Realtors: "Poor imagery is not doing you or your client any favors" OR "make sure your photographer gives you what you are paying for"
I thought that I would combine the two topics above seen as I was going to take a couple of shots to illustrate my point.
I believe that quality photographs have a critical role to
play in the marketing of real estate, just how important that role is differs according
to whom you speak, I know successful agents who swear that the quality of
photographs are not important but then again I know some successful agents who
do not spare any expense and they seem to do pretty well for themselves as well.
The characteristics of what constitutes a quality photograph is open to interpretation,
I believe that photographs need to be clear, well lit representations of the
property that help convey the strengths of the property and fit into the
agent/brokers/owners marketing campaign. They do not need to be taken by proffessional photographers.
Whether you believe that quality of photographs play a role
in highlighting a property or not there is no disputing that the internet increasingly
plays a role in many buyers pre-selection strategies. As a buyer it is difficult to seriously consider
a property that has been marketed online if it has no attached imagery, there
are just too many choices with images to waste your time, and when faced with a
number of choices and a buyer's market I believe that the properties not
displayed adequately are also disadvantaged.
Imagery figures prominently in agents/brokers/owners
marketing campaigns, the money shot is the first shot a potential buyer sees, it
either commands attention or doesn't. On Realtor.ca and the print media booklets such
as HOMEGUIDE and "The Real Estate Book" the money shot is usually a
picture of the front facade. Realtor.ca
and the booklets websites "RealEstateBook.com" and "nshomeguide.ca"
act as a great equaliser when it comes to photographs as they reduce and compress the photograph to
such a degree that they can make any house look bad. The quality of imagery on agents and brokers sites are improving all the time in terms of the visual experience they offer, while alternative
sites to Realtor.ca which offer a lot more value to buyers such as "viewpoint.ca"
are making a strong bid to become the site of choice in Nova Scotia.
That is not really why I wrote this opinion piece it is
really for those agents who are using a photographer and still fall into the poor image category, you need to get fair value for what you pay.
The most important piece of advice that I can offer is talk
to your photographer about what you want, yes they may be the proffessional but like music everybody knows what they like and not everyone is a musician, it is
important that your view is articulated before shots are taken. I make a point of asking my agents whether
they have preferences, I have an agent who loves crown moulding and insists
that a couple of shots are taken that highlight this aspect; as an individual I am
immune to the charms of crown moulding and
probably wouldn't give it special attention if left to my own devices. Many agents will just give you the go ahead
and then probably simmer a little when the results don't match their non-articulated
expectations.
If you are paying someone the outputs that a photographer sends you should be in
focus, crisp (have clean lines), colours need to be realistic, lines should be
straight and the photographer should have some knowledge of how to present the room/feature being shown. Typically a photographer will use a super wide
lens when taking real estate shots.
These lenses tend to give you slanting verticals (look at the windows and doors), if the images you receive
have features that look like the leaning tower of Piza then
your photographer is being a little lazy, part of the price you are paying is for
post processing to ensure that these aspects are taken care of.
If your photographs are to be used in Realtor.ca the money
shot should be prepared to be displayed at an inordinately small size, the
thumb size is 150x110 pixels on the site while the other photographs dimensions
are slightly bigger (a height of 200 pixels and width of 240 to 320 pixels seem
to be the norm) they are still pretty small.
If looking for better quality the photographer should tailor images to
fit those dimensions rather than leave it to the site to resize and compress
the pictures. In practical terms your
photographer should supply the images in at least two sizes depending on their
use.
I took a few shots of our kitchen to provide a couple of
examples of what's acceptable and what's not (in my opinion).
Each of the shots is as it comes out of the camera with the exception of the HDR's
which were processed.
A pretty terrible picture of our kitchen, it was taken with an i-phone - the picture is soft, the light is all natural, the inside is dark the window too light, the dish towels and drying pots are distracting the list goes on - there are a surprising number of photographs of this quality advertising properties on the internet today.
I turned the houses lights on for this shot, you can see a few details out of the window, the picture is less soft but far from ideal , this too was taken with an i-phone.
The same setup as above, but taken with my Canon SLR, I removed the towel on the left and the pots, this shot has the same lighting as above but this is a HDR - (two or more shots that are tone mapped to produce a single shot), the colour is natural. Although the image is well lit it looks darker when reduced, one of the reasons to reduce it using software and treat accordingly.
HDR with the colours overcooked some people like it saturated, overcook it a bit more and the fixtures start to look like they were moulded in plastic. 
A single shot with a flash, the image is overcooked behind the hanging light where it loses definition (and there is a slight blue caste to the photo).
The same flash shot with a slightly warmer white balance.
Image taken with studio lights the colour
balance is good, it is clear, the image is in focus the verticals are pretty
straight.
I would be happy to tweak any of the photographs from the HDR on with the exception of the overcooked HDR.
If you look at the pictures on the left both are 200 pixels high (Realtor.ca size) there is a huge difference between the i-phone picture we started with and what we ended with even though the effect is partly mitigated by the pictures dimensions.
Neither photographs are great shots compositionally but in my mind there is no comparison, if I was a buyer and faced with choices in a certain price range and area I know which kitchen would catch my eye. If I was the seller I would seriously consider whether my agent had my best interests at heart if they used this particular i-phone picture or something equally grotty (please note I have nothing against i-phones I am sure in the right hands they are capable of producing amazing photos).I believe that "quality photographs" have a critical role to play in the marketing of real estate, I don't think that you have to have a professional to take photographs of your properties by any means but I do think that if you are advertising in certain media you should take advantage of what that media has to offer. The internet has become the channel of choice for buyers to view properties, visual imagery attracts attention to a property creating internet "foot-traffic", as sites marketing real estate embrace the opportunities offered by the channel, poor imagery will increasingly be exposed as bad advertising props, I do not see this trend regressing in the near future .
