pro photographer to take the photos for them. For that amount they likely could get four or five basic jobs done.... or one or two more upscale gigs.

Just one of my lenses that's used for architectural photography costs around $1000. Others cost over $2000. My cheapest camera cost over $1500. For good quality work, it would be more realistic to budget at leastt $10,000 for gear and then plan to spend the equivalent of a 2-year junior college degree studying and practicing to learn to use it well.

That puts aside other considerations.

Some people just don't have the eye for photography (it's obvious, looking at the photos on the MLS, that many real estate agents don't!).

Plus, how is a real estate agent's limited and valuable time best spent? The most successful I know (and I know a number... I worked in one of the top selling offices of one of the largest national firms and in one of the "hottest" real estate markets in the US) are very focused on the basics of real estate sales: Listing more homes, taking good care of their sellers and finding/assisting more qualified buyers.

The smartest and most successful agents outsource clerical work such as making marketing materials, including the photography... among many other things. Agents hate doing it, but are better off putting in "floor time" answering calls and dealing with walk-ins at their office, than wandering around taking photos of their current listings.

Oh, and by the way, a "Realtor" is a dues-paying member of the National Association of Realtors (and their local state's sub-association, such as the California Assoc. of Realtors, where I live), which is a large trade association and powerful political action force (among other things).

A "real estate agent" is a person licensed to act on behalf of real estate buyers and sellers, but is not necessarily a Realtor. Basically, all Realtors are real estate "licensees"... but not all real estate licensees are Realtors. It's optional to join the NAR and "be a Realtor". In fact, about half of all real estate licensees in the US are not. There are approx. 2 million RE licensees in the US... and about 1 million dues-paying Realtors.

So it really isn't correct to refer to all agents as Realtors.... Or, another way of looking at it, by specifying "Realtor" you're essentially ignoring half your potential customer base.

Although it's pretty common, calling them an "agent" actually is a misnomer, too. The exact terminology and licensing process vary a bit from state-to-state in the US, but in most there are two levels of licensee: broker (who technically is the "agent" ) and salespersons (who have limits on what they can do and are required to work under the guidance of a broker). Homes are actually only listed with a broker (agent), not with the salesperson who the sellers and buyers typically deal with. In some states there are also mortgage lender and some other types of licensees. The basic "real estate license" exam (70% fail the 3-hour exam here in Calif.) is required to become a "real estate salesperson", who then must work under the guidance of a broker. The first five years this is a "provisional" license, additional education must be completed before that license can be renewed (for an additional five years). And only after some years of experience, additional study and training can one qualify to take the broker's exam and advance to that level.

If Hell-bent on offering a "real estate photography" kit in spite of recommendations otherwise, you could bundle a Canon T5 in kit with EF-S 18-55mm IS II lens ($450 kit on Amazon), plus an EF-S 10-18mm IS STM ($300 most places), plus a copy of Photoshop Elements 13 ($80 on Amazon right now) , and a reasonably good Manfrotto (or other) tripod for about $200, plus memory cards, lens hoods, "how-to" books for the camera and software (about $20 each) and miscellaneous other necessities for a total around $1000.

But when I was selling real estate I worked 70 and 80 hour weeks even after delegating and outsourcing as much as possible (I probably spent $1000 a year just having my car washed regularly, for example... something I normally would just do myself). My focus was on finding and working with sellers and buyers. At my peak I was a multi-million dollar seller, but never really worked it to the level that the most successful full time agents and Realtors do. That was because I got my license and was active only part-time, primarily to improve my own expertise and understanding as a supplier to the real estate industry.

The best agents form trusted teams around themselves to handle the day-to-day stuff: clerical duties, making sales fliers, entering and maintaining their MLS listings, etc.... including taking photographs of the property. Basically, anything that doesn't require a license by law, the smartest and most successful agents will try to out-source rather than spend their own valuable and limited time.

It's a competitive market, too, trying to get sellers to entrust listing their home with you and your office. Top agents are constantly developing new listings and have future work "in the pipline". (We used to say "Well, I'm out of work... time to look for a new job!" with each closed sale and commission check received.) Top agents promote the fact that they utilize and are backed up by a team of professionals to better meet a seller's needs and get their home sold for top dollar. This out-sourcing often includes the photography and other marketing-related aspects of the home listing (...the wrong words on a flier or in an ad can put both agent and seller in court facing a lawsuit).

So most agents would be much better served spending that same $1000 out-sourcing the photographic work, rather than buying an entry-level kit of gear and trying to do it themselves. But a few will try to do it themselves, I'm sure. And some others might buy a kit for an unlicensed assistant or marketing person to use.

Pinenuts Loc: Genoa, NV

I recently sold my home. Because I was appalled at the quality of the pictures I saw on the Zillow and Realter.com websites, I decided to take all the pictures myself and provide them to the MLS. I am not a professional, but I consider myself to be a pretty good amateur. It turned out to be quite a challenge, but the results as shown in the listing turned out pretty well. The equipment you listed is pretty much what I used, but I think your equipment budget is way too low. My 17-35mm f/2.8 lens cost almost twice what you are budgeting. You could save a little by not using Lightroom. A free program such as IrfanView would provide everything you would need for post-processing jpegs. If I were a Realtor with limited photography experience, I probably would hire a service that specializes in this type photography.

Kuzano

I agree on one point and add another.

A $1000 budget is not going to get the job done, and it is not going to be a competitive threat to those in the biz of photographing homes. A successful realtor will quickly recognize that.

To be successful, a realtor has enough on his plate farming for leads, crafting the sale and closing the sale. Not very many realtors will arrive at success while learning another complete new profession.

Not everyone is capable of photography, and the left brain functions required to be successful in real estate sales do not lend themselves to the right brain functions required in photography.

Just turn it around and be aware of the reason many photographers fail in the trade, simply because they have NO business acumen.

If you are a major broker, with agent working under your tutelage (yes, I know the laws have changed, and at least here in Oregon, all agents are now registered as brokers), one way to reduce the income for your firm is to teach all your accolytes photography.

Stupid move. Up your budget to $2500... still won't work.

Actually you may lose many good agents/brokers when they find they have skills you forced down their throat. :XD:

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

The vast majority of Realtors wouldn't want the expense of hiring someone to take their images for them as it cuts into their profit margin. A high end Realtor would, but they are the exception rather than the rule...

skylane5sp Loc: Puyallup, WA

No offense, but you sound more like a used car salesman than any of the agents I know...

1200 listings in three years. Sounds like you had a lot of time to give good service to your clients. That's sarcasm, BTW. Must have been some real high end properties to have to be soooo busy.... And you're not retired?

My GF only has two active listings right now. One is 600 something and the other is 1.7 mil. Quality is definitely preferable over quantity. She had both sides of her last sale that netted her 60K. She doesn't need 400 crap listings a year.

skylane5sp Loc: Puyallup, WA

The 18-55 on a crop sensor isn't wide enough for interior shots. That why I bought a Tokina 11-16.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Interior real estate shots usually do best with a 10-20mm on a crop sensor or a 16-35 on a FF. There is leeway on both for personal choice. I gave you a pretty good average.

flip1948 Loc: Hamden, CT

Just read an ad on the New Haven CT area Craigslist. It was placed today by a NYC professional real estate photography outfit looking to expand into Connecticut.

They are looking for a very experienced real estate photographer to handle CT assignments. They require a very strong portfolio of real estate and/or architectural photography in order to qualify.

They want a list of your equipment as well.

They say each assignment would take no more than 2 hours and will consist of submitting 16-20 shots (bracketed exposures) in raw format with no post processing.

The pay is $225 per assignment and you may eventually get 2-3 per day.

Meganephron Loc: Fort Worth, TX

$1000 won"t get you very much. The camera doesn"t need HDR. They all do a lousy job. For good HDR you can gt a program at about $50. Lightroom not needed either. Photoshop Elements will do everything you need at a fraction of the price. Marginal equipment with marginal talent usually leads to less than marginal results

An established photographer with all the right equipment can make the house pop.

MByrum Loc: Baltimore, MD

Hi Yescats,
Well I'm very new to this forum. Just ran across this question and found the thread interesting.
I feel that you are onto something. Teaching a realtor how to use basic photography skills/tips and create better photos is a great idea. (I view lots of real estate listings cause I'm an investor.) I see some horrible photos and others that look fabulous.
My realtor used a point and shoot camera I think, but he knew how to position things in such a way that it looked appealing. That is half the battle in presentation. However, to be ready to make a recommendation for those who want to do better, is a good thing. Any such training you can add to your class will certainly set you apart in what you do.
I have done a similar basic training with teens in a library setting. They may never be pros or spend 1K on camera, but even with their cells they can take great photos for their purposes. Teach away! The Pros that do it at a higher level will not be affected and the endusers will be grateful for better photos of in their search.