Realestate

[88jbody]

what does the average family make in calgary becasue if it is 200,000/ year man I must be living in poverty

edit here is the 2006 family income averages;

calgary is in the 90's I wish I was making that.

[ThE tV 8 mE]

^ can you post the link that you got that from? Seems like it might belong to an interesting article!

Originally posted by 89coupe
Those look really nice. So what do you charge for a package like that?

Hehe, I dont charge anything. I'm a realtor
www.WolfHomes.com

[88jbody]

http://www.muchmormagazine.com/2008/...ome-now-70400/

I will add that I am pretty sure those numbers include 2 income families as well.

[89coupe]

Originally posted by ThE tV 8 mE
^ can you post the link that you got that from? Seems like it might belong to an interesting article!



Hehe, I dont charge anything. I'm a realtor
www.WolfHomes.com

Haha, nice! Why hire a photographer when you can do it yourself.

[Go4Long]

Originally posted by 88jbody
http://www.muchmormagazine.com/2008/...ome-now-70400/

I will add that I am pretty sure those numbers include 2 income families as well.

interesting...I'd be curious to see what it was just counting single incomes. mind you I'm not that far off the average with a single income.

[Jlude]

Originally posted by 88jbody
what does the average family make in calgary becasue if it is 200,000/ year man I must be living in poverty

edit here is the 2006 family income averages;

calgary is in the 90's I wish I was making that.

Saint John @ 68,300!


Yes I'm sure this is combined income.

[88jbody]

yeah I am a single income family and when I lived in Saint John NB I was making about 28,000 this is only 5-6 years ago now.

we'll have to see how much my bonus works out to be here in Calgary to see how I do here

[AccentAE86]

holy smokes this thread has gotten crazy.

To get back to the original topic, if you wanted to be serious about shooting real estate, I'd invest in some tilt-shift lenses.

To shoot homes, I typically use:

Canon 1Ds Mark III
Canon 24-105mm
Canon TS-E 24mm
Tokina 11-16

The ultrawide distortion that many talk about is greatly exaggerated due to PERSPECTIVE distortion, and NOT OPTICAL distortion. Perspective distortion can be totally controlled by using proper technique. That will minimize the distortions and give you very usable images even at 14mm on full frame.

I try to shoot with the TS-E 24mm the most.

The lenses are the easy part. The hardest part is balancing your lights. In almost all cases, you need to add your own light to a room. Dark spots is a no-no in architectural photography. You can provide some fill light into the shadow areas but still not lose the mood of a room.

As someone mentioned, it usually does take about 30-45 minutes per shot. I could never do a whole house in 1.5 hours.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by AccentAE86

The lenses are the easy part. The hardest part is balancing your lights. In almost all cases, you need to add your own light to a room. Dark spots is a no-no in architectural photography. You can provide some fill light into the shadow areas but still not lose the mood of a room.

Interestingly enough there are two schools of thought on this as well.

Some feel that it is actually a photography faux pas to add lighting to room where it normally doesn't exist.

However again, it depends on your client.

[soupey]

....all this talk about adding lights to fill in dark spots makes it sound like you're trying to achieve HDR results without taking multiple images , rather than spending so long with one photo, wouldn't you be better off taking multiple exposures and exposing portions of your photo manually in photoshop later?

the whole process/expense of buying wireless flashes and arranging them seems like nonsense if you could achieve the same effect this way, unless you just enjoy the challenge of getting it right.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by soupey
....all this talk about adding lights to fill in dark spots makes it sound like you're trying to achieve HDR results without taking multiple images , rather than spending so long with one photo, wouldn't you be better off taking multiple exposures and exposing portions of your photo manually in photoshop later?

the whole process/expense of buying wireless flashes and arranging them seems like nonsense if you could achieve the same effect this way, unless you just enjoy the challenge of getting it right.

The difference is that with HDR, etc. you're only adjusting the level of light already existing in the scene. By adding light, you can manipulate how the light effects the scene, as directional light provides far greater flexibility than just ramping up the shadows in post.

[ThE tV 8 mE]

^ but you dont acheive the same effect with an HDR like you do flashes...

edit, was too late. read what the guy above me wrote haha

[quazimoto]

Yeah $150 is good coin per house. I do about $100-$150 per house. The realtor I work for varies the price based on a variety of factors. Mainly size of the house and the overall listing price of the house. Typically requires 30-60 minutes. For a full-time photographer it's not a horrible gig to do 8-10 times a month. The extra thousand dollars a month for doing something that really requires very little time or effort isn't that bad.

There are many ways to make money as a photographer and it never hurts to do more than just one type.

[soupey]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


The difference is that with HDR, etc. you're only adjusting the level of light already existing in the scene. By adding light, you can manipulate how the light effects the scene, as directional light provides far greater flexibility than just ramping up the shadows in post.

ah ok, that makes more sense, when the person above said something about "dark spots being a nono", kinda made me think thats the premise behind HDR photos...no contrast....

but if the light is being used to create a mood or whatever else, that makes much more sense.

[HRD2PLZ]

Originally posted by sputnik


How many real estate agents hire photographers?

Most I know just shoot with their own camera.

Is it really possible for a photographer to shoot 5 houses per day on a full time basis?

Most of the Realtor's selling the luxury homes will use a professional photographer. Most of us use point and shoots though. I know I did for a couple years until I got my DSLR.

I've often thought about hiring photographers for my listings, something to consider in the future. I think most Realtor's choose not to because they don't want to shell out the bucks for the extra expense. Its tough to market a $200,000 home the same way you would a $2,000,000 home.

[jjmac]

Originally posted by 89coupe


I do all the time.

I was just shocked that he took 400 photos to create panos of each room and only charged $150.

You photo guys/girls are so sensitive...LOL

I don't quite understand your logic in being shocked? So he took 400 photos for the price of $150; that's up to his discretion.

I hardly recall your comments to be neither constructive nor any forms of compliments whatsoever. You can call it your opinion, I call it egotistical.

[Jeremiah]

$150 for one house seems pretty good to me. I woudln't mind doing something like this in my free time

[AccentAE86]

Originally posted by HRD2PLZ


Most of the Realtor's selling the luxury homes will use a professional photographer. Most of us use point and shoots though. I know I did for a couple years until I got my DSLR.

I've often thought about hiring photographers for my listings, something to consider in the future. I think most Realtor's choose not to because they don't want to shell out the bucks for the extra expense. Its tough to market a $200,000 home the same way you would a $2,000,000 home.

Most realtors I've found are getting onto the DSLR wagon, since they are so cheap now. And for the most part, they get photos good enough to get the point across.

I usually only end up shooting a house if it's a specialty home or condo. It's usually the SELLER who decides he/she wants the really professional photos rather than the realtor. If you're selling a home for over $1,000,000 then $1000 for good photos is a wise investment that will probably bring more traffic to your home.

[quazimoto]

Personally I don't work for small realtors. If it is just one single realtor that wants to hire you I wouldn't even bother. There are several larger realtors in Calgary that run their own companies under the remax, century 21, etc flags. These companies almost always outsource things like this.

I can honestly say though I have never been paid to photograph a house that was being listed for less than $350,000. I think most realtors only justify the expense of paying a photographer if they feel it will help them out in the long run.

As I said though I personally wouldn't work for a single individual realtor though. The volume of work you will get is extremely limited. I tried that a few years ago and would find myself only doing one, two or three houses a month which at that point it's a waste of time. The market in Calgary is more saturated with realtors than it is houses!