Making Every Pixel Count talks about the importance of photography at real estate sites. “It’s so important to have photos that are professionally presented,” says Rosalind Clarke, a senior sales associate with the Corcoran Group. “If things look shoddy or unprofessional, not only are buyers going to find the property unappealing, they’re going to associate you with being shoddy and unprofessional.”
A Realtors’ association survey found that when it comes to web features that buyers consider “very useful,” 83 percent cited pictures, 81 percent cited detailed property information and 60 percent cited virtual tours. (I bet the tours figure is low because few sites offer them. I’d much rather see a video walkthrough of a place than a couple of still shots.)
Below are some example photos (befores are first, afters are second) from the article and accompanying slideshow. They show the difference good equipment, a wide-angle lens, and a sharp eye for composition can make.
A general photography rule of thumb is the closer the subject, the better the photo. But in these photos you can see the impact of taking a few steps back (or using a wide-angle lens to give that impression). It gives the viewer more context and makes the place seem more spacious.
Notice the impact of removing the loud green couch on the right.
Note how many of the after photos add in an outdoorsy touch (e.g. trees, sunlight, pool, etc.) They don’t just sell bed or bath, they sell “beyond.”
Tobias Varland
on 09 Apr 07Having just bought a house, I couldn’t agree more with what you’re saying. I found it incredible frustrating to look for houses online. Most sites list the basic information about the house, but the pictures stink. What they don’t seem to realize is that I’m not interested in the details if I don’t like the look of the house!
Christian Watson
on 09 Apr 07I couldn’t agree more. My house is currently on the market and my realtor brought in a professional photographer, which resulted in some great photos (click on the “photo gallery” button to see).
I don’t see why more realtors don’t do this – it makes such a difference.
Mike Hickerson
on 09 Apr 07My wife and I are looking at houses right now. We love older homes, and we expect that they will often need some TLC. Too many of these types of listings show only one or two photos, usually (I assume) because the rooms aren’t in the best possible shape. I’d much rather know what I’m getting into, rather than be unpleasantly surprised when I first visit the house.
Chad Burt
on 09 Apr 07What I find very frustrating is when photos aren’t even available. Look at Craigslist on a given day and half of the rentals listed lack photos. Don’t they realize that most people won’t even consider looking at a place without seeing a photo first?
Mark Gallagher
on 09 Apr 07Interesting post. Thanks.
All the “after” photos look better except for the kitchen shot.
The added “context” of stepping back alerts you to how narrow the kitchen is. I think the before works better from a marketing view.
Don’t ya think ?
Eric
on 09 Apr 07I think the second shots are much better. The problem is you are talking pro shots, not cheap. Probably an hour or two per finished product to capture and post process not including time to rearrange and refinish the rooms in question. While in property sales there is good reason for the use of such high priced services, in many other instances the P&S with a little training can produce pictures that are more than “Good enough” for a fraction of the cost.
The top shots show a hard on camera flash which is basically useless for and quality photography ( kitchen, second dining room, living room, apartment ).
The top shots have obvious defects / layouts that someone takes time to correct in the second ( kitchen = radiator; apartment = carpeting, fresh paint, clean windows; living room = ugly furniture ).
Outdoor shots were taken on different days / time of day.
The top shots don’t have even the most basic post processing including color correction, leveling, or saturation.
For someone who makes their lives off of pictures, use of the top picture without even basic corrections would be a mistake, but the bottom shot is much much more expensive and may not be appropriate for everyone or every situation.
Bernie
on 09 Apr 07Great post, reminded me to give my old camera with extra wide angle lens to my Mother in-law thats getting back into real estate…
Gives competitive edge in smaller markets I think
brad
on 09 Apr 07On the other hand, I’m actually a bit suspicious of professional photos because you can be sure they’re set up to make the house look as delectable as possible. I find I can judge pretty well even from amateur snapshots whether I’m likely to be interested in a home, and the amateur snapshots tend to paint a more honest picture of what the place looks like. I’ve seen a few houses that looked very attractive in the photos but were quite disappointing when viewed in person.
Peter
on 09 Apr 07Of course, using a wide-angle lens creates perspective distortion that makes rooms look bigger than they are. Good to get people in, but I’m sure a lot of them are disappointed once they see the real thing.
Erik
on 09 Apr 07In photos of real estate (or hotels, vacation destinations, etc.) an obvious wide-angle shot immediately sets off my b.s. alarm.
Peter
on 09 Apr 07Erik: Agreed. That picture of the apartment interior is a perfect example.
Nick
on 09 Apr 07Peter and Erik: I think you two are right to some degree, but any good Realtor makes the seller do everything he or she can to make the space look bigger in person, too.
Neutral paint, artwork taken down off the walls, knick-knacks put in storage, and so forth. Everything in staging a house is about creating space and allowing potential buyers to see themselves in that space.
So, as far as tactics to sell real estate go, wide angle shots are really just par for the course.
I think the photos make mostly a subconcious difference (the best kind when it comes to marketing) in the average viewer’s mind. Just enough to decide to visit house B over house A. In the end, though, the house will or won’t sell itself. After all, a wide-angle shot isn’t adding hundreds of perceived square feet.
Benjy
on 09 Apr 07I am also amazed at how few real estate listings don’t inlcude floorplans, whether CL or real estate agent sites. To many, even more important that the quantitative stats (ie. 2BR, 2BA, 1000 sq. ft) are things like they flow, room size, closet space, window/door placement, etc.
There are now services that’ll create very professional ones for a couple hundred dollars in a few days. Seems like a good investment when it comes to selling a home.
Bernie
on 09 Apr 07I think that people want to see the ceiling and floor if they can,,lighting etc…give u more information to make a decision even if it may look distored or not as big.. show me more..
Seth Winkleman
on 09 Apr 07It is so true that pictures make a big difference! I make sure I take my outdoor photos towards dusk and do my indoor shots when we have full daylight. I’ve also seen some photos with people in them, which doesnt look very professional!
shaun mclane
on 09 Apr 07Finally, someone mentions video tours over virtual tours. We have been doing this for awhile now and had huge success. I agree with great looking photos, but couple that with a nicely edited video and you get a one-two punch. Example here and here.
CJ Curtis
on 09 Apr 07I think the composition of the photography makes a huge difference. So to that end, the photo examples are much improved from before to after.
The wide angle shot, however, can backfire. It’s fine if you’re selling hotel rooms or vacation properties. But when you know potential buyers will be evaluating your home in person, the last thing you want to do is make a room look bigger than it actually is.
And that’s exactly what a nice wide-angle lens will do. Especially shooting from corner to corner.
Kevin Mackie
on 09 Apr 07Peter made a great piont about wide-angle lense distortion, and it’s at its worst when dealing with houses or other structures that insist of having 90 degree angles :)
Wide angle lenses are best for bringing the subject closer, and not for trying to fit more into the picture. However, there is a company called DxO Labs (http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo) whsoe software ‘straightens’ out photos from wide-angle lenses.
For an impartial review, check out Ken Rockwell’s website (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dxo/optics-pro.htm) and roll your mouse over the first picture. It really does do a nice job.
The other aspect (aside from framing) to keep in mind is white balance. This effects how ‘warm’ the picture looks and can vastly impact how a room is perceived. Most digitial cameras have this setting as do many photo-editing packages.
Prophetess
on 09 Apr 07I find it really sad that real-estate folks need to stoop to such deceptive tactics to get people to take a look in person. In each set of photos above, the “real” data about the place is much more obvious in the first photo. Those wide-angle shots make me think “bait & switch”. I’d rather have a 360-degree view than a set of wide-angle photos.
shaun mclane
on 09 Apr 07I don’t know if the wide-angle is really meant to be deceptive. If you notice, the wide-angle lens shows more features of the room, like custom trim, number of windows, etc. The only picture above that appears deceptive is the dining room, although, I’d be really interested in finding out the room’s dimensions.
Phillip
on 09 Apr 07At the real estate company I used to work for, we always photoshopped the sky “bluer” for outdoor shots.
jim
on 09 Apr 07We developed a real estate site, http://www.castlepinesvillage.com and I can tell you from experience that lower end real estate agents aren’t willing to fork over the $1k+ that it costs for them to get great pictures and vr’s. They would rather use the camera in their cell phone. But the higher end sales/developers are more than willing to have great shots and the 360 vrs and don’t mind the price.
I’ve always just assumed that it’s the cost out of an agents commission that keeps them from doing it.
Dennis Eusebio
on 09 Apr 07I’ve done about 10 real-estate websites in the last year and I have to say that 95% of the clients will not pay for a professional photographer for their properties.
It boggles my mind.
You spend thousands and thousands on other things that in the end don’t matter as much as simple clean photographs of your property. Not ones with date/time stamped on. Not ones with a gigantic flash and reflecitons everywhere. And not ones taken with your 2.5 megapixel camera.
pwb
on 09 Apr 07Great article.
Business idea: Have fotographers send in several dozen photos and then send back 10-20 that have been carefully selected, touched up, cropped, etc. This would cover many of problems except for the “sharp eye”.
Other business idea: the same for match.com photos.
ML
on 09 Apr 07re: wide angle lens…yes, it distorts somewhat but it also gets more information in the photo. i’m sure a lot of people looking to buy/rent a place would prefer a photo that shows more of the space even if it’s with a wider angle lens.
shaun: i agree, video is where it’s at. a good video can save you a trip to see the place. that’s good for agents too (they can qualify leads better and show more places in less time).
pwb: here’s a story about the same thing at dating sites: In the Computer Dating Game, Room for a Coach.
Jay Gilmore
on 09 Apr 07I have worked with Realtors for two years on RE websites (in Canada it is much different industry [only one major MLS vs the hundreds in the US]). The average commission on a house in Canada for an agent is probably around $7000CAD. No one in their right mind is going to fork over 5-20% of that to sell a house that, given time and the right buyer for the property will sell anyway. Keeping a slower home on the market will usually result in the agent asking for a reduction but that usually amounts to 5% of their commission lost not the 10-30%. This doesn’t include all the other agent costs, like print ads and other promotions
For a million dollar property in a saturated market a pro-photog will sell it faster but for a $200,000 house in a fast market it would be list a little lower.
You really have to look at the return that one will get on the photographs. It would be far better for the writer of the article to suggest the ways that one could take better photos for those everyday listings or to have the homeowner hire the pro photog.
I live in a very low price rural-ish market where houses are around $150000 and a 2hour session with a pro-photo will run you at least $400. If the commission is $3570 the agent is now out 10+%.
I would also suggest that agents are not keen to change the way they do things and that they have always taken their own shots and therefore that is all they will ever do. In most markets this will never change because of an established market. In California, where 1 in 12 people reportedly has a RE license there may be competitive reasons to take better photos.
Finally, as was said before, it would be better to see the harsh reality and be impressed once they visit the house vs thinking that their agent and the selling agent are trying to sell a polished turd.
Sincerely and all the best,
Jay
streetdaddy
on 09 Apr 07Couldn’t agree more having recently bought a property and trying to take a few photos myself. Ended up standing on the kitchen bench trying to get a good angle! I’ve sent this to the real estate agent, hope I don’t offend her but the wide-angle lens seems like a no brainer.
I don’t think a professional photographer is always necessary. Agents are all getting around with dinky little pocket cameras, but they could have a not-much-more-expensive camera that can use a wide angle lens.
Peter
on 09 Apr 07In general, yes. Especially when it comes to empty rooms like the apartment example above. The second photo makes that room look like a dance studio, whereas the top photo makes it look like a closet. The truth is probably somewhere in between. Perhaps stitching multiple photos together is a better alternative to photographing small rooms.
As for virtual tours, a friend’s Realtor told him that their effectiveness depends on the size and type of space. In some cases virtual tours will make the space seem smaller and less attractive.
ML
on 09 Apr 07Peter: Diff’rent strokes for us. I’d much rather see the larger apartment photo. I’ll take a distorted sense of what the room is like over no sense at all.
Evan
on 09 Apr 07I think Lessons in Virtual Tour Photography has some valuable insights into the real estate photography trade.
Pak-Kei
on 09 Apr 07I did that with (architecture student style) photo collages last year when I was looking for a roommate. I put the entry on Craigslist, and the amount of inquiry and the tone is very different (e.g. from “When are you free????” to “I love this apartment”).
However, I had a hard time showing them the apartment when they were actually there, because I feel like I deceited them a little bit by making the photos intentionally more spacious. In fact, I left a little hint to the people by making the photograph more distorted than it should, so they would know I exaggerated it a bit. I guess an honest designer cant be a good salesman. :)
pwb
on 09 Apr 07ML, thanks for the links to those personals-helper services.
As I think someone mentioned above, sometimes more professional shots can be actually worse. I’m not sure I agree for real estate photography but I definitely agree for personals. Which is why I think a service like SingleShots is actually bad. I think it would be far better to have unprofessional pictures professionally cropped and re-touched.
One more business idea: upload several pics to HotOrNot and see which one scores best.
Adam James
on 09 Apr 07You don’t always have to spend lots of money to hire a pro photographer. Heck you can just go and look at the free newsletter at Canon’s website. They have a specific section for this topic showing wideangle/off camera flash accessories and printers. A wideangle photo is much more useful then a picture of half a wall. If you think people won’t realize it’s a wideangle photo then stick a note on it since you should be putting on room dimensions. This is a good market for freelance photographers to fill for those agents/sellers who can’t afford a high-end photographer and don’t need a multiple lighting setup magazine perfect results.
I also think that the casual portraits are alot better then the repeative camera or webcam pictures you see on lots of dating profiles. Good photos, the ones that don’t look like magazine shoots, will look like your artsy cousin took a nice photo at the park one day. One that’s not wide angle and out of focus so your nose looks way too big. (Keep your wide angle lens for real estate photos.)
Adam James
on 09 Apr 07I hate to double post, but look at the refridgerator in the kitchen picture and the windows in the empty room. There’s plenty of elements to show you scale in these photos.
Eric
on 10 Apr 07this is a classic picture from a realtor site (now removed) http://www.boingboing.net/images/MAXEBRDI40033129c.jpg
check out the backyard…
RC
on 10 Apr 07Pictures definitely help get people in the door but its amazing how much smaller the rooms can look in person. You have to be careful to not distort the photos too much or the prospective buyers will just feel cheated. I’ve visited homes that looked nothing like their photos and felt like I was wasting my time.
tom
on 10 Apr 07Mark, I think that the kitchen seems narrow from the first one because the shot is taken from so up-close. In fact, the photographer probably had his back to the wall when he took it. In some cases there are very few ways to make a skinny kitchen wider (although Photoshop is always an option…).
Josh Colter
on 10 Apr 07Great post and comments!
In selling new homes, I was trained to pick and stand in key spots throughout the homes to maximize lines of site. Get the prospect to stand in corners looking diagonally across a room. Ensure that windows are to your back (evaluating a room with windows facing you will make it appear more enclosed).
This also works with a neighborhood lot before a home goes up on it. If a buyer thought that it looked a little small then I would walk with them to the back corner of the lot and turn around looking diagonally to the opposing front corner. The homesite looks 1/3 larger.
I spoke with Tom Richey (http://www.richeyresources.com/about.html), a leading expert in real estate sales training, about this topic once. He worked with a builder that dramatically increased sales of one particular floorplan by simply changing how the home was demonstrated to potential buyers.
Alain Pilon
on 10 Apr 07I am a serious amateur photographer and I would like to add some points:
- wide angle lens: wide angle is when you are below 20mm, which is almost impossible with 99% of the camera since they use cropped sensors. Only a full frame camera, such as the canon Mark II Dn would give you some real wide angle or using a 10-14mm lens on a ‘normal’ SLR. - Point and shoot camera wide angles sucks. - if you want to shoot with a wide angle, center the horizon in the middle of the view finder, it will minimize distorsion. - if you have great lighting in the morning/sun set, use a HDR pictures! It will give a big wow factor and its a 2mins job if you have a tripod. - I am in a market for a house right now and we never look at houses without pictures and if the pics are bad, we quickly lose interest. So good pics ARE important. - polarizing filter are good to remove reflection on the floor/table/windows. - Basic post production would be: color balance, boost saturation and remove marks on wall/floor (yes, thats cheating!) - The hardest part isnt to take the picture (at least for me), its to clean the place so it doesnt look like a mess!
alain pilon
on 10 Apr 07oups, sorry for the bad formating on the previous post!
Megan
on 10 Apr 07I think one of the reasons virtual tours are rated relatively poorly is that virtual tours in general usually suck. A decent sized, decent quality photo is much more useful (IMO) than a poor quality video or still photos crammed into a bad virtual tour platform that doesn’t even work half the time.
ron connor
on 10 Apr 07great post. you might get more reader than the nyt!
i read this in the nyt with great interest since i’m a realtor in NJ who tries to max out what i can do myself w/ photos. of course a seller ( or their agent) should use as many photos as the format allows. its is amazing that some ppl use ONE picture. fsbo’s are just a guilty as agents.
eric’s post ( no link) adds a great point to the discussion that the ‘before’ pix lack some basic care in post production. stuff you get free w/ any/many image editors. he also points out lighting. i have found that is the single most important factor: go to the subject property when the light (sun) is in the best position of the day for your shots.
one final thing from my experience: the wide shot is not always possible, so a purposeful ‘detail’ shot often will work very nicely.
pwb
on 10 Apr 07“virtual tours in general usually suck”
Couldn’t agree more. I think the culprit is Java. The Java-based viewers are simply horrible. It’s insane that whoever provides those widgets hasn’t move over to the much better, much faster Falsh.
netya
on 10 Apr 07The photos do look better in some cases, but the rest are more subjective in my opinion. Most people don’t have the means to create a nice virtual tour since it requires knowledge of lights, video and flow to make a video look nice.
The online viewer is another thing. A lot of them are slow and take forever to load. But youtube improves this area a lot. I saw this ad that posted a youtube video for virtual tour, which is pretty smart. http://www.findmyroof.com/ad/2969
Spats
on 10 Apr 07Wide angle lens shots are notoriously deceptive, almost to the point of fraudulent misrepresentations. Wide angle lenses make broom closet size rooms look spacious. Go through “good” real estate sites with a critical eye for what is really being shown and you’ll realize that what you see is definitely not what you’ll get.
Jeff Olsen
on 10 Apr 07I’m a Realtor ® in Eugene, Oregon. I spend hours every day perusing photo’s of listings… I’m sort of on both sides of the fence on this issue. On the one hand, it’s hard to deny that a good photo can be enticing, and that a bad photo can be off-putting. On the other hand… photo’s do a poor job of capturing the essence of a home, and most folks put a lot of stock in how a home “feels” (as they should). I’ve been in many a home with a great feel that had bad photo’s, and many a home with a bad feel where you kind of leave with a sour taste in your mouth, like you got bait and swtiched by the great photo’s! And bad photo’s won’t stop agents (in particular) from checking out homes for their clients- we are used to it. We are looking at location, price, type of home, etc.
So, about the best a good photo vs. bad might do is increase foot traffic a little, and that can’t hurt, but it’s very unlikely to sell the home for you.
Price and MLS exposure are what sells a home.
-jeff
Stephen Henesy
on 11 Apr 07Super post Matt. Some may think it’s obvious, but it just shows how much of a difference a thought out photo can make. I’ll be recommending this article (and comments) to my real estate clients. Cheers!
Peter
on 11 Apr 07Speaking of photos and panoramas, CleVR looks like it might help make that easier.
Dara
on 11 Apr 07Interesting comments, everyone.
I find it surprising that Realtors are expecting to pay $400 for a set of professional photographs. I work with a couple of companies that do video and virtual tours, and both are in the $100-250 range, and that includes the video/virtual tour (as applicable).
Dara
on 11 Apr 07Sorry… includes the professional photos AND the video/virtual!
Margaret
on 12 Apr 07Re wide angle lens, being in the business we feel it’s important to be a bit cautious on the use of these. Although we use quality photography we choose not to use wide angle lens shots on interiors. We have had many buyers comment who have gone to properties and been highly irritated that the “spacious” lounge shown on another co’s website turns out to be 6 feet wide… The feedback we constantly receive from our photography is that buyers feel reassured to see a property that lives up to what’s shown on the website, and we are building trust with them before they even walk in the door.
Louise Ewans
on 12 Apr 07I am a Real Estate Consultant and will not market any property unless the photos have been taken professionally. For approx. 20 photos we have a professional photographer who charges $300 and that includes displaying the house on a Real Estate website (www.open2view.com). Once you have explained to a potential seller the reasons for the professional photography there never seems to be any problem with the seller paying for this service. It can make the difference in the premium price you may receive for the property.
Nancy Ulrich
on 12 Apr 07We’re fanatics about the quality of the online photos of our listings and I can’t understand why more agents aren’t. A good picture really is worth a thousand words and ten times that to a seller’s bottom line!
With over 65% of buyers getting the first look at your client’s home on the internet, not having a professional photographer take pictures should be grounds for malpractice. Buyers DESERVE to feel like they’re buying something special and in a visual media like the internet image is EVERYTHING.
Agents have been spoiled by the easy selling climate of the past few years. Time to get to work folks! Wake up and get out there at 6:00am to get the light right for those north facing homes. Stage those homes (get some training or go hire someone). Learn Adobe Elements at least.
Good photography is even more effective for marketing less expensive homes. Everyone expects mega-mansions to have fabulous photographs showing the home’s features. But you really do get a more significant boost in home showings if you carefully present an inexpensive home well. I’ve lost track of the numbers of agents and buyers who’ve told me that they decided to come to our listings first rather than another just because they really liked the photos.
JF
on 12 Apr 07Great comment, Nancy. I think you’re spot on. It’s great to hear from someone who cares enough to go the extra mile.
Jeff Olsen
on 12 Apr 07I am certainly not going to advocate bad photography, but I think there’s not much differerence, in the end, between adequate and excellent. I don’t think you’d see much difference in the homes DOM. Serious buyers working with agents will get out and get inside ANY home that meets their target criteria regardless of the photo’s, within reason. In fact, there’s a school of thought that advocates NO photos, or just a very simple exterior shot. If you get too descriptive folks can think they learned all they need to from their computer screen, while the goal here is to get them into the home. I personally do not subscribe to that, though- I want photo’s.
My approach may be less “sales-y” than many agents, though. I’m not trying to “sell” my buyers a home; I’m trying to help them find the home they want. To that end, lavicious photography can be an actual negative in that the first thing the client feels is disapointment when they step into the home.
Personally, if I could choose how each listing would be presented, give me LOTS of adequate photo’s, price it reasonably for the market, and then get out of the way and let me bring a buyer! I’d much rather see that then $500 worth of professional photo’s and an unrealistic price. Contrary to “Stage this House” us buyer’s agents can do the math, and some good photos and fake furniture won’t increase a homes value to any huge degree.
Honestly, I think professional staging and professional photo’s are industries fueled by sellers who are in too deep on their home (equity loans etc) and the only way out is to sell it above market value- which is a very long shot.
Finally, realize that the dirty little secret of advertising for listings is that it’s at least as much for the agent’s benefit as the seller’s. It’s to get potential leads, increase the number of contacts. That may sell the home faster but it’s not necessarily the main motivation for the agent. To that end, it would be improper to ask the seller to pay for extra-special photo’s- that cost should be born by the listing agent.
All IMHO, of course! Neat forum you guys have going here!
-jeff
JR
on 13 Apr 07We have been taking Real Estate shots for years. We’ve always known that Realators want the phone to ring so they can engage the buyer and sell the house. Obviously you need to know what emotional images to take and you need a wide angle lens in order to get those images showing what a buyer should see in order to say ” I like what I see, and I can imagine myself being there and doing something I enjoy.” Virtual tours are okay, but getting a bit tired, video is better. And then there are the “franchises” out there who get their contractors offering Realators 40 plus images of a house and everything under the sun, working on the premise that more is better – showing everything imaginable! Not so. Get the right images that get the buyer making the phone call. There are so many tech run websites out there, open source and similar offering the same overkill, are these formula driven websites the norm? I’d rather be sold on the house with a few professionally taken photos and then ring up the person selling the home and take it from there…
This discussion is closed.