View Full Version : Getting in to real estate photography. Prices and opinions please
chamee7
18-10-2011, 12:08pm
Hi All,
I'm new to Australia (but not to photography) and have some exposure to architectural photography. I was thinking of starting in real estate photography in Sydney as a part time work but not sure about the opportunities and pricing.
Looking at photos in current real estate sites I feel that good photos will have a demand. But I'm not sure how the market is. I have few questions
1. Is it a good idea and potential to start as a freelance real estate photographer in current market?
2. Do agents get their photos done or they willing to hire professionals to do work?
3. What ere the current paid rates for ordinary house or unit.
Sorry if they are very bold questions as I'm still getting my self familiar with Sydney and around and not exposed very well to current market here.
Thanks for giving some input.
ricktas
18-10-2011, 1:37pm
Contact real estate agents, you will find most already have photographers, or do the photos themselves. Not much money to be made in this genre, I am afraid.
You would have to show the agents that you could provide a product that was clearly superior to anything they have already and that it would increase their chance of a sale. I notice that there is a trend for some agents to offer "virtual tours" of houses that are a mixture of stills and video. I think(????) some specialist software might be involved but I'm not sure. Perhaps you could sound out some agents with a portfolio of your best images (I would check out the websites of these agents first to make sure you can offer something better). Maybe leave an introductory letter and a disk with some samples on them. I have looked up some real estate photographers and a run-of-the-mill price seems to be $250 - $400 for 10-15 high res photos (not sure if travel would be additional OR covers an additional visit at sunset for "night" shots). Just make sure you can deliver something better than what is currently available - give them a reason to want your services.
Longshots
19-10-2011, 9:02am
I wouldnt recommend looking at that genre at all.
Whats being stated, and whats being charged are two very different things. With franchised businesses offering photographic coverage, interiors and exteriors, hi rise view, dusk shot, floor plans, virtual tours, and their first born child for under $100 (!), its not something that I would recommend to anyone new to the area.
As a working pro in specifically the area of architecture, and property development, I have a reasonable insight in today's market. If you want to contact me directly, I'd be happy to have a chat with you
$100 ?
Sheesh, that's so wrong
chamee7
19-10-2011, 10:16am
Thanks for valuable comments.. Please keep em coming.
Lol, what more do you need to know ?
chamee7
19-10-2011, 10:52am
It looks like we still have two different arguments. Even though some clearly suggest this is not a good idea Ace55 suggests an approach. One thing I see when looking at most real estate advertisements is the photos used in those are not professional or up to any standard. Thats why I thought there will be a potential in the area. Couldn't really get something against or in this line so far
fess67
19-10-2011, 11:29am
Some time ago I looked into buying a franchise doing exactly this sort of work.
Pros are that it is work from home and therefore very limited overheads (once you have your gear).
Cons are as have already been stated within this thread. A shoot would be in the region of $200. They would not expect additional charges for weekend / twylight shoots because the agent typically works those hours as well. Some agents are good and demand good images, some are not bothered and are prepared to accept any old rubbish or do them themselves. These are the ones that want it for $100 a go.
The business I looked at made less money in the year than the total worth of my camera gear. Great if you like to have lots of spare time, not so good for paying the mortgage.
chamee7
19-10-2011, 12:00pm
Thanks fess67
I had a colleague working for a few property agents part time in WA. He said it's about $150 a pop using his own gear. He was doing it full time but realised that earning $2+k a month and still needing to pay Super + taxes + fuel + car didn't do it. So he ended up working at the pizza joint part time as well to pay for his mortgage and other expenses.
He was running around with a d700 + 14-24 + 24-70 + some tilt shift lenses and others + 5 strobes and stuff. Pretty good photos but definitely worth more than $150 i thought. It seems there are too many people who own bits of gear thinking they can do it as well and offering cut throat prices which resulted in low pay. I guess he could have been more firm with his pricing but maybe he was worried he wouldn't be able to get any work after that. Oh wells.
JM Tran
19-10-2011, 12:25pm
In 2011 I couldnt think of a worse genre to enter as a professional photographer right now! Besides stock photography that is.
Better off trying your luck at wedding photography:D
Hmm, event photography would probably be the hardest, or sport photography I think
You either compete with the office junior or the mum with a shiny new d3100 doing it all for free
JM Tran
20-10-2011, 8:42am
Hmm, event photography would probably be the hardest, or sport photography I think
You either compete with the office junior or the mum with a shiny new d3100 doing it all for free
nahhhh mate, event photography in comparison to real estate is easy - minimal to no editing, especially if you are talking about night club work and formals, grads etc. I have been there and done all that on the road to starting out back in 2007 for a bit - including real estate and interior architecture too. I dont see mums hanging out in nightclubs or a lot of events either doing that. There is a lot more post processing involving in real estate photography with minimal returns, which is the deal breaker. Compared to event photography - shoot the card full - give card to owner/manager on the night or event day and go home - or in other cases move onto other night clubs in one night.
and regarding sports - depends on what you classify as sports photography - professionally with the right lenses and media passes and connections, or someone rocking up to take photos and trying to sell them later to whoever is interested? Cant see mums with a d3100 doing that either in a professional way, now if she were to do it, I wouldnt really class her as a sports photographer anyway. It is a very gear exclusive photography genre. But a mum can definitely shoot a wedding or do stock or event or portraiture with a D3100 though and be taken more seriously than sports.
chamee7
20-10-2011, 10:55am
The challenge in events and sports mainly in the need of succeeding in an event you have no much control. Can't miss the golden moment. The experience and skills comes in to play more in those cases. Other than that the effort you have to made to produce the final result is comparatively low in events and sports if event is not a wedding.
With real estate and architecture you have room to trial and you can take time to produce something extraordinary with your expertise. Stay home mums will not succeed in any of those cases unless client does not have a good eye or ready accept anything for the low money they pay.
Longshots
21-10-2011, 9:33pm
The challenge in events and sports mainly in the need of succeeding in an event you have no much control. Can't miss the golden moment. The experience and skills comes in to play more in those cases. Other than that the effort you have to made to produce the final result is comparatively low in events and sports if event is not a wedding.
With real estate and architecture you have room to trial and you can take time to produce something extraordinary with your expertise. Stay home mums will not succeed in any of those cases unless client does not have a good eye or ready accept anything for the low money they pay.
Room to trial ? Sorry unless I'm misunderstanding you, I'm just calling it like I see it here, and apologies if this is too blunt, but you are without any doubt deluding yourself if you think there is any truth in any of what you just said.
As has been said - choose something else to do. You asked for advice and you've got some accurate advice from those who earn or are experienced in the genres referred to. Why argue with the advice you sought ?
Longshots
21-10-2011, 9:37pm
I had a colleague working for a few property agents part time in WA. He said it's about $150 a pop using his own gear. He was doing it full time but realised that earning $2+k a month and still needing to pay Super + taxes + fuel + car didn't do it. So he ended up working at the pizza joint part time as well to pay for his mortgage and other expenses.
He was running around with a d700 + 14-24 + 24-70 + some tilt shift lenses and others + 5 strobes and stuff. Pretty good photos but definitely worth more than $150 i thought. It seems there are too many people who own bits of gear thinking they can do it as well and offering cut throat prices which resulted in low pay. I guess he could have been more firm with his pricing but maybe he was worried he wouldn't be able to get any work after that. Oh wells.
Rather than just thank you for posting this, I thought it would be justified in simply quoting all of it, and saying to people to read this again, and again, and again. The $150 rate could have been more, except there's probably a dozen people in his area that are undercutting that low rate. And when they go out of business, there will be more to fill the gap. And the sad part is that more and more RE places simply do their own, produce crappy shots and still charge their clients for photography :scrtch:
shakes
22-10-2011, 10:34am
The $150 rate could have been more, except there's probably a dozen people in his area that are undercutting that low rate. And when they go out of business, there will be more to fill the gap.
How many people use it as an easy foot in the door to working for themselves as a photographer? Low paying, but seems an easy way to start to build your portfolio and start to learn the basics of business? And as the quality of shot's doesnt seem to need to be exceptional there is a good margin for error as well
ricktas
22-10-2011, 10:45am
How many people use it as an easy foot in the door to working for themselves as a photographer? Low paying, but seems an easy way to start to build your portfolio and start to learn the basics of business? And as the quality of shot's doesnt seem to need to be exceptional there is a good margin for error as well
Problem with that is that when you do decide to up your prices, once you have the 'foot well and truly in the door', the RE agents will just go find someone else who is trying to get their foot in the door and accept their low paying offer. Then what happens to your working photographer? RE Agents, like most businesses are happy to take the lowest possible quote, if someone is skilled enough to do the job, cause it means their profit margin stays up.
You are better off getting the photography skills first, and then starting the business, not learning as you go. Remember there are hundreds of other photographers out there all wanting to start up a business as well, who are probably just as good at taking the shots, and happy to undercut you. Using a 'cheap' business model is not going to do you any favours in the long run.
William W
22-10-2011, 2:03pm
Selling any image to a newspaper is more difficult than: Real Estate; Stock Photography or Sports Coverage.
WW
ricktas
22-10-2011, 2:47pm
Selling any image to a newspaper is more difficult than: Real Estate; Stock Photography or Sports Coverage.
WW
Agree. However real estate photography (generally) seems to be the cut throat world of 'cheaper is just as good', with RE agencies just trying to get shots at the cheapest possible price, in the majority of markets (suburban/rural areas). I do not believe an RE agent is going to be loyal to a photographer long term, rather it is all about commissions and profits, and maximising those at any expense. It may be good to make a few extra bucks to cover the cost of a bit of new gear, but I would not want to have RE photography as sole source of income.
One of AP members is a RE Agent and I've been out on a shoot (not RE) with him.
He has a Nikon D60 + Sigma 10-20 + a couple of other lenses.
He does all his own photos and not a bad job from what I've seen.
Why would he hire someone when he can do a more than reasonable job himself?
Longshots
22-10-2011, 4:53pm
How many people use it as an easy foot in the door to working for themselves as a photographer? Low paying, but seems an easy way to start to build your portfolio and start to learn the basics of business? And as the quality of shot's doesnt seem to need to be exceptional there is a good margin for error as well
Well again I say the same thing. Why ask, if when you and others here it from working pros, the advice sought, that you ignore and question it ?
And I'm afraid that neither party is in a position to decide what level of shots is required because neither of you have any experience in buying or commissioning real estate/architectural photography - and please do correct me if I'm wrong here.
And you're missing my initital point which was every man and his dog seems to think that they can do this. Sad fact of the matter is that they cant. And if the real estate agency can pick up a camera and pretty much do what every man and their dog is doing, then there is NO market there. Clearly points missed.
The most important point is that if you're providing a business with a service and it costs you more to provide that service than the income it produces - then thats a clear problem for short and long term future.
What else do I need to say to convince you that this is NOT an Easy Genre ? And professional Real Estate companies are not blind and are not fools when it comes to commissioning photography.
Longshots
22-10-2011, 4:58pm
One of AP members is a RE Agent and I've been out on a shoot (not RE) with him.
He has a Nikon D60 + Sigma 10-20 + a couple of other lenses.
He does all his own photos and not a bad job from what I've seen.
Why would he hire someone when he can do a more than reasonable job himself?
And thats the point. The only way of improving upon this scenario is to convince the RE companies/individuals, that the product that you can produce is substantially better and will produce a higher sale price, and the investment in the additional marketing services would be worthwhile.
Again, I can assure you that RE people generally know their products a great deal better then a a new, or even a general photographer. Understanding how the RE/Architectural Photographer can produce an economic (ie ecomonic in terms of visual space - space costs money in marketing) image that contains a life style, a story and can produce something that people are going to want, takes a "little bit" of skill. Seriously, anyone that thinks this is an easy option is as I said, deluding themselves.
And if the real estate agency can pick up a camera and pretty much do what every man and their dog is doing, then there is NO market there.
Amen.
I sold a house early this year, small agent that is part of a reasonably large group and in their small branch office they had a couple of Nikon D3100 bodies lying on an office desk. They didn't charge anything extra in their deal for photography, the commission on the sale included advertising and they put very respectable images in the local paper and on the 'net.
So the question is, why would they want to pay someone else to do it, the price of a couple of cameras was hardly enormous, can be written off as a business expense and it probably only took them 20 mins or so to come up with 8 or 9 good shots.
William W
22-10-2011, 5:26pm
Selling any image to a newspaper is more difficult than: Real Estate; Stock Photography or Sports Coverage.WW
Plus -
Agree. However real estate photography (generally) seems to be the cut throat world of 'cheaper is just as good' . . . etc
No argument with the content and the meaning.
Whilst expanding on the tangent created by by JM Tran and kiwi ...
For clarity: my point is that RE photography WILL sell, if pushed and if willing to accept a low rate and be prepared to move that rate lower, if necessary.
On the other hand, Newspapers are least inclined to part with money in the first inst., whatever the low price is which is requested, Newspapers do not have the same “need” in the first place, nor do Newspapers have the facility to on pass the costs for example, in the cases of an Auction.
If I were still doing RE Photography, I would be marketing to high end Properties, for Auction – but as previously mentioned there would be fierce competition in that market already and (not wanting to begin a State War) only a few (maybe four) areas in AUS., where the Pie is big enough to allow for a new Camera.
WW
Longshots
22-10-2011, 5:41pm
Let me tell you a very personal experience
I bought an investment property - a display home from a large national builder that I used to shoot for. It was a very good deal, I bought the finished display home and the builder would lease it back, on a 12 month basis, with a 12 month extension. Long story, but the builder was not able to extend the lease, and I was left with no tenant, and I didnt want to rent. So I put it on the market with the local Real Estate. I'd shot the interior for the original builder so had a number of really good shots, I could give to the RE. I thought they would use them, instead they took their own really crappy shot of the front of the property. After four weeks just 4 people had made appointments to look through the house.
I had one of those moments when I hit myself across the front of the head, wondering why I hadnt got of my bum to do what I know I can do well. So I set off and took a great shot of the front of the house, all beautifully lit, dusk sky behind, and with the front of the house illuminated. Superb shot if I say so myself that took me 3 hours to set up, (YES 3 hours to set up for just one shot, one view) and with almost no post production work involved, I handed the new image to the RE agent and asked them to replace their dreadful shot.
Next week, that shot was used in the paper. 35 families arranged appointments to view that week, and it was sold within the week - which BTW exceeded the price that every RE agent said I would get for it - which I knew I could get for it. That price was (albeit a few years ago now) over $500,000. Now did I think that the simple cost of say a $1,000 would have been worth investing in additional marketing ? Of course.
And Andrew, the commission I paid on that sale (which if recall right was about $17-18,000 - which covered just four weeks work at most, in all honesty I would expect them to produce high quality professional images in their marketing - and I have no problem if they can do it themselves. I'm of the opinion that I shouldnt have to pay anything on that type of percentage.
Did I think that the commission I paid to the RE agent worthwhile ? I'm afraid not.
The trouble with your final comment is that relating the cost of the gear is exactly what many businesses fall into the trap of. Buying the gear is just a case of buying the gear - that doesnt give you the ability and experience. Many businesses have an accounting software package, but that doesnt mean that they're accountants.
My point is that a good shot - without any embellishments can easily add value to a house/business, and thats what commercial photography is all about. To think that this genre is an easy way into photography is so far off reality its frankly ridiculous from my perspective.
Longshots
22-10-2011, 6:07pm
For clarity: my point is that RE photography WILL sell, if pushed and if willing to accept a low rate and be prepared to move that rate lower, if necessary.
WW
William do you know what low rates are currently being banded around by RE "specialist shooters" ? I'm not going to quote any particular photographer, or franchise, so I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to take my word for this.
Inside and outside - full coverage of interior and exterior, includes either 360 view, or hi rise shot, plus optional twilight/dusk shot at sometimes extra cost. I'm very aware, being very involved in a related genre of architectural photography that prices are being quote at $150 to $200, but in practice, prices being achieved, paid and quoted to RE agents are sometimes as little as $50 - $80 - which when you consider time involved in doing this type of coverage, is extremely low.
Additionally the market is hugely oversaturated, hence the low low prices. So while I'm not arguing with the low price theory, there is a point where its not economically viable.
I wouldnt disagree with your suggestion to aim for high end property sales for photography, but those sellers will be looking for experience and skills that are proven and exist, not someone starting as per the OP in this topic.
Again to be pedantic - this has nothing to do with " a new Camera " but the skill, knowledge, and experience of how someone uses the equipment.
RE Photography has changed significantly in the past 10 years.
maccaroneski
22-10-2011, 6:18pm
I wouldnt disagree with your suggestion to aim for high end property sales for photography, but those sellers will be looking for experience and skills that are proven and exist, not someone starting as per the OP in this topic.
So why not start in the low end of the market if you're prepared to live on dust cardboard and water, and get those skills and experience? Isn't that the advice that you'd give anyone irrespective of the genre that we are talkling about? I mean if the OP were talking weddings, wouldn't the advice be to go and second shoot for $50 an hour (or even free) until such time as the requisite skills and experience has been obtained to aim higher?
(P.S. I'm not rying to raise an argument, just interested in an exploration of this point)
Longshots
22-10-2011, 6:39pm
Havent I given you enough reasons why not to start in the low end ? Which was the original question and answered by many others in this topic. This isnt about raising an argument its about reading the thread of responses ?
I think this topic has gone full circle as this was what the original question was Tony. And there have been many points covered about the "low end" of this genre.
$50 per hour for an inexperienced or even experienced second shooter for a wedding photographer is not a real world example -in my experience - while it would be nice its rare, especially not for a beginner.
But we're not talking about weddings, the topic is about "getting into" RE photography.
The costs I just quoted above for the everyday packages for RE price wouldnt even give the photographer $50 an hour !
FWIW I'd offered free real world advice to the OP if they wanted to ring me they would be welcomed and as yet still not heard from them, I dont believe that they're serious in their quest.
:scrtch:
And Andrew, the commission I paid on that sale (which if recall right was about $17-18,000 - which covered just four weeks work at most, in all honesty I would expect them to produce high quality professional images in their marketing - and I have no problem if they can do it themselves. I'm of the opinion that I shouldnt have to pay anything on that type of percentage.
Did I think that the commission I paid to the RE agent worthwhile ? I'm afraid not.
Different times, different markets I guess but in my case:-
Real estate agent A wanted .5% more commission than real estate agent B , expected to be paid for advertising and pushed me to advertise the house for $10,000.00 less than I felt the market would bear.
Real estate agent B said my price was realistic and offered me their terms without being told what real estate agent A was offering.
Real estate agent A had a bit of a laugh and a sneer and said that they would ring me in 60 days when the property wasn't sold when told that I was listing it with real estate agent B.
Now getting back to the photography side of things, once the house was listed, it was immediately apparent that the images that appeared on the ads from real estate agent B were superior to anything advertised by real estate agent A who wanted to charge me more for both the sale and the advertising.
Property sold in under 60 days, there were several interested parties and in the market at the time it was a satisfactory result.
Do I think that the commission paid was fair, probably not.
Would I have thought that the result would have been fairer by paying another agent more money for the same (or less dollar return) plus paying for advertising of a lower standard, definitely not.
My experience relates more to the bread and butter end of the market and not so much the big budget spenders but surely anyone looking to get into the bread and butter end of the real estate photography market would have to look at eating minimal amounts of bread sans butter until they were exceptionally good and could out perform many others doing it at a level where they could afford butter on their bread.
maccaroneski
22-10-2011, 7:15pm
We're not talking about weddings anway, the topic is about RE photography.
It was an analogy, William. They are sometimes used in civilised conversation.
No offence to many her, but I think I should give up trying to offer any real advice to the OP's question because its falling into a usual bunch of responses where reality (which is what I thought this question was based on) is being muddled with opinions based on little if any real world experience. So as I'd offered free real world advice to the OP if they wanted to ring me and as yet still not heard from them, I dont believe that they're serious in their quest.
Well i certainly wasn't giving any advice: I was genuinely asking questions and was interested in your response.
I had read read the entirety of the thread, evidenced by my referencing one of your posts right at the start, and then one right before my reply. I'm not sure what would lead you to believe that I would simply throw random advice around on a subject in which I have no expertise without first reading the history.
(Responding to the original version of Longshots' post).
peterb666
22-10-2011, 7:17pm
For routine pics selling real estate, most real estate agencies use a member of staff or two. I know this because my father was a real estate agent for a period of time and I currently have a friend who works in a real estate agency and she assembles videos and stuff they like to use these days as part of her work.
When sizable advertising campaigns are involved, they may use a specialist photographer but they usually resort to someone they use on a regular basis as the quality is know and it is less mucking around.
Unless you discover a niche and can offer a service that is desirable, it is unlikey you will make a fortune in real estate photography. I agree with Longshots and his earlier posting about the price paid for jobs. It is really that low as there are too many people with cameras that want to make a living out of their hobby.
Rick got it right in post #2.
Architectural photography as opposed to real estate photography can give returns but you need the experience and to be able to display a quality body of work to back it up to get the jobs. There would be very few doing it in Australia as a main source of income.
Longshots
22-10-2011, 7:37pm
It was an analogy, William. They are sometimes used in civilised conversation.
Well i certainly wasn't giving any advice: I was genuinely asking questions and was interested in your response.
I had read read the entirety of the thread, evidenced by my referencing one of your posts right at the start, and then one right before my reply. I'm not sure what would lead you to believe that I would simply throw random advice around on a subject in which I have no expertise without first reading the history.
(Responding to the original version of Longshots' post).
I did change my response. Clearly no point at all.
And I'm sorry but you appeared to me to be suggesting $50 per hour for a second shooter for a wedding was reality. And no matter how I read and reread your response it seems to be to be advice.
And yes analogies can be part of civilised discussions. I wasnt suggesting that it was uncivilised I was suggesting that an analogy has to have some reference. In this case I couldnt see any. Hows this for an analogy, the OP could try advertising photography as well, I hear that assistants in that can earn $4,000 for a job. Makes as mush sense to me as the analogy of second shooting at a rate that is unrealistic. Sure its civilised, just no logic to that at all.
maccaroneski
22-10-2011, 10:44pm
William,
It was your original response that I was suggesting that took the discussion away from being civilised - you admit as much in italics at the end of your post - not a use or lack of analogies.
Read my post with particular attantion to the punctuation- question marks would indicate a question, not a statement. All three sentences of my post end with them, and to clarify, I even included a statement in parentheses to ernsure that my post was to be taken as argumentative rather than inquisitive.
I'm not exactly sure how that translates to "no matter how I read and reread your response it seems to be to be advice". Perhaps I could include a "scratching the head" emoticon here, but that wouldn't really take the duscussion anywhere of value.
William W
23-10-2011, 7:35am
William do you know what low rates are currently being banded around by RE "specialist shooters" ?
Yes. I believe have a reasonable understanding and across a few real estate markets, two areas specifically in Sydney, but not all the markets of which I have knowledge, are in NSW.
I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to take my word for this.
There is no need to be afraid: I have no argument with your indicative figures – I am sure they are correct for some markets.
Nor do I distrust your word.
Additionally the market is hugely oversaturated, hence the low low prices. So while I'm not arguing with the low price theory, there is a point where its not economically viable.
I agree that mostly all RE Photography markets are not economically viable for a new business: to be clear - I intimated that likely only four areas in all of AUS., would possibly be “viable”.
I wouldnt disagree with your suggestion to aim for high end property sales for photography, but those sellers will be looking for experience and skills that are proven and exist, not someone starting as per the OP in this topic.
Again to be pedantic - this has nothing to do with " a new Camera " but the skill, knowledge, and experience of how someone uses the equipment.
The OP asked a question about starting a business in AUS.; his info indicates he is writing from SYDNEY; he indicates he has Photography experience, specifically Architectural Photography – I make no assumptions on the quality of his work or the depth or breadth of his Experience or his Portfolio or his previous Client List.
I made a suggestion that if I were to re enter RE Photography, as to where I would pitch my marketing.
Other commentators here might have more in depth knowledge of the skills background and portfolio of the OP than I – but I am responding to the OP’s disclosure here and only that disclosure and not pre-supposing anything.
To be pedantic – “a new camera”, is a metaphor.
WW
AlphegA
03-11-2011, 10:20pm
Wow! This thread was posted on the day I got back to Sydney after being out of Australia for 8 years. Anyway, I have exactly the same question as chamee and I'm glad to stumble in this thread!
sunny6teen
03-11-2011, 11:05pm
Again to be pedantic - this has nothing to do with " a new Camera " but the skill, knowledge, and experience of how someone uses the equipment.
that can't be right. Canon's marketing department are forever insisting that my only contribution is pressing the button.
point...click...viola! Wolfgang Sievers
Nice to see the OP has continued to contribute :rolleyes:
sunny6teen
04-11-2011, 11:58pm
that can't be right. Canon's marketing department are forever insisting that my only contribution is pressing the button.
point...click...viola! Wolfgang Sievers
it's a bad sign when you're replying to yourself...but what do violas have to do with this?
I think you will find it is spelt "voila" -
used to call attention, to express satisfaction or approval, or to suggest an appearance as if by magic
sunny6teen
05-11-2011, 9:53am
yeah, I know. typo.
William W
05-11-2011, 10:46am
. . . or spelled
reflect
05-11-2011, 1:31pm
After a breif moment of madness, even I worked out that this genre is best avoided like the plague. Leave it to the RE agents juniors with a basic DSLR and start focussing on developing skill in a genre that will pay appropriately for the time and monetary investment that you have made. I am sure there are a few RE photographers making acceptable pay rates, but I believe that they are the exception. Personally I'd rather do time lapse of the lawn growing. :lol2:
I did a bit of RE in Orange - trouble is RE agents think they are great at everything - except selling - cause they can't see the value of good photo's, they can't sell the concept to the vendors. We have one agent in town who has great photos they have a pretty handy photographer on staff (not professional) and they PP everything.
I did a bit for one agent - they expected a 24hr turnaround (when i was still working a 38 hr week elsewhere - but took 3 weeks to pay me.
I enjoyed it and would like to do a bit more - but don't expect to get rich doing it....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.