Eliminating Distractions from Your Listing Photos

If you list (and photograph) homes, sooner or later you will run into un-photogenic distractions that can detract from the appeal of the photos. Some are easy to deal with, such as physically moving the trash bins from the driveway so they are not in view of the camera. Other distractions can be more challenging.

Perhaps the most common distraction is having a real estate sign in the front yard. While it's great for getting the attention of passers-by, it does not add to the appeal of the home in listing photos. Home shoppers viewing your listing online will be more attracted to your listing if the sign is unseen, because they are trying to visualize the home as their own. Since the signs are usually front-and-center, usually the best solution is to eliminate them from the picture using image editing software, as illustrated below. (We also digitally "watered" the lawn and improved the sky.)

Here's another example (not one of our photos). There are two distractions. First, the owner should have parked the car in the garage or down the street. Second, the light pole sticks out like a sore thumb.


In this example, the photographer can de-emphasize the light pole in two ways. First, shoot from a position that shifts the light pole to the side of the image. In this case the photographer did this but could have stood more the right. Unfortunately that also would provide an even more direct view of the garish traffic sign.

The best solution is to use a wide angle lens, then stand with the photographer’s back to the light pole while facing the front of the house, so that the pole is completely out of view. Even though the photographer will be standing quite close to the house, a sufficiently wide angle lens will capture the entire width and height of the house in one frame. The resulting photo will have some lens distortion but that problem can be easily corrected with image editing software. The result will be a relatively distraction-free image.

One might ask whether it is fair to depict a house like this without it's light pole. If in doubt, use pictures with and without the pole, and have the primary photo be the one without the pole.

Sometimes we're asked about power lines, antennas, and other distractions appearing above homes that we are photographing. While we feel that it is not right to eliminate them with Photoshop, there's nothing wrong with selecting the most flattering camera angle to de-emphasize them.

For Good Listing Photos Use the Right Equipment

Real estate photography, especially taking listing photos, presents special challenges, especially lighting and field of view.

Unlike studio photography, lighting is not easily controlled when out in the field, shooting photos of homes. The most common lighting challenge is managing high contrast. You can see many examples of this problem in any selection of non-professionally shot real estate listing photos. The intertior views of rooms will tend to be dark, while any windows will be completely white. This problem occurs because digital cameras cannot capture the range of brightness and darkness in the scene, so a compromise is the result.

Another common problem is field of view. Both with exterior and interior views of homes often requires getting in close to the subject. Normal camera lenses do not show enough of the scene, so the photgrapher ends up backing up to try to capture a wider view. There are limits to this technique, and the result is usually narrow views of rooms and exterior views that either do not show the entire house or are taken from a long distance away, so that you see a lot of sky and street in addition to the house.

Professional real estate photographers (and good listing agents who have learned real estate photography) overcome these challenges by first investing in the right equipment. There are three main pieces of equipment needed to get good real estate photos:

• a good DLSR camera
• wide angle lenses, and
• a tripod.

Most of what I have to say today is about cameras and lenses, but I mention tripods because they are essential for controlling camera movement. This may not seem like a big problem, but we could not do quality work without tripods. In many cases we do HDR (high dynamic range) photography to balance the lighting (solving the contrast problem mentioned above). If you learn how HDR photography is done you will quickly understand the necessity of a tripod.

DSLR Cameras

The best type of camera for real estate photography is a digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) camera. With a DSLR you have several advantages over less sophisticated point-and-shoot cameras:

What you see through the viewfinder is what the camera lens sees – because you
are looking through the lens. Non-DSLR cameras have a separate viewing lens for
the view finder, and what you see is not necessarily what the lens
sees.

You can use any of a wide variety of lenses, because the lenses are detachable and interchangeable. In most real estate photography a wide angle of view is essential. DSLRs can accommodate lenses with an effective focal length of 16 mm to 24 mm, which professionals rely upon for good results.

You can attach a separate flash unit to a DSLR camera, or you can attach the camera to an array of multiple flash units for more complex
lighting situations.

The disadvantages of DSLR cameras are that they are more complex, they are bulkier, and they are more expensive. For these reasons most real estate agents who shoot their own listing photos use relatively small, inexpensive point-and-shoot digital cameras.

Compact Digital Cameras For Real Estate Photography

Unfortunately, most of the point-and-shoot digital camera models are not at all suited to real estate photography. This is one reason that so many listing photos look amateurish, and why the best agents either buy good cameras or hire professional photographers.

The main problems with the vast majority of point-and-shoot digital cameras are that they don’t come with wide angle lenses that are needed for close-in shots, and they don’t allow you to add an external flash unit. As a result interiors tend to look dark, and the narrow angle of view captures too little of most rooms.

While those problems are true of most compact digital cameras there are a few that are acceptable compromises in comparison to DSLRs. Here are two:

Canon G10 (reqires a wide-angle converter)
Estimated price: $499

Panasonic Lumix
Estimated price: $479

Prepare Your Home for Photography

If you want potential buyers to view your home as potentially their own, you will need to “package” it for sale. Buyers are turned off by clutter, signs of under-maintenance, undesirable features, and a “lived-in” appearance that is overly personal. The ultimate goal is to make the home appear clean, well-kept up, and nicely furnished in a neutral way, even if “neutral” is not your personal style. This is the effect that professional home stagers strive for, whether they are staging a new home or a resale home. The goal is to make the property appear as much like a “model home” as possible. This helps potential buyers imagine it as their own.

To get the most from your “home for sale” photos, follow these tips before the photographer arrives.

Exterior

• Clear away vegetation blocking front door or path to door.
• Remove vehicles from driveway and front of home.
• Move all cars, boats, and bikes out of the driveway, and keep the curb clear.
• Hide the trash bins. They should not be visible from the front of the home.
• Mow and edge the lawn. Rake any loose leaves. Pull any weeds. .
  Trim bushes.
• Sweep the patios.
• Clean the patio furniture.
• Wash the windows.
• Wet down the brick patio and concrete pool surround to avoid it being too bright in photos. Wetting it down also brings out the rich color in the brick.

Interior

• Remove evidence of pets.
• Put away children's toys.
• Open drapes and blinds.
• Turn on lights.
• Remove trash cans close toilet lids in bathrooms.
  Vacuum the carpets.
• Make the beds.
• De-clutter each room as much as possible.
• Remove all personal photos.
  Remove all personal effects, especially whatever is hanging on the refrigerator.
• Move excess furniture out of the way. You don't want the photographer to be shooting directly into the backs of chairs.
• If necessary, bring in more furniture from other rooms to avoid blank holes in the photo.
  Add homey touches where needed. Candles, flowers and coffee table art books all add character to a room and are inexpensive ways to decorate.
• Set the dining room table with fresh flowers, complete place settings and ironed linens.
  Remove all electrical cords from view.
• Tidy up bookcases, fluff couch pillows.
• Flip the cushion over if Fido has been there, or use a throw to cover the stain.
• Clear the kitchen and bathroom countertops of all unnecessary items.
• Clean the surfaces of the appliances.
• Clean bathroom mirrors and glass shower doors.
• Remove all visible waste baskets.
  
  

Is Your Front Exterior Listing Photo a "Money Shot?"

When you put it altogether even a modest home can look inviting without misrepresenting the appearance of the home. Above is an example, with a listing agent's photo on the left, and our re-shoot on the right.Unless the only good photos a house can offer you are on the inside, it’s essential to get an outstanding front exterior photo. That's the picture that must stop the online home-shopper in their tracks. It should make them want to see what the inside photos look like. If the outside shot fails to "zing" them, they will pass your listing by in two seconds or less.

Therefore, it is worth extra time, extra effort, and (if you choose to use a professional photographer) extra marketing investment to make this a true “money shot.” It’s the one picture that can save – or lose – weeks of marketing time and possibly many thousands of dollars at closing.

Here are a few tips to help you understand the range of possibilities for making your “money shot” stand out from the competition.

• Prepare the property properly for photography. I will post a list of do’s and don’ts in my next blog entry.
• Use the right equipment. Cheap point-and-shoot digital cameras are fine, but not if you want to produce good listing photos. I’ll be discussing the minimum gear, so stay tuned.
• Eliminate or downplay distractions. Many listing photos are “almost good,” but the photographer allows a significant blemish to remain in the image, to the great detriment of the result. In future posts I’ll provide examples and pointers on how to work around these problems.
• Try different camera positions to find the most pleasing composition. It’s amazing how much better a listing photo can be made just by standing somewhere other than in the most obvious camera position, and possibly lowering or raising the camera a couple of feet. 
• Consider alternatives to the basic head-on primary shot. Sometimes the side or rear view of the home is better than the front. I’ve shot homes where the side was the front, if you consider the “front” to be the side of the house where the front door is located. In that instance the “side” faced the street, and offered a very drab photo opportunity.
• Make sure the light is adequate for photography. Unless you are a master of high dynamic range photography and have the equipment and software to employ it, you will need to have either good available light or you will need to use flash photography to expose the photos properly. At our firm we tend to use flash very little, preferring HDR for its superior quality.
• Shoot the house in optimal light. If you show up to the property at the wrong time of day then you may find the front of the house in dark shadow, which can be a problem to shoot. Worse, you might get there when the late afternoon sun is shining straight into your viewfinder, making proper exposures impossible. Similar problems can arise with interior shots: bright outside light typically causes windows to appear like glowing white blank screens, and the rooms themselves end up too dark. These situations call for either better timing, when light is balanced, or lighting manipulation. 

It’s alright to fool Mother Nature, up to a point. Listing photos should always present an honest view of the subject property’s features, size, condition and other physical attributes. But it’s OK to take small liberties to make photos look better, when such liberties do not misrepresent the real estate itself. For example, it is fairly common to replace boring gray or flat blue skies with more photogenic ones. Lawns with a tinge of brown might be greened-up a bit, reflecting the effect of a few days of actual watering.

When you put it altogether even a modest home can look inviting without misrepresenting the appearance of the home.   

Do-It-Yourself vs. Professional Real Estate Photography

"Increasingly, agents and sellers are turning to professional photographers
to do what they themselves cannot: Take those jaw-dropping glamour shots
even when the home isn’t a mansion or an architectural gem."
[SOURCE: LA Times]

Which of these two Big Macs would you rather eat?


I admit it. I’m biased toward professional real estate photography, since I take photos of homes for a living. But if you’ve spent any time looking at online home listings I think you’ll have to agree, amateurish photos of homes can be quite a turn-off. Amazingly, even high-priced homes often are presented as if they are the result of a “drive-by shooting.”

For example, here’s a home located in my local market. It’s listed at nearly $1 million.


No pro photo, this one. Do you like the lovely blue tint? How about the time stamp that shows it was taken in May (it’s now September and the property still hasn’t sold, but the same photo is still being used to market the property).

I drove by the home with my partner and we decided to re-shoot it just for kicks. It took us about five minutes:



Our improved photo is not presented as a boast, just an illustration of how much better a million-dollar home can be presented with knowledgeable use of a camera. No blue cast, we’re in closer instead of across the street, we’re up higher so we can see over the fence and can appreciate the landscaping, the details of the entryway, etc.

Good Listing Photos Sell

My point is simply this: presentation matters. People connect emotionally to pictures, so whether one is selling Big Macs or homes, pictures can either help or hinder that connection.

Based on what I’ve seen and what many real estate agents have told me in recent months, most real estate listing photos are taken by the listing agents themselves, or sometimes by a staff person who provides marketing support to a team of agents. Listing photos are even taken by the companies that put out the “for sale” signs on the lawns. That tells me something about the perceived importance of the photos, at least when the homes are not mansions. Professional photography seems to be reserved for luxury homes.

As a professional real estate photographer, I’m always interested to know the reasoning behind this phenomenon. The majority of opinions among real estate agents seem to break down as follows:

Professional photography is not considered to be worth the expense unless the home price is over $1 million.

1. My sellers generally don’t want to pay for pro photography and I don’t either, unless I have to.
2. (This seems to say “I don’t see the value.”)
3. My photos are good enough – I don’t need to hire a pro.
   

Lets examine these ideas.

Is pro photography worth the expense?

First of all, let’s quantify the expense. Most professional real estate photographers charge somewhere between $200 and $350 for a set of photos that can be used for the MLS, flyers, virtual tours, and so on. At our firm, we currently charge $200 for a ten room house, and a little more for larger homes with more rooms. It takes us about three to four hours to do an assignment, including photography, photo editing and travel time. That works out to somewhere between $50 and $67 per hour in compensation.

Is this expense worth it? It all depends on one’s options. From the point of view of the listing agent, if they are a good photographer, with good equipment, and can take good photos, then they can simply compare the cost of their time against that of a professional. Successful agents who highly value their time may conclude that it’s cheaper to hire a pro. Low-producing agents will conclude the opposite, but then most low-producers are not good real estate photographers, it seems.

Problem is, many (if not most) real estate agents are not good photographers, so just comparing the time they would spend vs. the money is not necessarily valid.Are any real estate agents good photographers? I believe some are, but it’s hard to tell because good photos are not signed by the photographer. However, any time spent browsing through real estate listing web sites will quickly convince you that most real estate agents are not good photographers. About one-third of the photos are good, one third are fair, and one third are either poor or entirely absent.

Of the good photos, most depict upper-end homes, so many of those are probably shot by pros or talented in-house staffers.

Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, one of the leading real estate firms is Pacific Union. They tend to specialize in the luxury home market. They require each of the sellers they represent to agree to professional real estate photography services as a condition of the listing.
At the other end of the spectrum, many real estate companies seem to care little or not at all if their agents depict client properties poorly in their online marketing. (See BadListingPhotos.com). What we see in the “fair” to “poor” categories of listing photos runs the gamut from little to no preparation of the home itself for photography to amateurish handling of the camera. Not to mention inattention to editing of photos to fix simple problems such as color casts, lens distortion, contrast and composition.

I wonder why so many agents (and the sellers that hire them) set such low standards in this critical area of marketing their product? Is it laziness? Perhaps, but I know many hard-working agents who use poor listing photos. I tend to think that it is simple ignorance. Real estate agents are not trained to perceive the difference between good and bad listing photos, so they are indifferent about improving their own photography or hiring professionals.

I ran across a response to a blog posting recently from an agent in Virginia that questioned the do-it-yourself approach:

"I think that agents should stick to what they know, and hire out for
pictures…there is no excuse not to; it’s and inexpensive ROI, considering that
photos get people in the door, and that’s how homes are sold. Every photo and
marketing opportunity needs to be optimized for web viewing and browsing. Good
photographers bring lighting to a shoot and we all know what lack of good
lighting looks like. Most of us don’t cut our own hair…we shouldn’t take our own
pictures, either."

Deborah A. Rutter
Virginia Realtor

Listing Photos for REOs are Among the Worst

There’s another prevailing view about pro photography that often surfaces in today’s market: REO property, which usually means vacant property, is not considered worthy of professional photography or staging. The feeling seems to be that since the bank won’t spend a nickel on anything to help sell the house, and since the bank can be expected to simply lower the price if the property isn’t selling, why waste money on fancy photos?

I have had agents who sell REO explain this to me and I’m still baffled. Wouldn’t it help them earn more REO listings if they could show the bank asset managers they are actively and intelligently marketing the bank’s foreclosures, trying to minimize the bank’s loss (instead of simply settle for the most convenient offer)? Good photos can be strong selling tools, even for vacant homes. Today we are using virtual staging to warm up the otherwise soulless look of a vacant home. The cost for this added service is low, and the potential for faster sales and higher closing prices is high. So it would seem to be a mistake to dismiss the value of good listing photos for REOs as well as normal listings.

Bad Listing Photos Cost Sellers Time and Money

Both agents and sellers pay for this error in judgment. I believe it is a serious error because we now know from various surveys (NAR’s included) that over 90% of home buyers start their search for a home on the Internet, and the listing photos are the single biggest influence in determining which homes are selected for further investigation. Bad listing photos cause buyers to skip over properties that don’t “zing” them, visually speaking.

If a real estate agent insists on taking their own listing photos, then it would be in their best interest (and their sellers’) to make sure they know how to produce good ones. This starts with having the right equipment (Digital SLR camera, wide angle lenses, tripod, image editing software, etc.). They also need to know how to compose a pleasing picture, how to expose it correctly, and how to edit each photo. A professional normally spends anywhere from two to four hours performing these tasks. Given the many tasks real estate agents must perform, I doubt that many of them put this amount of time into taking their listing photos.

If you are a home seller, you should be asking your listing agent during the listing presentation to show examples of their past listings, including pictures. Ask them who will be taking the pictures of their home to ensure that they will present the home at its best. Buyers want to see pictures – lots of them – and the better the home looks in pictures, the more buyers will ask to see the property.

Conclusion

Professionally shot pictures will have up-front costs, but the returns to the seller and listing agent usually more than compensate. Whether the market is hot, or not, the better the photos, the higher the response rate to your professionally photographed listing.

In the end, you and your seller should be asking yourselves "Which costs less: professional real estate photography, or your first price reduction?"