Quote:
Originally Posted by Regulator75
I've shot a few home interiors during my time, there is no need for eye bleeding HDR professional photos (unless it's 2007 and it's the trendy "thing" to do).
The buyer arrives and the house it looks nothing like the photos.
"Whadda mean the cupboards and flooring don't glow naturally?"
Any capable photographer should be able to capture it properly without resorting to piss poor EXTREME processing techniques.
The shadows are highlights are so blown out it's actually kinda funny.
Bait and switch?
|
I shoot interiors for a living. This photographer was probably paid <$200 to shoot this place and deliver ~20 photos in an hour or less. In my opinion, she's shooting too wide and has colour cast issues, but real estate photography is a tough game. If you've shot some interiors, you know it can be tricky - no scene is ever the same as the last. For real estate, the margins aren't there to wait for the sun to move, to bring in a bunch of lights, to scrim windows, to stitch together multiple tilt-shift exposures, etc. "Good enough" is the name of the game.
I dunno how it is in Calgary, but big box companies here have driven prices into the dirt while providing pretty nice photos (better than these). So you either have to treat it as a business (like a trade) and cut corners on the "art" side, or use it as a stepping stone to shoot commercial properties.
Maybe I'm just defensive of my fellow interior photogs, but these photos are better than probably 90% of what's out there on the MLS. You can see in this thread that (presumably) non-photogs like the photos. Verts are good, and that's all a layman would notice, and even then they probably wouldn't.
In mind, Travis is doing his job and so is his photographer, even though you and I think the photos could be better. Not sure if we should be critiquing her technique in this thread though lol. Wanna take this discussion over to the never-ending photo thread?