HDR in the real world - DPChallenge Forums

02/18/2010 06:13:14 PM · #1

Been wandering on www.realtor.com lately and have noticed that some of the high-end realtors are using HDR (or Topaz) on their property photos. One example

I find that interesting. :-)

MinsoPhoto

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

02/18/2010 06:19:15 PM · #2

You would think going through those extra steps in set up and editing that they would at least have some hi res shots to vies. Unless I am missing something those shots are all very small.

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/18/2010 06:44:32 PM · #3

Melethia... I was unaware you were considering purchase of a little $3.6 million dollar beach bungalow.

Please invite your friends over. ;) ;)

02/18/2010 06:49:30 PM · #4

The shots are all very small - though I did find a property in Los Angeles where you can view larger pictures. And one of those was HORRIBLY oversharpened. I wanted to find a "contact me" link to tell them that but left it alone.

I rode past that first house today - figured I'd look it up just for fun. Not in my price range but sometimes its fun to see how the rich live. Keep in mind that house isn't very big! Does have a nice view, though.

Here's another one

02/18/2010 07:27:56 PM · #5

I shoot 'real' 'estate' listing photos for agents and produce exclusively HDR photos. So this may be more info than you wanted.

The thing to remember is that most realtors use the photos in 3 sizes ... 480x320 for MLS, 720 x 480 for agency websites, and 3000 x 2000 for brochures and flyers. Shooting HDR produces exceptional results for flyers, great results for agency photos and okay results for MLS sized images.

My normal workflow is to shoot 7 bracketed shots from a tripod, 2/3 of an f/stop apart. I use Photomatix in batch mode to process all the scenes to tone-mapped HDR and deliver small - low res proofs to my clients electronically. They pick the ones they want to pay for and I do a detailed final edit just on those. This allows me to get in my car and drive to the location (30 minutes usually), shoot the listing (30 minutes usually), drive home (another 30 minutes) and build the HDR proofs (about 30 minutes) in about 2 hours. Once the realtor has chosen the ones they want, I usually take about 30 minutes each to do a final edit, resize, and deliver electronically. On a small listing with no extras, I charge $25 per finished photo. That's, say $250 for about 6-7 hours work. A high end listing could easily generate $2,000 - $5,000.

There are all kinds of extras: dawn, dusk, night shots - extra; degloomify - extra; clone offending stuff (cracks, cords, purses on the counter) - extra; aerial shots - extra; photos for buyers - extra; photos for sellers - extra; panorama shots - extra; and so on. And I have a $250 minimum, even if they pick only a few shots.

The goal of 'real' 'estate' photos is to generate showings, not win awards. The goal of the 'real' 'estate' photographer is to maximize my revenue , not earn ribbons. It's commercial, quick, just good enough, did I mention quick (?), and rewards a disciplined, automated workflow. My realtors refer to me as their "lucky photographer" because the stuff i shoot tends to sell quickly.

There are some other DPC folks who shoot 'real' 'estate' and do a great job ...

digifotojo among them.

ETA:
I retain rights to the photos I shoot. So I can show you a few. Here are the photos from a low-end listing i did 9 months ago:

Message edited by author 2010-02-18 20:01:27.

MinsoPhoto

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

02/18/2010 07:31:53 PM · #6

Great info there, thanks for taking the time. How does a photographer get into doing that line of work?

Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD MACRO w/Canon Nikon mount

02/18/2010 07:32:49 PM · #7

I'll add my thanks as well - GREAT info!

JulietNN

Canon EOS R7

02/18/2010 07:36:30 PM · #8

I have been buying several houses recently. And I have to say. My 5 year old could do better than some of the shots that I have seen for houses.

One house, was 4 bedroom, 3 bathroom. It had 5 shots of the toilet and dirty bath and shower. 1 of the living /dining / kitchen all rolled into one. 1 of the neighbors backyard. 1 of the front of the house.

I am shocked and amazed that some people get their houses shown, let alone bought with these shots. And these where not homeowners that where taking the shots, but big reality names.

Message edited by author 2010-02-18 19:37:07.

Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD MACRO w/Canon Nikon mount

02/18/2010 08:09:39 PM · #9

Originally posted by jminso:

Great info there, thanks for taking the time. How does a photographer get into doing that line of work?

The way I did it was to contact some realtors I know as friends and ask to shoot houses they had already listed. We sat down and compared my photos with the ones the realtor actually used. I learned a ton from this. Pretty soon, mine were better than the ones the realtors were already paying for. I got couple of listing when their regular photographer wasn't available. Then I started shooting all their listings. From there, it's word of mouth. My workflow has gotten lots more efficient. It the beginning it would take me three times as long as it does now to process a shoot.

JulietNN

Canon EOS R7

02/18/2010 08:15:37 PM · #10

See Dr,,, that is something that I would go and see. What some people don't get is that, you have to actually 'want' to go and see a place.

The first line in looking at houses is the MLS listings. I don't want to see 5 shots of the toilet, dirty bath and grungy shower. I want to see the selling points of a house. When I get there, the selling points of the house outweigh the dirty shower etc.

Rant over, sorry

Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital

02/18/2010 08:22:40 PM · #11

Originally posted by JulietNN:

See Dr,,, that is something that I would go and see.

THAT's why I'm their "lucky photographer." LOL

Bugzeye

02/18/2010 08:26:49 PM · #12

I seem to recall this being discussed here in the past, The topic was more along the lines of it being legal, Because a picture that has been photoshopped is not showing the house exactly the way it looks and is misleading to the viewer. I tried to find the thread but didn't have any luck, If someone else knows where it is I believe there were some more links to overprocessed photos in that thread also.

digifotojo

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 III

02/18/2010 08:59:05 PM · #13

Anyone interested in HDR Photography for 'Real' 'Estate' should check out the following site:
//photographyforrealestate.net/

one2one

Olympus E-5

Olympus 7-14mm f/4.0 Zuiko Digital Zoom

02/18/2010 10:26:49 PM · #14

Dr. Confuser, what lenses do you mostly use out of your fine collection for the interior shots?

I've had Photomatix Pro for a while now and I just can't get good results with it. Do you use the default settings or do you fiddle with them to come up with the results above?

All great shots btw.

aplectic

02/18/2010 10:50:14 PM · #15

Originally posted by Bugzeye:

Because of the limitations of film or digital sensors compared to our eyes, it can actually make thing look more realistic. Having an indoor shot with a large window to the outdoors and not having the outdoors blown out is making things more faithful to what a person would see. Also I don't see how removing a purse or something someone left inadvertently would be a problem.

02/18/2010 11:07:20 PM · #16

Originally posted by Jac:

Mostly I use the 12-24 for interiors and the 24-120 for exteriors.

Generally I try to find a scene that seems representative of the whole shoot and manually process 1 set of 7 to HDR. I then reset tone mapping to default and adjust as necessary to get a pleasing outcome. I save the settings and then use the saved settings for all the batch processing. Occasionally I'll have to brighten in Photoshop as part of the final edit and sometimes desaturate some ... but usually not so much.

I probably should have mentioned it before, I always shoot with natural light. I haven't been able to get consistently good results with a flash. I am sure it's my fault, I just haven't learned how.

Message edited by author 2010-02-18 23:09:10.

Tez

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

02/18/2010 11:14:02 PM · #17

with photomatix I find it's best to turn the strength slider down to about 50-60 percent to keep things looks realistic and keep the luminosity slider up towards high, otherwise things tend to get that weird surreal look that gives HDR a bad rep.

02/18/2010 11:15:56 PM · #18

'Dr.Confuser' I do wish I could afford the "low-end" end of your neighborhood! Gorgeous shots of a lovely place. But defintely not "low-end" in my book.

Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital

02/18/2010 11:23:38 PM · #19

Originally posted by aplectic:

Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I seem to recall this being discussed here in the past, The topic was more along the lines of it being legal, Because a picture that has been photoshopped is not showing the house exactly the way it looks and is misleading to the viewer. I tried to find the thread but didn't have any luck, If someone else knows where it is I believe there were some more links to overprocessed photos in that thread also.

Because of the limitations of film or digital sensors compared to our eyes, it can actually make thing look more realistic. Having an indoor shot with a large window to the outdoors and not having the outdoors blown out is making things more faithful to what a person would see. Also I don't see how removing a purse or something someone left inadvertently would be a problem.

Agree. If I clone out a purse, my conscience is not troubled. If there's a tangled lamp cord that distracts my eye and I remove it in post, I suffer no guilt. If I remove moss from a driveway, I'm doing no more than I could do with a pressure washer and I sleep well at night. If I turn a blown white sky of the pacific northwest into a cloudless cerulean one ... well, we do get blue skies here once in awhile. An amazing number of kitchen counters have crumbs on them before I wipe them down in Photoshop. I've been known to add a fire in a fireplace because the owners forgot to light one for the shoot. I have replaced burned out light bulbs in post, that the agent should have replaced before the shoot. Well you get the idea. I do all these things in Photoshop. This is theatre which is more true to life than life itself. It's not a newscast. And I charge extra for this sort of stuff.

But the biggest thing HDR does is expose what's outside the windows and what's inside them both perfectly. It brightens up darker rooms and dark corners. THIS counts for a LOT in getting people into the house. Once there, they see the house as it is, lamp cords, bread crumbs, and the occasional missing lightbulb as is.

Senay

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/19/2010 12:46:34 AM · #20

I never really thought of 'real' 'estate' photography, but after this thread I might have a look into it. The photography for a lot of the 'real' 'estate' in my area is rather bad. Thanks!

Bugzeye

02/19/2010 01:07:12 AM · #21

Well the thread I was refering to. Was not only interior shots The shots in question were of the exterior of the house, landscaping etc. It made the houses look much newer and in much better shape than they actually were. Because I am in the market to buy a new home right now, I have to say I would be a bit pissed if I went to look at a house that appeared to be very nice in the promo photos only to find out that the reason it looked nice was because the photos were touched up. If I find the house to have problems that were hidden with Photoshop which was the case with the photos in the thread I mentioned earlier looking at that house would be a waste of my time.

For the record I do not remember if I even took part in that previous threads discussion, I just recall reading it and thought that it may also apply here.

Originally posted by aplectic:

Message edited by author 2010-02-19 01:13:51.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/19/2010 01:25:01 AM · #22

Originally posted by 'Dr.Confuser':

I probably should have mentioned it before, I always shoot with natural light. I haven't been able to get consistently good results with a flash. I am sure it's my fault, I just haven't learned how.

Nah, it's not your fault. I was a high-end architectural photographer for a couple decades, pre-digital, and as much as possible we did all our interiors with natural light â�� including in the definition of "natural" the architect-designed lighting for the space, of course. Complex, interconnected, free-flowing modern interiors are almost impossible to light faithfully with strobes. If we had to include views through windows, we'd plan the shooting time to make that possible.

For some of our restaurant photography, especially for Chart House, which had a lot of very complex, modern architecture, it wasn't unusual for a single exposure to take over an hour per sheet of film exposed; and of course we'd have to shoot overs and unders :-) Of course, this was an issue of reciprocity failure (one stop more exposure than 10 mins might be an hour), but still, that's what we had to work around. They'd lock us in the place when they closed, and the day crew would let us out :-)

But I digress :-) A couple 500W floods with daylight and tungsten bulbs, for fill light, are all you really need.

R.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II