Not everyone needs to hire a professional, however there are a lot of agents out there that should that don't. I can't believe some of these pictures they put on MLS. I am a Realtor who doesn't hire a professional except once and a while for a virtual tour because I don't have the equipment.

Do you know anyone in Houston you can recommend for my staged houses?

Thank you for this blog.  I agree with as an agent invested in photography, I know when I need to call in help!

Bryce,

Your images are exceptional, you have a better 'eye' than most pro's I know (and trust me, I'm not knocking anyone, they're certainly not GWC's), that being said, I'm glad I'm not in Seattle.  8}

I have to take some issue with what you've posted though.  While I realize one can justify and rationalize away certain things to cut corners, I don't see that taking professional photography out of the equation is a smart move in most situations.

#1 & #3-- Honestly, how many times has someone thought the property was gonna fly, only to see it sit on the market for months?  The fact of the matter is, 85% of buyers use the internet to search for property these days, many of whom are set up on automatic emailings from a buyer's agent and/or only look at listings that are new on the market.  What's that mean?  That you have one shot, in a large number of cases, to get your listing seen, and if you don't have any pictures or pictures that stand out, then you've missed your best chance to appeal to your target market.

#4 -- See the comparison I posted in my latest blog.  I think the most important point there though, is the relationship building aspect towards clients.  If an agent hires a professional to take care of things for them, it adds a certain amount of credibility in the relationship, and that isn't tangible.

#5 -- I'm not sure what the Seattle market looks like, but around here I'm only getting $75/property.  To me, it's seems worth it to pay $75/property to ensure a reputation of having top notch standards, especially when you're making $1,500 + on a transaction.  It's a business expense, and the question that really needs to be asked is, do I want to be average, or do I want to try my hardest to be exceptional?  I don't know about you, but I was always taught that intentional mediocrity is never acceptable.  I'm not trying to sound like a bully, just raise the bar of acceptable standard.

Again, beautiful work Bryce, I'd love to see more.

tim

Great shots!.... any tips for those, who still choose to shoot for themselves?  Thanks, ~ JC 

YES!! YOU NEED ONLY A DSLR CAMERA WITH A WIDE ANGLE LENS. I'm not a pro-I'm just an amateur hobby photographer...wide angle is so important when taking interior shots. TIP: when using a wide angle, take the photo while on your knees, you'll end up with less room distortion.

This is The Guilford Bed and Breakfast for sale in Guilford, Maine. A beautiful grand mansion with interiors just begging to be photographed!

My camera is a Canon D40 - the wide angle is a 10-22. I love it!

Dana, you have a great camera and lens ... but the post-processing that a professional does is what makes a photo.  Here's what yours could look like (could have been better if I was starting with a hi-res image) ...

No, you don't always need to hire a professional ... but if you're competing with listings that have professional photos, don't you want to stand out?

@Dana,

Those are very good shots for someone who isn't a professional.  Honestly, they're on par with many professionals in my area.  (I notice that you work for Sotheby's and am going to assume that it is a high end listing.)  However, a top shelf professional could have done much better by properly lighting the room using the ideal technique and spending the time in post production to fine tune the image by adjusting white balance, correcting for distortion, etc.  In all, photographing a luxury home to high standards typically requires roughly $5000-10000 in equipment, as much as 4 hours onsite, 2 hours of editing and costs roughly $300-500to yield enough photos to accurately portray the property.  For that, the listing agent gets a couple dozen images suitable for publication in magazines, brochures, online slideshows, etc.  We are also capable of producing high quality images rain or shine, year round and within tight deadlines.

@Glenda,

That's a good attempt at improving the image but post processing is only part of the job.  Lighting the room properly so that the image is almost perfect when taken will produce better results than Photoshop almost every time.

@Bryce and everyone,

I agree mostly with Bryce.  Realtors do not need professional photography services for each and every listing.  Unfurnished, mid-market homes without significant architectural detail that won't be staged typically benefit little from professional photo services.  Same goes for homes where the Realtor knows that the home won't show well anyway because of owner apathy, neglect, etc.  I disagree with Bryce on his bullet about "hot" homes, I've worked with enough RE Investors to know that any home that sells in less than a week is priced below market.  We all know that any home will sell quickly if its priced low enough, the goal of photography and marketing is to get the home to sell at market or above.  Bryce's third point about the competition only makes sense if the Realtor deals in distressed properties, for most residential agents though, quality professional photography can quickly turn into a real competitive advantage earning you listings that would otherwise go to someone else.  Finally, I would only agree with Bryce on the fourth point if you can objectively say that your photography is better than the top professionals in your market, especially for luxury properties.

I happily teach my clients how to get the most out of the camera they own.  Once they start taking better property photos its much easier to have an honest conversation about their limitations and where we bring value to their marketing process.  In summary, while its clear that not every property warrants the services of a professional photographer, the best agents know that the images that represent their properties not only represent the owner's homes but also represent them and their business.

Good point, Glenda.

Here's a comparison between an out-of-the-hi-res-camera (how the camera sensor sees the scene) image and a High Dynamic Range (HDR) image post-processed closer to how our eyes actually see a room.

http://sandiegorealestatephotography.com/portfolio.aspx

Glenda:  You are spot on with you comment.  A pro photographer usually spends more time in post production than he/she does doing the actual photography.  And it results in higher quality photographs of the property.  Those stunning, Stop, Click and Call the Agent for a Showing photographs.

Luis:  Very good comments - however I think any - ANY - listing benefits from professional photography.  I've been hired to do some low priced town homes, condos in my area that, shall we say, were not "staged" the way they should have been, and I have produced photographs that made them look the best they could, made the realtor and owner very happy and they sold!

Michael

www.mkyphotography.com

I know I am coming into this post after a long discussion but I wanted to say that while I agree with the OP that you don't always need a pro, most of your listings warrant it.

If you really want to stand out, a pro will have the right gear, know how to properly light the room, know how to tweak everything in post and deliver much higher quality images than a hobbiest with a DSLR and a wide angle lens.

There is way more to it than just buying a "good" camera. Wanna stand out or just stand with the crowd? There are so many bad images in the MLS systems that when you post great ones, EVERYBODY will notice them.

"There is way more to it than just buying a "good" camera."

Amen!

I just delivered some impromptu photos that I took while the family was together for a funeral. Everybody was carrying on about how this was the best picture ever of this person and that. My grown nephew says, "Man, that camera takes GOOD pictures!"

I just kept my mouth shut about light and composition, or the hours I spent in post, making them all look "unusually" good. :)

Here's an interesting story on a little flip project.

The owners of a local radon mediation company decided to try real estate investing. They purchased a home that was a complete mess (I'd post the 'before' photos, but I don't own the rights to them - search MLSPIN for them) for about $70,000 and then put about $60,000 into it. They did a really nice job, they did most of the work themselves and hired quality subs for things they didn't have expertise. The final result was a real nice looking house.

The real estate agent that helped them buy the house took the listing. He subsidized part of the staging fee and paid for my services - he uses the stager and me for every listing because, in his words, "It works".

I shot the house on Thursday, May 28, 2009. It went on the market for $199,900 on Friday, May 29, 2009 and the first open house was on Sunday, May 31, 2009 and three buyers tendered offers. The accepted offer was for $206,900 and made by an FHA approved borrower with no house to sell. The closing was at the end of July 2009.

At the time of this listing there were 94 homes between $185,000 and $200,000 listed for sale in Worcester, MA.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, THE most important think someone can do to sell a home is to have a compelling online presentation - the house must look better than every other home on the market in that price range. This is what a professional architectural photographer will do for you.

Here's the house - click the photo to take an online tour:

Jay Groccia

Principal Photographer, OnSite Studios™  

Founder, OnlinePropertyShowcase™

I know I'm coming way late to this party, but I would like to provide some counter points to the OP.  Some of this has already been said in different words but I think it doesn't hurt to be repeated.

First and foremost, you DO NOT need to hire a pro provided your work is comparable to what a pro would deliver.  Obviously this is subjective, but if you do not have a sound working knowledge of what makes a "great" real estate photo, let alone the skills to produce one, you would be better served hiring a pro.  Having said that, let's get down to business.

"Situations where you probably don't need a professional photographer:

• The property is sizzling:...

• The property is a teardown: 

• None of your competitors use professionals and your clients don't expect you will either: 

• You take really dang good photos! 

• The commission structure doesn't support the cost of a professional:

Great post Iran.

This begs the question, "Do people REALLY need to hire a Real Estate Agent to sell their home?"

A good professional photographer is going to create images that make buyers want to visit your listings.  

The Better the Property Photos, the Higher the Sale Price

http://styledstagedsold.blogs.realtor.org/2010/10/12/the-better-the-property-photos-the-higher-the-sale-price/?WT.mc_id=LS102010&CAT=Sales

Dave,

Are you seeing an increase in FSBO clients?

Dave,

Are you seeing an increase in FSBO clients?

The thing for me is that most agents don't take great photos and this is a bad thing when in my area almost everyone is online looking at homes. The bigger thing for me is that they might not put any photos or just a few photos.

A nice thing about a professional photographer, other then great photos, is the brag part if you will. You sit down with a potential listing client and you tell them that you include professional photography as part as your service. Makes you look all that much better to me.