Welcome to the New RealTown! Submit Feedback
Member Login | Join RealTown
The Real Estate Network
RealTown  Community  RealTalk  Computers-Printers

RealTown's RealTalk

Back

Bookmark and Share  

Create New Discussion Digest Archive

Malcolm Waring Information Technology,  Stroudsburg,  PA

Date: February 11

@RG

For one thing, White Balance is something you never have to think about when you shoot RAW.

I don't recommend RAW for everyone, only serious photographers that want to make a commitment to a different workflow. The camera does a lot of enhancements when it saves a jpg. With RAW, you pretty much have to do that yourself.

On the other hand, like Rich and Jerry said, you can make changes later if something isn't right.

Drivespace is so cheap that it's not a tradeoff for quality. When I shoot exteriors or when I shoot for fun I typically fire 5 frames for each shot in RAW and then combine them into a 60MB TIF HDR. That does take some space but I just have to live with it.

Malcolm Waring, Realtor, e-PRO
Pocono Homes

To Top Quote   Reply
Ronny Geenen Licensed Real Estate Agent,  Glendora,  CA

Date: February 11

RG wrote: What is the reason you want raw?
As long as the image is in focus all other settings can be changed later, sort of a safety factor, its hard to screw up with Raw files.
Jerry R. Bridges
 
 
I know that, Jerry.
But do you really need that feature for the Real estate?
That is why I sent also that article about the software.
For Real Estate purpose it is a lot easier to work with.
You have to be very good with photoshop to modify the raw picture.
 
To Top Quote   Reply
Matt Peters Licensed Real Estate Broker,  Albuquerque,  NM

Date: February 11

I've been somewhat a photo buff for years. In the dark days of film I shot most of my real estate pics with a 22mm lens on my 35mm SLR. I had a 55mm 1.4f lens that was great for hand held candid ambient light shots, but the 22mm lens worked great for nearly 100% of my realestate. 28mm and even 24 mm are just not quite enough, unless you want to stich together multiple shots.

In digital cameras, I have relied on ones that allow use of added accessory lens or filters. I never found a suitable camera with wider than 28 or 26mm lens out of the box. The digital SLRs are pricey, and real estate photography doesn't require much resolution in most cases. If you are shooting a cover shot for Homes and Land Magazine that's a different story, but MLS, web posting and email only require lower resolution. High sensitivity for use in low light situations is helpful. Accessory lenses have a tendency to interfere with the built-in flash, and not that many (inexpensive) digitals accept accessory flashes. I perfer ambient light in most cases anyway.

I have had a Fuji Fine Pix, a Nikon and currently use a Konica-Minolta. All had manufacturer built adapters for filters or accessory lenses. Using a 0.5, 0.6 or 0.75 wide angle adapter allows the use of a good general purpose camera as a GREAT real estate camera. I think SONY took over the Konica-Minolta line, and may have current model that comes with an accessory adapter.

To Top Quote   Reply
Tim Fears Information Technology,  San Diego,  CA

Date: February 12

RG wrote:

"You have to be very good with photoshop to modify the raw picture."

Not anymore Ronny. Google's FREE imaging editing app Picasa supports most RAW formats including Adobe's Digital Negative (DNG) and has easy-to-use autofix. non-destructive editing, and batch processing features that are very powerful. I hardly use Photoshop anymore (I actually prefer GIMP) unless I'm retouching a scanned negative, slide or print.

I've been using it since beta and it's now in V3 and I don't see any reason for changing. Unless you shell out $$ for Aperature or Lightroom, Picasa is the best value, IMHO.

Give it a shot!

To Top Quote   Reply
Daneen Law,  Brewster,  MA

Date: February 12

I just purchaed an Olympus FE-360 online from Staples for less than $120 including free shipping. It has 8 mega pixels and takes great photos. I like that it doesn't have a lot of extra features that I don't know how to use. I caution you, however, when buying an Olympus. They only use a certain type memory card and, therefore, you are not able to use the one from your old camera unless it, too, was an Olympus.

To Top Quote   Reply
Ronny Geenen Licensed Real Estate Agent,  Glendora,  CA

Date: February 13

Tim said:
I've been using it since beta and it's now in V3 and I don't see any reason for changing. Unless you shell out $$ for Aperature or Lightroom
 
Thank you for your information.
I look at the site GIMP, but they have only V2.6 and what does Aperature and Lightroom doing?
 
To Top Quote   Reply

Date: February 15

RG wrote:
I know that, Jerry.
But do you really need that feature for the Real estate?
That is why I sent also that article about the software.
For Real Estate purpose it is a lot easier to work with.
You have to be very good with Photoshop to modify the raw picture.
 
Yes Ronny I do need it if it has my name on it. I take pride in what I put on the net for the whole world to see, I also get paid to do it for other agents. You say "For real estate purpose it is a lot easier to work with", I am assuming you mean JPG. I'm not looking for the easy way out Ronny. Clients pay big bucks for us to market their property, why would an agent want to be so cheap about it. You also said "You have to be very good with Photoshop to modify the raw picture", yes I agree you do have to invest some time and money to make yourself look good.
Ronny you know as well as any agent that 90% of all agent photo's are crap. Realtor.com statics have proven that when buyers see crappie photos and very few photos they just pass you on. Is that the type of service of you want the real estate community, that you are apart of, to the give? It's a sorry agent that puts up crappie photos and a just as sorry broker-in-charge that allows it. It's a reflection on the agent, BIC and company. In most area's of the country you can find a good free lance photographer to take the photos if the agent does not or can not take decent photos.
 
 
Jerry R. Bridges
Realtor
 
Licensed in SC, NC
cell 864-915-0779
fax 864-990-1940
jbridges@kw.com
www.Jbridgeshomes.com
www.realty360tours.com
 
To Top Quote   Reply
Ronny Geenen Licensed Real Estate Agent,  Glendora,  CA

Date: February 15

Jerry R. Bridges said,
Ronny you know as well as any agent that 90% of all agent photo's are crap. Realtor.com statics have proven that when buyers see crappie photos and very few photos they just pass you on. Is that the type of service of you want the real estate community, that you are apart of, to the give? It's a sorry agent that puts up crappie photos and a just as sorry broker-in-charge that allows it. It's a reflection on the agent, BIC and company. In most area's of the country you can find a good free lance photographer to take the photos if the agent does not or can not take decent photos.

Jerry:

You are right, 90% of the Real Estate pictures are crap. But do not tell me that all jpeg pictures are also crap. You know as well as I do working with good equipment like a tripod and using the option of ISO and/or exposure level can give you excellent results. Between the crappy Realtor pictures and the professional environment is also an area of very good jpeg results.

To Top Quote   Reply
Fred Light Information Technology,  Nashua,  NH

Date: February 15

I find it completely amazing that Kohler spends infinitely more time and money to photograph a $200 toilet than most Realtors will spend to photograph at $600K+++ house!

It just defies logic in my mind. What's most troubling is that most don't really care that the most important marketing that a potential buyer sees are photographs. Now that the internet allows use to display full screen, full color photos (vs. the postage stamp black and white blurry photos of a decade ago in the newspaper), one would think that more would take advantage of that! But they don't. It takes 60 seconds on any MLS in the country to find crooked, dark, blurry photos of dining room tables (since that's all that will fit into the lens of the "good enough" $199 camera).

However, for those that DO 'get it', I think it presents an awesome opportunity to jump ahead of the competition by leaps and bounds. For the most part, sellers understand the power of a good marketing presentation in this real estate market.

--
Real Estate Video Tours: www.NashuaVideoTours.com
Video For Your Website:: www.BostonWeb.TV

To Top Quote   Reply
P. Erickson Licensed Real Estate Agent,  Cinnaminson,  NJ

Date: February 16

<I find it completely amazing that Kohler spends infinitely more time and money to photograph a $200 toilet than most Realtors will spend to photograph at $600K+++ house!

It just defies logic in my mind. >

Here is the logic in one word: volume.

If a REALTORĀ® were to sell seventeen $600K homes all exactly the same, ( roughly the same dollar amount as selling the Kohler toilets, although the profit margin on the Kohler toilets is way higher ) then the REALTORĀ® would spend more money on photographs selling the $600K homes. I do agree with you though, some REALTORSĀ® should have more concern about the quality of their photographs.

Bart
P. Barton Erickson, e-PRO, SRS
Lamon Associates
700 Route 130 North, Suite 108
Cinnaminson, NJ 08077
Office: (856) 829-8090 x28
Cell: (856) 313-2635
Bart@HouseJeanie.com
www.HouseJeanie.com
http://www.realtown.com/housejeanie/blog

To Top Quote   Reply

Reply to Discussion:





  • Market Leader
  • Listing Domains
  • Top Producer
  • Point2
  • Go e-PRO
  • iHouse Websites
  • Old Republic
  • WebsTarget
  • Agent's First Choice
  • Realtor Benefits
  • RealtySoft
  • realEseller
  • RIS Media
  • Matthew Ferrara
  • REALTOR Benefits Program
  • T-ReX Global