Getting in to real estate photography. Prices and opinions please

[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.

[Kym]

One of AP members is a RE Agent and I've been out on a shoot (not RE) with him.
He has a Nikon D60 + Sigma 10-20 + a couple of other lenses.
He does all his own photos and not a bad job from what I've seen.

Why would he hire someone when he can do a more than reasonable job himself?

[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.

[Longshots]

One of AP members is a RE Agent and I've been out on a shoot (not RE) with him.
He has a Nikon D60 + Sigma 10-20 + a couple of other lenses.
He does all his own photos and not a bad job from what I've seen.

Why would he hire someone when he can do a more than reasonable job himself?

And thats the point. The only way of improving upon this scenario is to convince the RE companies/individuals, that the product that you can produce is substantially better and will produce a higher sale price, and the investment in the additional marketing services would be worthwhile.

Again, I can assure you that RE people generally know their products a great deal better then a a new, or even a general photographer. Understanding how the RE/Architectural Photographer can produce an economic (ie ecomonic in terms of visual space - space costs money in marketing) image that contains a life style, a story and can produce something that people are going to want, takes a "little bit" of skill. Seriously, anyone that thinks this is an easy option is as I said, deluding themselves.

[I @ M]

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.

Amen.

I sold a house early this year, small agent that is part of a reasonably large group and in their small branch office they had a couple of Nikon D3100 bodies lying on an office desk. They didn't charge anything extra in their deal for photography, the commission on the sale included advertising and they put very respectable images in the local paper and on the 'net.

So the question is, why would they want to pay someone else to do it, the price of a couple of cameras was hardly enormous, can be written off as a business expense and it probably only took them 20 mins or so to come up with 8 or 9 good shots.

[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]

Let me tell you a very personal experience

I bought an investment property - a display home from a large national builder that I used to shoot for. It was a very good deal, I bought the finished display home and the builder would lease it back, on a 12 month basis, with a 12 month extension. Long story, but the builder was not able to extend the lease, and I was left with no tenant, and I didnt want to rent. So I put it on the market with the local Real Estate. I'd shot the interior for the original builder so had a number of really good shots, I could give to the RE. I thought they would use them, instead they took their own really crappy shot of the front of the property. After four weeks just 4 people had made appointments to look through the house.

I had one of those moments when I hit myself across the front of the head, wondering why I hadnt got of my bum to do what I know I can do well. So I set off and took a great shot of the front of the house, all beautifully lit, dusk sky behind, and with the front of the house illuminated. Superb shot if I say so myself that took me 3 hours to set up, (YES 3 hours to set up for just one shot, one view) and with almost no post production work involved, I handed the new image to the RE agent and asked them to replace their dreadful shot.

Next week, that shot was used in the paper. 35 families arranged appointments to view that week, and it was sold within the week - which BTW exceeded the price that every RE agent said I would get for it - which I knew I could get for it. That price was (albeit a few years ago now) over $500,000. Now did I think that the simple cost of say a $1,000 would have been worth investing in additional marketing ? Of course.

And Andrew, the commission I paid on that sale (which if recall right was about $17-18,000 - which covered just four weeks work at most, in all honesty I would expect them to produce high quality professional images in their marketing - and I have no problem if they can do it themselves. I'm of the opinion that I shouldnt have to pay anything on that type of percentage.

Did I think that the commission I paid to the RE agent worthwhile ? I'm afraid not.

The trouble with your final comment is that relating the cost of the gear is exactly what many businesses fall into the trap of. Buying the gear is just a case of buying the gear - that doesnt give you the ability and experience. Many businesses have an accounting software package, but that doesnt mean that they're accountants.

My point is that a good shot - without any embellishments can easily add value to a house/business, and thats what commercial photography is all about. To think that this genre is an easy way into photography is so far off reality its frankly ridiculous from my perspective.

[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.

[maccaroneski]

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.

So why not start in the low end of the market if you're prepared to live on dust cardboard and water, and get those skills and experience? Isn't that the advice that you'd give anyone irrespective of the genre that we are talkling about? I mean if the OP were talking weddings, wouldn't the advice be to go and second shoot for $50 an hour (or even free) until such time as the requisite skills and experience has been obtained to aim higher?


(P.S. I'm not rying to raise an argument, just interested in an exploration of this point)

[Longshots]

Havent I given you enough reasons why not to start in the low end ? Which was the original question and answered by many others in this topic. This isnt about raising an argument its about reading the thread of responses ?

I think this topic has gone full circle as this was what the original question was Tony. And there have been many points covered about the "low end" of this genre.

$50 per hour for an inexperienced or even experienced second shooter for a wedding photographer is not a real world example -in my experience - while it would be nice its rare, especially not for a beginner.

But we're not talking about weddings, the topic is about "getting into" RE photography.

The costs I just quoted above for the everyday packages for RE price wouldnt even give the photographer $50 an hour !

FWIW I'd offered free real world advice to the OP if they wanted to ring me they would be welcomed and as yet still not heard from them, I dont believe that they're serious in their quest.

[I @ M]

And Andrew, the commission I paid on that sale (which if recall right was about $17-18,000 - which covered just four weeks work at most, in all honesty I would expect them to produce high quality professional images in their marketing - and I have no problem if they can do it themselves. I'm of the opinion that I shouldnt have to pay anything on that type of percentage.

Did I think that the commission I paid to the RE agent worthwhile ? I'm afraid not.

Different times, different markets I guess but in my case:-

Real estate agent A wanted .5% more commission than real estate agent B , expected to be paid for advertising and pushed me to advertise the house for $10,000.00 less than I felt the market would bear.

Real estate agent B said my price was realistic and offered me their terms without being told what real estate agent A was offering.

Real estate agent A had a bit of a laugh and a sneer and said that they would ring me in 60 days when the property wasn't sold when told that I was listing it with real estate agent B.

Now getting back to the photography side of things, once the house was listed, it was immediately apparent that the images that appeared on the ads from real estate agent B were superior to anything advertised by real estate agent A who wanted to charge me more for both the sale and the advertising.

Property sold in under 60 days, there were several interested parties and in the market at the time it was a satisfactory result.
Do I think that the commission paid was fair, probably not.
Would I have thought that the result would have been fairer by paying another agent more money for the same (or less dollar return) plus paying for advertising of a lower standard, definitely not.

My experience relates more to the bread and butter end of the market and not so much the big budget spenders but surely anyone looking to get into the bread and butter end of the real estate photography market would have to look at eating minimal amounts of bread sans butter until they were exceptionally good and could out perform many others doing it at a level where they could afford butter on their bread.

[maccaroneski]

We're not talking about weddings anway, the topic is about RE photography.

It was an analogy, William. They are sometimes used in civilised conversation.

No offence to many her, but I think I should give up trying to offer any real advice to the OP's question because its falling into a usual bunch of responses where reality (which is what I thought this question was based on) is being muddled with opinions based on little if any real world experience. So as I'd offered free real world advice to the OP if they wanted to ring me and as yet still not heard from them, I dont believe that they're serious in their quest.

Well i certainly wasn't giving any advice: I was genuinely asking questions and was interested in your response.

I had read read the entirety of the thread, evidenced by my referencing one of your posts right at the start, and then one right before my reply. I'm not sure what would lead you to believe that I would simply throw random advice around on a subject in which I have no expertise without first reading the history.

(Responding to the original version of Longshots' post).

[peterb666]

For routine pics selling real estate, most real estate agencies use a member of staff or two. I know this because my father was a real estate agent for a period of time and I currently have a friend who works in a real estate agency and she assembles videos and stuff they like to use these days as part of her work.

When sizable advertising campaigns are involved, they may use a specialist photographer but they usually resort to someone they use on a regular basis as the quality is know and it is less mucking around.

Unless you discover a niche and can offer a service that is desirable, it is unlikey you will make a fortune in real estate photography. I agree with Longshots and his earlier posting about the price paid for jobs. It is really that low as there are too many people with cameras that want to make a living out of their hobby.

Rick got it right in post #2.

Architectural photography as opposed to real estate photography can give returns but you need the experience and to be able to display a quality body of work to back it up to get the jobs. There would be very few doing it in Australia as a main source of income.

[Longshots]

It was an analogy, William. They are sometimes used in civilised conversation.



Well i certainly wasn't giving any advice: I was genuinely asking questions and was interested in your response.

I had read read the entirety of the thread, evidenced by my referencing one of your posts right at the start, and then one right before my reply. I'm not sure what would lead you to believe that I would simply throw random advice around on a subject in which I have no expertise without first reading the history.

(Responding to the original version of Longshots' post).

I did change my response. Clearly no point at all.

And I'm sorry but you appeared to me to be suggesting $50 per hour for a second shooter for a wedding was reality. And no matter how I read and reread your response it seems to be to be advice.

And yes analogies can be part of civilised discussions. I wasnt suggesting that it was uncivilised I was suggesting that an analogy has to have some reference. In this case I couldnt see any. Hows this for an analogy, the OP could try advertising photography as well, I hear that assistants in that can earn $4,000 for a job. Makes as mush sense to me as the analogy of second shooting at a rate that is unrealistic. Sure its civilised, just no logic to that at all.

[maccaroneski]

William,

It was your original response that I was suggesting that took the discussion away from being civilised - you admit as much in italics at the end of your post - not a use or lack of analogies.

Read my post with particular attantion to the punctuation- question marks would indicate a question, not a statement. All three sentences of my post end with them, and to clarify, I even included a statement in parentheses to ernsure that my post was to be taken as argumentative rather than inquisitive.

I'm not exactly sure how that translates to "no matter how I read and reread your response it seems to be to be advice". Perhaps I could include a "scratching the head" emoticon here, but that wouldn't really take the duscussion anywhere of value.

[William W]

William do you know what low rates are currently being banded around by RE "specialist shooters" ?

Yes. I believe have a reasonable understanding and across a few real estate markets, two areas specifically in Sydney, but not all the markets of which I have knowledge, are in NSW.

I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to take my word for this.

There is no need to be afraid: I have no argument with your indicative figures – I am sure they are correct for some markets.
Nor do I distrust your word.

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 agree that mostly all RE Photography markets are not economically viable for a new business: to be clear - I intimated that likely only four areas in all of AUS., would possibly be “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.

The OP asked a question about starting a business in AUS.; his info indicates he is writing from SYDNEY; he indicates he has Photography experience, specifically Architectural Photography – I make no assumptions on the quality of his work or the depth or breadth of his Experience or his Portfolio or his previous Client List.

I made a suggestion that if I were to re enter RE Photography, as to where I would pitch my marketing.

Other commentators here might have more in depth knowledge of the skills background and portfolio of the OP than I – but I am responding to the OP’s disclosure here and only that disclosure and not pre-supposing anything.

To be pedantic – “a new camera”, is a metaphor.

WW

[AlphegA]

Wow! This thread was posted on the day I got back to Sydney after being out of Australia for 8 years. Anyway, I have exactly the same question as chamee and I'm glad to stumble in this thread!

[sunny6teen]

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.

that can't be right. Canon's marketing department are forever insisting that my only contribution is pressing the button.
point...click...viola! Wolfgang Sievers

[kiwi]

Nice to see the OP has continued to contribute

[sunny6teen]

that can't be right. Canon's marketing department are forever insisting that my only contribution is pressing the button.
point...click...viola! Wolfgang Sievers

it's a bad sign when you're replying to yourself...but what do violas have to do with this?