Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No man don't do it for free.. I don't think it's cool that everyone will be making money and your not getting a piece of that cake.. Christina has a very good formula there. May be money is not an issue for you but it's also good to have extra cash for say "new equipment". Technology keeps changing in a blink of eye. If you can have the latest of everything id be great but at least have good equipment.
Use Christina's formula ask questions to photographer that are in this field.. Hope it works out for you...!!
Just so you know, there are still people out there who do real estate photography for a living, as in not having another job or trust fund paying for their expenses.
Please be mindful of that, and don't ruin your own colleagues pricing structures.
[...]
I think you should Google to see who else is doing this for a living in your area, and have a chat with them about pricing.
What you are suggesting is called price-fixing and is largely illegal in the US. Personally I price to beat my competition, mainly because I'm still building my business. The market is only a fixed size. By entering a business space I'm going to be taking business away from my competition by definition. It's a tough world out there, eat or be eaten.
I have no professional photography colleagues... I do a lot of free work for communities and charities...
What are you going to do, send a bunch of professional photographers after me?
I am sorry Poncho, but where I live RE's offer $7 for a property ....$7...not a typo. ONLY if it is a mansion they will pay the 3 figures they should pay. Very few RE photographers make 4 figures. 0.00000000000000001%. Dana Hoff is one of those who makes 4,5 figures doing this. He is a pro for the last 25 years though, and he's in South Florida in mansionland. (They usually exclude gas, time at photo shoot, time processing the photos after the photo shoot, the fact that we too are independent contractors or LLC's, and everything else for that matter).
Just a friendly request in the name of your favorite hobby: Please show some respect for this industry on your own; You must know that once you do that we all get asked to do the same, because the "precedent" has been created, and now "clients" expect us all to work for free. Magazines no longer pay for content=photos, without photos what would that magazine look like? yet most no longer pay for photos because of those who offered them for free. No one has an issue with anyone using a camera to shoot whatever, the issue is that while it might look "fun" at your end, the rest of the industry ends up suffering because nobody can truly call "photography" their career. (even though so many are willing to quit their day jobs to become photographers, because it was made to look so "easy", when the reality is that it is nothing but). You can't have a career without pay. Brides exclude "everything" that happens at weddings now and want 10,000 photos, and the RAW files too as if they have any clue what to do with them, etc. Have you seen how many newspapers have laid of all their staff photographers? Maybe you have another career that is paying your bills, some of us have been calling "photography" our career, and that is how we paid our bills. Please consider this next time you offer to do free work. For us, "free" is not paying our bills, and neither is photo credit. I get asked to work for free all the time. But I can't because I don't have another job paying my bills; this IS my job. All these photojournalists have been in this business and have made photography their career for over 30 years, now they were all fired, so they don't even get a pension; do you think that's fair? all because of the iPhone folks, who can snap a shot, but who don't have a background in photojournalism so that "that shot" also tells a story. Two different things. Just for your information, "charities" have a lot of money to spend in reality. You are getting screwed really. They have budgets galore, however they choose to "use" their "charity status" to ask people to work for free. If you don't believe me ask the folks at ASMP. Please remember who else used to work for free. (HINT: It won best movie this year at the Oscars).
@Christina: HDR is an artistic form of photography. In RE we call it "exposure blending". HDR is not really something to "rely"on, because when someone visits the property it will NOT look HDR'd. This home becomes a "product" when it is listed for sale, and if you mislead clients, it will end up sitting on the market longer. RE photography needs to be very clean cut, and not enhanced visually because when buyers stat coming the house will not look like the HDR image they saw online, and then the sellers look bad for "faking" the appearance of the home. The problem with that suggestion is that most people don't understand HDR (or the High Dynamic Range of an image), and the images are overcooked. Architects and interior designers won't accept HDR images of their spaces either because it doesn't portray the space they designed in the way they designed it. But just an "artistic" interpretation of it, which is not what they're usually looking for.
There are many classes online on how to shoot interiors/exteriors etc., the best way for the OP is to take a few, so that way when he goes to the property he has a better idea as to what he's doing. Lynda.com is one of them, and there's another class advertised on FStoppers's website...but what's important to remember when shooting architecture/RE photography/interiors/exteriors, is that each property is different. Some are empty of furniture, some have very heavy, dark furniture and will need to be lit quite a bit, others have large windows and you'll have to balance that out somehow...the biggest problem is to remember that this house has to sell!; because buyers today love to look online, and if they see crappy photos, they'll click "next", and that is not what sellers want. So OP be careful, because these people need to sell this house...Not trying to freak you out, but that IS the goal here.
It all depends - is that for a billboard, a publication, website, newspaper etc.?
Last month I did some commercial shots, and was paid $225 per 4 photos.
Most publicans pay from $25.00-$75.00 per shot. Most newspaper pay just $25.00 a shot.
That seem to be the norm at the moment.
You can also try to license an image on Getty for the same purpose to find their rate for stock photography, and work from there.
I am sorry Poncho, but where I live RE's offer $7 for a property ....$7...not a typo. ONLY if it is a mansion they will pay the 3 figures they should pay. Very few RE photographers make 4 figures. 0.00000000000000001%. Dana Hoff is one of those who makes 4,5 figures doing this. He is a pro for the last 25 years though, and he's in South Florida in mansionland. (They usually exclude gas, time at photo shoot, time processing the photos after the photo shoot, the fact that we too are independent contractors or LLC's, and everything else for that matter).
Just a friendly request in the name of your favorite hobby: Please show some respect for this industry on your own; You must know that once you do that we all get asked to do the same, because the "precedent" has been created, and now "clients" expect us all to work for free. Magazines no longer pay for content=photos, without photos what would that magazine look like? yet most no longer pay for photos because of those who offered them for free. No one has an issue with anyone using a camera to shoot whatever, the issue is that while it might look "fun" at your end, the rest of the industry ends up suffering because nobody can truly call "photography" their career. (even though so many are willing to quit their day jobs to become photographers, because it was made to look so "easy", when the reality is that it is nothing but). You can't have a career without pay. Brides exclude "everything" that happens at weddings now and want 10,000 photos, and the RAW files too as if they have any clue what to do with them, etc. Have you seen how many newspapers have laid of all their staff photographers? Maybe you have another career that is paying your bills, some of us have been calling "photography" our career, and that is how we paid our bills. Please consider this next time you offer to do free work. For us, "free" is not paying our bills, and neither is photo credit. I get asked to work for free all the time. But I can't because I don't have another job paying my bills; this IS my job. All these photojournalists have been in this business and have made photography their career for over 30 years, now they were all fired, so they don't even get a pension; do you think that's fair? all because of the iPhone folks, who can snap a shot, but who don't have a background in photojournalism so that "that shot" also tells a story. Two different things. Just for your information, "charities" have a lot of money to spend in reality. You are getting screwed really. They have budgets galore, however they choose to "use" their "charity status" to ask people to work for free. If you don't believe me ask the folks at ASMP. Please remember who else used to work for free. (HINT: It won best movie this year at the Oscars).
@Christina: HDR is an artistic form of photography. In RE we call it "exposure blending". HDR is not really something to "rely"on, because when someone visits the property it will NOT look HDR'd. This home becomes a "product" when it is listed for sale, and if you mislead clients, it will end up sitting on the market longer. RE photography needs to be very clean cut, and not enhanced visually because when buyers stat coming the house will not look like the HDR image they saw online, and then the sellers look bad for "faking" the appearance of the home. The problem with that suggestion is that most people don't understand HDR (or the High Dynamic Range of an image), and the images are overcooked. Architects and interior designers won't accept HDR images of their spaces either because it doesn't portray the space they designed in the way they designed it. But just an "artistic" interpretation of it, which is not what they're usually looking for.
There are many classes online on how to shoot interiors/exteriors etc., the best way for the OP is to take a few, so that way when he goes to the property he has a better idea as to what he's doing. Lynda.com is one of them, and there's another class advertised on FStoppers's website...but what's important to remember when shooting architecture/RE photography/interiors/exteriors, is that each property is different. Some are empty of furniture, some have very heavy, dark furniture and will need to be lit quite a bit, others have large windows and you'll have to balance that out somehow...the biggest problem is to remember that this house has to sell!; because buyers today love to look online, and if they see crappy photos, they'll click "next", and that is not what sellers want. So OP be careful, because these people need to sell this house...Not trying to freak you out, but that IS the goal here.
Then why do all good hotels and mansions have photos HDR? With photographers that charge 5-8k per property?
For example this is HDR:
EDIT: I've seen you mention fstoppers where this image is taken out of.
Do you consider HDR just the images processed in the HDR programs? Maybe that's it... Because I consider HDR everything that blends many exposures in order to achieve a Higher Dynamic Range of the scene that the camera couldn't otherwise. Instead of automatic, it's just manual HDR. To me they're all the same.
I never meant of saying HDR as just putting it thru an HDR program and that's it. I meant as blending several different exposures and use lighting to enhance some features.
Then why do all good hotels and mansions have photos HDR? With photographers that charge 5-8k per property?
For example this is HDR:
EDIT: I've seen you mention fstoppers where this image is taken out of.
Do you consider HDR just the images processed in the HDR programs? Maybe that's it... Because I consider HDR everything that blends many exposures in order to achieve a Higher Dynamic Range of the scene that the camera couldn't otherwise. Instead of automatic, it's just manual HDR. To me they're all the same.
I never meant of saying HDR as just putting it thru an HDR program and that's it. I meant as blending several different exposures and use lighting to enhance some features.
I think you are really confused about HDR, and it's purpose. That is a horrible photo, not sure why you stole it from their website...
Quote:
Posted by: kdog
On: 03-04-2014 02:12 AM
---Quote (Originally by PhotoProIP)---
Just so you know, there are still people out there who do real estate photography for a living, as in not having another job or trust fund paying for their expenses.
Please be mindful of that, and don't ruin your own colleagues pricing structures.
[...]
I think you should Google to see who else is doing this for a living in your area, and have a chat with them about pricing.
---End Quote---
What you are suggesting is called price-fixing and is largely illegal in the US. Personally I price to beat my competition, mainly because I'm still building my business. The market is only a fixed size. By entering a business space I'm going to be taking business away from my competition by definition. It's a tough world out there, eat or be eaten.
Actually, that is called re-search; not "price fixing". Price fixing would be IF PPA(or the Gov) decided that ALL photographers, in all states, should charge $25 for a high school portrait.
Every business, unless a chain, does market re-search to find out what other "similar" businesses (that provide the same service), are charging to NOT price themselves out of the competition, or to much below the competition. I think your approach is really rude overall towards your peers. In the end it boils down to your own cost of doing business actually; so pricing yourself too low, means that your profit margin is going to be very small.
My wife and I are RE photographers, that is all we do. We have been doing it now for about 10 years and shoot more properties than anyone else that I have talked with.
First HDR/Exposure blending. They are the same thing. HDR is the old term for exposure blending. RE photographers have moved away from calling it HDR because of all the really lousy images that were produced under that method. In some cases the end results looked more like a cartoon than a photograph. It appears that some people are now calling lousy processing "artistic". The simple truth is that it is a tool and as with most photography tools, if you can tell it was used then it was not used correctly. HDR/exposure blending when used correctly results in an image that matches what one would see under good lighting conditions. It should not distort, over saturate or mute the colors. It takes a lot of time and practice to get it right, most first timers don't.
Price: The market sets the price. It is up to you then to determine if you wish to provide the product at that price. All the suggestions about charging this or that are worthless unless they are servicing the same market as you. Also don't confuse a market with an area, every area has several markets. A simple example would be shooting high, middle and low end homes. Three different market and three different price points. Do some research into RE photographers in your area. Judge their quality versus the price and market yourself accordingly.
RE Photography: Real estate photography is not like shooting people or items. The purpose of the images are different and so are the techniques. In addition, you need different lens and flashes. Lens and flashes that work great on people, tend not to produce the best RE images. In addition, when photographing object and people you focus in the subject, RE photography is the opposite you focus in on the room.
$7 RE photography: I don't worry about the $7 photographers. Why, because they start loosing money if they drive more than a mile to the property. If they walk, how far are willing to walk for $7 and how many can they actually shoot at that pace?? Also, the photos look like the agent paid $7. The result is also way the same, after a short period of time what they thought was quick easy money turns out to be work that is not worth doing at $7. The agent using them get poor results and the market takes care of them. In short, they popup from time to time and die just as quick.
I think you are really confused about HDR, and it's purpose. That is a horrible photo, not sure why you stole it from their website...
Actually, that is called re-search; not "price fixing". Price fixing would be IF PPA(or the Gov) decided that ALL photographers, in all states, should charge $25 for a high school portrait.
Every business, unless a chain, does market re-search to find out what other "similar" businesses (that provide the same service), are charging to NOT price themselves out of the competition, or to much below the competition. I think your approach is really rude overall towards your peers. In the end it boils down to your own cost of doing business actually; so pricing yourself too low, means that your profit margin is going to be very small.
If you consider it horrible then why did you mention it in the first place as a good source of learning RE photography?
The purpose of HDR is simply to allow you to capture the whole dynamic range of a scene that a camera cannot, unlike our eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nealrm
My wife and I are RE photographers, that is all we do. We have been doing it now for about 10 years and shoot more properties than anyone else that I have talked with.
First HDR/Exposure blending. They are the same thing. HDR is the old term for exposure blending. RE photographers have moved away from calling it HDR because of all the really lousy images that were produced under that method. In some cases the end results looked more like a cartoon than a photograph. It appears that some people are now calling lousy processing "artistic". The simple truth is that it is a tool and as with most photography tools, if you can tell it was used then it was not used correctly. HDR/exposure blending when used correctly results in an image that matches what one would see under good lighting conditions. It should not distort, over saturate or mute the colors. It takes a lot of time and practice to get it right, most first timers don't.
Price: The market sets the price. It is up to you then to determine if you wish to provide the product at that price. All the suggestions about charging this or that are worthless unless they are servicing the same market as you. Also don't confuse a market with an area, every area has several markets. A simple example would be shooting high, middle and low end homes. Three different market and three different price points. Do some research into RE photographers in your area. Judge their quality versus the price and market yourself accordingly.
RE Photography: Real estate photography is not like shooting people or items. The purpose of the images are different and so are the techniques. In addition, you need different lens and flashes. Lens and flashes that work great on people, tend not to produce the best RE images. In addition, when photographing object and people you focus in the subject, RE photography is the opposite you focus in on the room.
$7 RE photography: I don't worry about the $7 photographers. Why, because they start loosing money if they drive more than a mile to the property. If they walk, how far are willing to walk for $7 and how many can they actually shoot at that pace?? Also, the photos look like the agent paid $7. The result is also way the same, after a short period of time what they thought was quick easy money turns out to be work that is not worth doing at $7. The agent using them get poor results and the market takes care of them. In short, they popup from time to time and die just as quick.
Exactly to me HDR and exposure blending is the same. I've noticed though lately, a lot of people that do "manual HDR" as in using several files and just layer mask it manually, have been distancing from the term HDR maybe because of the reason you state.
Nonetheless I always call it the same. It's HDR nonetheless. You are creating a High Range of exposure in one single file
Last edited by Lusitano_; 03-05-2014 at 09:29 AM..
Actually, that is called re-search; not "price fixing". Price fixing would be IF PPA(or the Gov) decided that ALL photographers, in all states, should charge $25 for a high school portrait.
Dead Wrong. "Price fixing is an agreement (written, verbal, or inferred from conduct) among competitors that raises, lowers, or stabilizes prices or competitive terms. "
Every business, unless a chain, does market re-search to find out what other "similar" businesses (that provide the same service), are charging to NOT price themselves out of the competition, or to much below the competition. I think your approach is really rude overall towards your peers. In the end it boils down to your own cost of doing business actually; so pricing yourself too low, means that your profit margin is going to be very small.
Market research is fine. I certainly did that. I found out what my main competitors are charging and I charge less than that. Why? Because I'm new, and elbowing my way into an already crowded market.
I certainly didn't call my competition though to discuss it with them like you suggested. Have you actually done this yourself? I can't even imagine what a small business person would do when faced with a call like that. I can tell you that in the corporate world, a marketing manager would hang up immediately on receiving such a call because it's flatly illegal.
Personally, I set my pricing according to what I think is a fair deal between me and the customer for my level of experience and where I'm at in my business. In many cases this is just a fraction of what the big names get. If that offends them (or you), then tough-noogies.
I would be charging per property. And the money is not an issue, but I do need to put a realistic figure out there.I don't have anything like this in my portfolio, so I want the job.
I'm not so sure you should charge per property unless you're doing what Ms Christina suggested and basing it off square footage of the house. Would you really charge the same amount for taking photos of a 1,500 sq ft home which only took you half the amount of time it took to photograph a 3,000 sq ft home? A bigger home with more rooms means more photographs taken which means more of your time being used up, both in photographing and post processing. There is no way I would charge the same rate for working longer hours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms_Christina
Flat rate per property based on square footage. 100-1000 Sq ft = $xxx, 1100-2500 Sq ft = $xxx and so on. You will need external lighting for interior shots. I recommend a tilt shift lens for strait lines. Shoot on a tripod and bracket for some HDR but don't over cook them. You can rent what you need if this is a one time deal.
All great advice. HDR works great with real estate photography as long as it's not overdone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
