Recently, I shot some photos of a property. The property owner also hired a professional photographer to shot a series of photos.
Here are a couple samples. The comparison is interesting:
Exterior shot by me:
Exterior shot by pro:
Interior shot by me:
Interior shot by pro:
OK: He shot the interior with a focal length of 12mm. (I checked the EXIF data for his shots.) I shot at 18mm. (For some reason, I had decided I didn't like my 12-15mm lens. I guess I need to revisit that. <s>)
But what struck me was the amount of "color correction" he applied to all of his shots. It's particularly noticeable in the exterior shots.
I'm not sure whether or not I like the colors punched up quite that high.
Anyone want to volunteer an opinion? It's OK. I won't be hurt if you like the pro's style better than mine. <s>
Yes, point to the pro on that interior shot.
Re the exterior, the colors in my shot are the natural ones. The door and trim in his shots are just a wee bit too orange for my taste.
Liked the exterior of yours hands down! Thought the interior one you shot could of turned out a little better if the lighting had been adjusted.
I think I would lighten the shadows on yours and darken the highlights. This would made yours stand out better on the exterior. His colors look fake.
The interior, the wide angle definitely helps. And it was taken from a higher angle giving the room dimension.
But...the price difference vs the quality difference... I'm going for free done by me!!!
Bob: I took the path of least resistance. I used all the pro shots in our marketing materials. I guess I need to get the 12-15mm lens back out of the bottom drawer. Why was it I put it away in the first place? I think it was the lens shadow issue when using the camera's built in flash. So that means I have to pull an accessory flash out of the drawer, too. Sigh.
Here I was ... trying to travel light. Maybe I'll tell them I'm shooting with the V705 from now on, take it or leave it.
Pretty much already said, but I'll add mine -
I like the pro's interior shot much better - easier to get the feel and the detail.
Exterior - yours is dark and pro's is gaudy and artificial. Something in between??
I remember when I worked for one of the big franchises. I needed to send in a photo for a luxury property and they insisted I use a professional photographer. I did, and didn't like any of his as well as one of mine, so sent mine, which they published. Then they called me and said, "Now aren't you glad you hired a professional photographer?" Yup.
I have commented in these pages that I like a wide angle shot in the interior and I tend to brighten my shots so they do not look like a typical MLS photo - so the interior by the candyman gets my vote.
As for the exterior - I can not answer your question without seeing the house. If the right light could produce the gingerbread effect, then that is one set of facts - but if the house couldn't take on that appearance under any conditions, then it is something of a caricature. Looking at the bushes and leaves, i would recommend the pro have his levels of medication reduced.
Hi Cheryl, I've been absent for a while but a call from a potential client (who had seen my AR page) reminded by I was long overdue to stop by.
I hope you don't mind me commenting. :)
First off, I wouldn't call the paid photographer a pro. At least not as it's defined by people in my field. That person should ask for their money back. ;)
The exterior shot is most definitely exhibiting 'crayola color' and that's coming from me, and lord knows I love to push colors. However, it's worth discussing why that was done.
The difficulty with that shot is how dark the fascia is due to the overhang. Assuming a better time of day is not possible the person in question is trying to push both luminance and color. This is correct but it's been done rather brutishly here. HDR would have served them much better, at the very least a double exposure masked and blended.
The second shot is better, they might have brought the lens axis down a bit to de-enhance the ceiling. The windows are totally blown which is bad. The lighting looks a little strong, they were probably bouncing a fill flash.
12mm is a pretty unusual focal length. I wonder if it was a 1.6 crop camera? That would make it 20mm-ish which is far more likely. 12mm would exhibit monstrous barrel distortion as well as anamorphosis. Heaven forbid they are shooting with a point and shoot but that would also explain 12mm.
Cheers, -B
Bryce: And here I was thinking about saving the guy's contact info so I wouldn't have to leave my nice air conditioned office. <s>
Here's the EXIF data from the guy's interior shot:
Focal length: 12.0 mm
1/15 sec, f/4
Mode: Manual
ISO: 200
White balance: Auto
Flash: On
File size: 107KB
Image size: 750 x 498
(Note, he did, in fact, shoot larger image sizes, I just copied the smaller one off his website, since I was going to resize it for posting here anyway.)
P.S. I will stipulate that the front exerior shot is a tough one ... the home faces north, and the porch overhang keeps in shade all day long.
Hmm, f/4 is pretty odd also. That's a pretty narrow DOF for architecture. But, that's neither here nor there.
Take a look at the house on the left below. What you might not realize at first glance is the front of the house is almost entirely in shadow. To get a sense for the degree of contrast look at where the first story roof meets the second story on the right side of the house. The line of the shadow is stark.
I've (hopefully) drawn out the luminance enough to significantly brighten the house without A. creating a harsh transition, and B sending the color all wonky. Most importantly the shot just 'works' (at least I think it does). This is what a professional photographer should be doing in such a case. That's what we get paid for. :)
-B
Cheryl,
Great post. My professional opinion as a real estate photographer is that, as you pointed out, the outside shot done by your photographer appears to be 'super-saturated'; that, or he/she captured the image incorrectly and attempted to doctor it up in Photoshop....and went way overboard!
I would have to opt for the interior shot done by your pro as the best of the two - relatively good composition and exposure. I spend the majority of my time on a virtual tour shoot making certain the composition of the shot and the exposure are spot-on. Care must be taken to anticipate for correct color-balance settings as well (unless you really do live on Sesame Street.....) A realtor recently told me that my pictrues look like something out of a magazine. Focus on these aspects and you can reap the rewards. Of course it helps that I own over $3k worth of camera equipment and know how to tweak them in Photoshop.
See for yourself.
Cheers,
Jason Bennett - Nashville Virtual Tours & Photography
Jason: Those are nice shots! Please do feel free to post more of your work in the Photography Group!
Bryce: My guess would be f/4 to pull in more light? As you can see from my uncorrected shot, all the natural wood is beautiful ... but it is dark.
And, I like the way you stated it: "Draw out the luminance". That's a whole different concept than just "lightening" an image.