Getting in to real estate photography. Prices and opinions please

[chamee7]

Hi All,

I'm new to Australia (but not to photography) and have some exposure to architectural photography. I was thinking of starting in real estate photography in Sydney as a part time work but not sure about the opportunities and pricing.

Looking at photos in current real estate sites I feel that good photos will have a demand. But I'm not sure how the market is. I have few questions
1. Is it a good idea and potential to start as a freelance real estate photographer in current market?
2. Do agents get their photos done or they willing to hire professionals to do work?
3. What ere the current paid rates for ordinary house or unit.


Sorry if they are very bold questions as I'm still getting my self familiar with Sydney and around and not exposed very well to current market here.

Thanks for giving some input.

[ricktas]

Contact real estate agents, you will find most already have photographers, or do the photos themselves. Not much money to be made in this genre, I am afraid.

[Ace55]

You would have to show the agents that you could provide a product that was clearly superior to anything they have already and that it would increase their chance of a sale. I notice that there is a trend for some agents to offer "virtual tours" of houses that are a mixture of stills and video. I think(????) some specialist software might be involved but I'm not sure. Perhaps you could sound out some agents with a portfolio of your best images (I would check out the websites of these agents first to make sure you can offer something better). Maybe leave an introductory letter and a disk with some samples on them. I have looked up some real estate photographers and a run-of-the-mill price seems to be $250 - $400 for 10-15 high res photos (not sure if travel would be additional OR covers an additional visit at sunset for "night" shots). Just make sure you can deliver something better than what is currently available - give them a reason to want your services.

[Longshots]

I wouldnt recommend looking at that genre at all.


Whats being stated, and whats being charged are two very different things. With franchised businesses offering photographic coverage, interiors and exteriors, hi rise view, dusk shot, floor plans, virtual tours, and their first born child for under $100 (!), its not something that I would recommend to anyone new to the area.

As a working pro in specifically the area of architecture, and property development, I have a reasonable insight in today's market. If you want to contact me directly, I'd be happy to have a chat with you

[kiwi]

$100 ?

Sheesh, that's so wrong

[chamee7]

Thanks for valuable comments.. Please keep em coming.

[kiwi]

Lol, what more do you need to know ?

[chamee7]

It looks like we still have two different arguments. Even though some clearly suggest this is not a good idea Ace55 suggests an approach. One thing I see when looking at most real estate advertisements is the photos used in those are not professional or up to any standard. Thats why I thought there will be a potential in the area. Couldn't really get something against or in this line so far

[fess67]

Some time ago I looked into buying a franchise doing exactly this sort of work.

Pros are that it is work from home and therefore very limited overheads (once you have your gear).

Cons are as have already been stated within this thread. A shoot would be in the region of $200. They would not expect additional charges for weekend / twylight shoots because the agent typically works those hours as well. Some agents are good and demand good images, some are not bothered and are prepared to accept any old rubbish or do them themselves. These are the ones that want it for $100 a go.

The business I looked at made less money in the year than the total worth of my camera gear. Great if you like to have lots of spare time, not so good for paying the mortgage.

[chamee7]

Thanks fess67

[KeeFy]

I had a colleague working for a few property agents part time in WA. He said it's about $150 a pop using his own gear. He was doing it full time but realised that earning $2+k a month and still needing to pay Super + taxes + fuel + car didn't do it. So he ended up working at the pizza joint part time as well to pay for his mortgage and other expenses.

He was running around with a d700 + 14-24 + 24-70 + some tilt shift lenses and others + 5 strobes and stuff. Pretty good photos but definitely worth more than $150 i thought. It seems there are too many people who own bits of gear thinking they can do it as well and offering cut throat prices which resulted in low pay. I guess he could have been more firm with his pricing but maybe he was worried he wouldn't be able to get any work after that. Oh wells.

[JM Tran]

In 2011 I couldnt think of a worse genre to enter as a professional photographer right now! Besides stock photography that is.

Better off trying your luck at wedding photography

[William W]

Selling any image to a newspaper is more difficult than: Real Estate; Stock Photography or Sports Coverage.

WW

[ricktas]

Selling any image to a newspaper is more difficult than: Real Estate; Stock Photography or Sports Coverage.

WW

Agree. However real estate photography (generally) seems to be the cut throat world of 'cheaper is just as good', with RE agencies just trying to get shots at the cheapest possible price, in the majority of markets (suburban/rural areas). I do not believe an RE agent is going to be loyal to a photographer long term, rather it is all about commissions and profits, and maximising those at any expense. It may be good to make a few extra bucks to cover the cost of a bit of new gear, but I would not want to have RE photography as sole source of income.

[William W]

Selling any image to a newspaper is more difficult than: Real Estate; Stock Photography or Sports Coverage.WW

Plus -

Agree. However real estate photography (generally) seems to be the cut throat world of 'cheaper is just as good' . . . etc

No argument with the content and the meaning.

Whilst expanding on the tangent created by by JM Tran and kiwi ...

For clarity: my point is that RE photography WILL sell, if pushed and if willing to accept a low rate and be prepared to move that rate lower, if necessary.

On the other hand, Newspapers are least inclined to part with money in the first inst., whatever the low price is which is requested, Newspapers do not have the same “need” in the first place, nor do Newspapers have the facility to on pass the costs for example, in the cases of an Auction.


If I were still doing RE Photography, I would be marketing to high end Properties, for Auction – but as previously mentioned there would be fierce competition in that market already and (not wanting to begin a State War) only a few (maybe four) areas in AUS., where the Pie is big enough to allow for a new Camera.

WW

[Longshots]

For clarity: my point is that RE photography WILL sell, if pushed and if willing to accept a low rate and be prepared to move that rate lower, if necessary.

WW

William do you know what low rates are currently being banded around by RE "specialist shooters" ? I'm not going to quote any particular photographer, or franchise, so I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to take my word for this.

Inside and outside - full coverage of interior and exterior, includes either 360 view, or hi rise shot, plus optional twilight/dusk shot at sometimes extra cost. I'm very aware, being very involved in a related genre of architectural photography that prices are being quote at $150 to $200, but in practice, prices being achieved, paid and quoted to RE agents are sometimes as little as $50 - $80 - which when you consider time involved in doing this type of coverage, is extremely low.

Additionally the market is hugely oversaturated, hence the low low prices. So while I'm not arguing with the low price theory, there is a point where its not economically viable.

I wouldnt disagree with your suggestion to aim for high end property sales for photography, but those sellers will be looking for experience and skills that are proven and exist, not someone starting as per the OP in this topic.

Again to be pedantic - this has nothing to do with " a new Camera " but the skill, knowledge, and experience of how someone uses the equipment.

RE Photography has changed significantly in the past 10 years.

[Longshots]

I had a colleague working for a few property agents part time in WA. He said it's about $150 a pop using his own gear. He was doing it full time but realised that earning $2+k a month and still needing to pay Super + taxes + fuel + car didn't do it. So he ended up working at the pizza joint part time as well to pay for his mortgage and other expenses.

He was running around with a d700 + 14-24 + 24-70 + some tilt shift lenses and others + 5 strobes and stuff. Pretty good photos but definitely worth more than $150 i thought. It seems there are too many people who own bits of gear thinking they can do it as well and offering cut throat prices which resulted in low pay. I guess he could have been more firm with his pricing but maybe he was worried he wouldn't be able to get any work after that. Oh wells.

Rather than just thank you for posting this, I thought it would be justified in simply quoting all of it, and saying to people to read this again, and again, and again. The $150 rate could have been more, except there's probably a dozen people in his area that are undercutting that low rate. And when they go out of business, there will be more to fill the gap. And the sad part is that more and more RE places simply do their own, produce crappy shots and still charge their clients for photography

[shakes]

The $150 rate could have been more, except there's probably a dozen people in his area that are undercutting that low rate. And when they go out of business, there will be more to fill the gap.

How many people use it as an easy foot in the door to working for themselves as a photographer? Low paying, but seems an easy way to start to build your portfolio and start to learn the basics of business? And as the quality of shot's doesnt seem to need to be exceptional there is a good margin for error as well

[ricktas]

How many people use it as an easy foot in the door to working for themselves as a photographer? Low paying, but seems an easy way to start to build your portfolio and start to learn the basics of business? And as the quality of shot's doesnt seem to need to be exceptional there is a good margin for error as well

Problem with that is that when you do decide to up your prices, once you have the 'foot well and truly in the door', the RE agents will just go find someone else who is trying to get their foot in the door and accept their low paying offer. Then what happens to your working photographer? RE Agents, like most businesses are happy to take the lowest possible quote, if someone is skilled enough to do the job, cause it means their profit margin stays up.

You are better off getting the photography skills first, and then starting the business, not learning as you go. Remember there are hundreds of other photographers out there all wanting to start up a business as well, who are probably just as good at taking the shots, and happy to undercut you. Using a 'cheap' business model is not going to do you any favours in the long run.

[Longshots]

How many people use it as an easy foot in the door to working for themselves as a photographer? Low paying, but seems an easy way to start to build your portfolio and start to learn the basics of business? And as the quality of shot's doesnt seem to need to be exceptional there is a good margin for error as well

Well again I say the same thing. Why ask, if when you and others here it from working pros, the advice sought, that you ignore and question it ?

And I'm afraid that neither party is in a position to decide what level of shots is required because neither of you have any experience in buying or commissioning real estate/architectural photography - and please do correct me if I'm wrong here.

And you're missing my initital point which was every man and his dog seems to think that they can do this. Sad fact of the matter is that they cant. And if the real estate agency can pick up a camera and pretty much do what every man and their dog is doing, then there is NO market there. Clearly points missed.

The most important point is that if you're providing a business with a service and it costs you more to provide that service than the income it produces - then thats a clear problem for short and long term future.

What else do I need to say to convince you that this is NOT an Easy Genre ? And professional Real Estate companies are not blind and are not fools when it comes to commissioning photography.