Re: Real Estate photography

That Rich wrote:

>>>> The 12-24/4 is an OK lens and was designed as a stopgap quick fix
>>>> to fill the void caused by the DX format.  It was an overpriced DX
>>>> hack that was designed to replace the 17-35/2.8.  To even let this
>>>> lens touch the D3's lens mount is blasphemy!  But, then again, RE
>>>> photography really isn't that demanding image quality wise.
>>>
>>> Really? My experience in RE over many years says image quality means
>>> plenty and quality gets noticed.
>>
>> Apparently not, especially when you see a lot of these hacks
>> shuffling around with $150 P&S cameras, the better and more
>> professional ones do use some type of dSLR with the wrong lens
>> attached.
>
> I have occasionally taken pictures for a *pal* who is a realtor. A few
> clients have told her -my- pictures are what got them interested in
> the house, yet she has never been told -her- (cheap-o p+s) pictures
> are what got the client interested in a property.

Same here, but I'm not going to fool myself into thinking that any
photographer's photos are going to be the deal maker or breaker.  Don't
get
me wrong, I'm all for supplying the very best images to get the job done,
but this is an industry that the point of dimini****ng returns is quickly
reached.

> In real estate there are a million ways to lose a deal but only a few
> ways to secure a deal. Use everything you can to get an upper hand...
> that includes high end photographs. They can only help.

Well, I've seen a $2.5 mill. row home sold with the utmost of ****y P&S
pictures and a $22 mill commercial property that was advertised with the
very best high res and professionally taken images possible grow moss from
lack of interest.  The bottom line is the property sells itself.  Thinking
otherwise is foolish.





Rita