Photographs A picture says a thousand words but are they worth saying?

Gosh, I've never heard that one, usually the photos are terrible and it is a nice surprise. 

 

I know exactly what you mean - I tend to underpromise in my MLS descriptions so that people are pleasantly surprised when they get in the door. For example, I currently have a listing that is technically a two car garage, but it would be tough to actually get two cars in there.  So, I listed it as a one car so that I'm not attracting people who MUST have a full two car garage. Those who are happy with one are deliriously happy with the almost-two. 

Photos, though.... hmmmm... that's interesting. I guess if I had to make a choice, I'd err on the side of having great photos. Do you have any examples of what you mean? 

Scott - What an excellent question (I say that because I have been wondering myself).

How about shooting from the house, the view, the pool, the neighborhood, etc, with just a few shots of the home itself?  Maybe pique the looker's curiosity so they want to get in and see it.  Sometimes you see all the hype about a movie, you get there and have seen all of the best scenes already.  You are naturally disappointed.

Paul Slaybaugh kind of accomplished this on one of his listings, but I can't remember which post.

I have a couple of agents that have told me that same type of story.  One thing they did to avoid it is get a really good stager.

Scott,

I think you can get excellent but accurate photos. The key is to have the property in really good condition, spotlessly clean and appropriately staged if necessary. Also you need to be careful about having the angle be too wide.

I'd check out your competition and pick a photographer who you think will do the best job without setting the buyers up for disappointment.   

At least they looked at the house...which is one of the main objects of using photos. Now, if the photos misrepresent the property, then that is a different issue. But I think you absolutely need photos.

Just my 2¢ 

Scott - There will always be a tension between advertising and product.  Just as your resume is your tool to get the job interview - but you get the job by your performance in the interview.

I believe the photography should be accurate but inviting.  Your object is to get the potential buyer to want to come to see the house.  The best outcome from the picture is the personal visit to the listing - after that it is up to you as the salesman to be familiar with the features of the house and neighborhood.  

If the chemistry does not develop between the buyers and the house - I do not think that is the fault of the photographs.  Take the buyers to the next house.  But you have done your job for the seller of the first listing.  

 

Photos are a double edged sword. Bad photos mean fewer lookers. Glamour photos, people go away disappointed. But good photos, well framed, well lit, they set more honest expectations. The purpose of the photos are to attract the buyers. Today, we need them more than ever with more and more people going to the internet before even walking out the door to look at prospective homes.

 

I know I have seen pictures of some beautiful large open yards, then while I'm previewing the listing, the agent has taken a picture of the side yard that overlooks a park onlyi to find the backyard looks directly into the neighbors house.  So glad I previewed before hand for my, "I want a private backyard" buyer!

I have not thought about this happening. I can see how it could be a problem. Something to think about.

I tried to comment on this blog yesterday, but had a problem with the computer and it didn't upload.  Since then, I have a question.

First, good photos are paramount.  I had a buyer looking for a $500K to $1M home in a market where the median price is $123K.  No matter how many times I sent him the MLS sheet on this house, he refused to set an appointment, but after the listing expired, I asked the seller for permission to photograph the house.  I sent these photos to my buyer and he had to see the house.

On the other hand, I had a $90K listing that I did a twilight shot on, because it faces North, and another agent said I did too good a job on the photo.  One of his buyers refused to see the house after driving up.  I had not altered the photo in any way.

My question is, "What is a glamour house photo?"  At what point does a good photograph become a glamour shot?  We have had endless discussions about the ethics of photo editing.  The bottom line is that you have edited the photo once you press the shutter button.  Where you stand when you take the photo will include some things and exclude other things.  The camera processes the photograph and adjusts the color, sharpness and tone.  When I get the photo on my computer, I will adjust these settings to my liking and correct for lens distortion.  All of these things are to more accurately portray the listing.  What do I have to do to make the photo a glamour shot?  I think it is understood that editing out something that is permanent would be unethical.  What else could cause a problem?

Scott:  No matter what the price range, I think photos are important.  What might be better is to save the money on the professional photographer and do them yourself.  They would be better representations of what you will see when you visit the home.