shooting houses, how much?

[Keith Long]

Hey Guys,

I had a friend/client, i shoot all his cars for him (IE that yellow EVOMS 911 Turbo), who referred me to his realitor for taking some pictures of houses for him. So i called the guy up and right away he starts pressuring me for a price, i was just originally calling to introduce myself and asked what he was looking for. I told him ive never shot houses before and would have to get back to him on pricing. well, he knows my buddy gives me 50 bucks for shooting each of his cars...so he wants me to do it for that, but i think thats to low for cars let alone a house. So i told him again i dont know and id have to get back, but he keeps pressuring me, so i blurt out 100-150 for a house, he says "wow...ok...well let me know when you have some free time". His "wow" sounded like a 'thats alot' type of wow. Like i said, ive never shot houses, and im still a photo student so i really dont know what a good rate would be. But this is a realitor for million dollar houses, id think that 100-150 is probably way to cheap. What do you guys think, any advice would help alot. He told me hes not looking for anything to fancy, but he also talked how hes hired photographers before and said they you need to find the "emotion" or something for the house and that we'd have to sit down and take a look at some shots so i know what he wants. So obviously he knows what he wants. Like i said, any advice would really help. Thanks guys.

[Dennis Murray]

I've seen the question come up on Fred Miranda before and the general consensus is that realtors don't want to spend much.

From a time stand point, $100-150 seems really cheap. My thought is that you have a minimum of 1 hour on site time, 1-2 hours reviewing and post processing, and then travel time and expense on top of that (not to mention all of the general overhead of insurance, equipment depreciation, and so on).

You weren't planning on setting foot inside someone's home without full liability insurance, were you?

And this takes gear too. To do shots like the magazines and get the best output, you need full frame and TS-E lenses to minimize the distortion. Not to mention you probably need off-camera lights...

[David Adolphus]

We once paid a freelancer $500 bucks for a car shoot...and by "once," I mean we've never paid any professional any less; I think amateurs for their first time get $300-$350. Tack a zero onto all your figures and you're about where you should be. I've done a couple of property/real estate shoots, and they take forever. It's going to take you all day and you need to charge this bozo a professional rate. Depending on where you are (West Palm Beach vs. Bozeman, Montana) what you're delivering, I'd say $1,000-$1,500; that's what I used to get.

Real estate brokers seem to use the worst possible photos at all times--if they're expecting that sort of crap, you don't want to have your name associated with it. Stick to your guns and refuse to do inferior work.

[Morgan J Segal]

And this takes gear too. To do shots like the magazines and get the best output, you need full frame and TS-E lenses to minimize the distortion. Not to mention you probably need off-camera lights...

If you are going to put in this kind of effort, then you should be charging thousands of dollars, not hundreds.


You have not provided enough information about what they want. Do they want just exteriors? Interiors too? How many shots of the interior? Saying that they are million dollar houses does not mean much (million dollar home where I live is a shack ). Unless the realtor is looking to make really fancy brochures that look like something out of Architectural Digest, I'd imagine they are just looking for something one step above snap shots. From what I know of that industry, they are looking for people who can go around and shoot snaps of a whole bunch of houses in a day, for like $25-50 per house (shoot ten houses in a day... )

A quick google search found this guy
http://www.realestatephotographer.org/misc_pages/pricing.htm

He charges $90 for a whole package, interior and exterior. (though in another part of his site, it says he charges $75 for the same thing, $25 for exterior only)

Here is his list of equipment:
Nikon D200 camera
12-24mm ultra wide angle lens
Nikon SB-800 professional flash
Bogen heavy duty tripod

Obviously, this guy is not at the high end of the architectural photography ladder.

Just for comparison, here is an example of a high end architectural photographer ( I assisted him for a few years) www.richardmandelkornphoto.com Check out the "residential" section
He would get $3k+ per shoot

On a side note, although I did not realize it at the time ( I thought assisting on architecture shoots was like watching paint dry), I learned a lot that could be applied to shooting cars and portraits from assisting him.

I suggest you study some house magazines and real estate advertisements then go shoot a few houses before you get too far into it

[Keith Long]

Thanks for the advice guys.

First, I dont think hes looking for something at a professional architectural shots. As far as I understand, hes looking for those just above snap shot level. I think he's just tryen to get some decent shots as cheap as possible. And million dollar houses in Minnesota Metro area are not mansions, but there not shacks. There pretty nice houses. Example, your avg sububan house is in the 300-400k rang. to the best of my knowledge.

For what Im offering him, which seems to be like the first link Morgan posted, 150 seems alright. I talked to another realtor friend of mine who deals in houses in the avg range, he said he usually wouldn't pay more then 100.

Again, thanks for the advice, all of it helps alot!

[Bill Jurasz]

A very good friend of mine is a Realtor as well and he's asked me before to shoot his houses. (I declined). Most real estate agents are not looking for magazine-quality photos. They just want something a bit better than they can get on their own. And they are not wanting to spend much. He has a guy who does this professionally and charges him about $150 per house. How he manages to do this at that price amazes me, but he does a large volume and has a system down -- come in and take a recipe of shots rather quickly, come home process them very quickly, etc. No TS-E lenses, no lights, etc. Sure the results aren't great, but they are better than Jay can do himself, and they are "good enough".

[Jacob Leveton]

from the $90 guy listed above:
http://www.realestatephotographer.org/Picture_Pages/Real_Estate_photography/Images_realestate/canal_woods_DSC_9570.JPG


wow. if that's the quality out there..... wow. obviously he just walked in, with the camera at eye level, and shot a photo with direct flash. Richard Mandelkorn's photos are much much better. Worth $3k? I'm not sure about that. But I'm sure a good photographer could charge $500 and produce similar results.

I've done some interior photos at a club before. I charged $150 for an hour of my time, and put a lot of thought into each photo. If I did it again, i'd charge $300-500. Of course, most of these clients see the situation as they can purchase a camera for that price and snap their own photos.

Will nicer photos help them get more money in their pocket for the house? that's going to be the toughest sell you come up with.

[Mike Ditz]

The $90 shot is fine for what it is inteneded to, show the potential buyer the property.

Home buyers, sellers and realtors are an odd bunch to say the least.

[Morgan J Segal]

Richard Mandelkorn's photos are much much better. Worth $3k? I'm not sure about that. But I'm sure a good photographer could charge $500 and produce similar results.
.

Seeing how you are AP's "expert" on all things photography, I am sure you can do better for $500 right? :rolleyes:

Jacob, each one of Mandelkorns images were carefully composed, often lit with many lights, every piece of furniture, as well as every item in the shot was arranged meticulously down to the carpet fibers and took hours to do (not to mention shot on film). His lighting, composition, attention to detail and the fact that he can consistently get amazing shots is what gets him work for Architectural Digest and many of New England's top architects.

Any good photographer that could produce similar results would be a fool to charge $500