Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: It *is* the camera, stupid ;-)  (Read 4940 times)

Paul Sumi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1217
It *is* the camera, stupid ;-)
« on: October 10, 2010, 12:15:52 pm »

Although I suspect it's due more to the person wielding the camera than the actual equipment, an article reports:

"Attention desperate home sellers. Don't want to lower the price  on your house? Consider better photos. Real-estate listings that use photographs taken by the higher-end SLR cameras favored by photographers and photography enthusiasts, tend to do better than those that use photos from cheaper point-and-shoot cameras (my emphasis), according to a new analysis done by Redfin Corp., a Seattle-based brokerage."

http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/in-real-estate-a-picture-is-worth-1000-or-more.html

Paul
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: It *is* the camera, stupid ;-)
« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2010, 01:14:20 pm »

What? No replies from the MF crowd yet?
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Riaan van Wyk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 812
Re: It *is* the camera, stupid ;-)
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2010, 02:06:25 pm »

What? No replies from the MF crowd yet?

Uuhhmmm...would that be the Manual Focus crowd Eric..? Dick must be busy I guess.

I pity the homeowners reading the statement on how to sell a house. Having not bothered to look at the link I am quite sure some company is conveniently advertising those "higher-end slr cameras" too, purely by chance of course. 

Dick Roadnight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1730
Re: It *is* the camera, stupid ;-)
« Reply #3 on: October 10, 2010, 02:37:32 pm »

Uuhhmmm...would that be the Manual Focus crowd Eric..? Dick must be busy I guess.

I pity the homeowners reading the statement on how to sell a house. Having not bothered to look at the link I am quite sure some company is conveniently advertising those "higher-end slr cameras" too, purely by chance of course.  
Hi, I just got back.

I have, in fact, just sold a house, and I took the pictures of it for the Estate Agent with my Leica D-Lux 3, before I had the digital Hasselblad... there were bushes in the foreground, so I used the delayed timer and put the camera on a 4m garden tool pole, giving a height of 6m+. I pan-and-stitched two images. The height also meant that the Cotswold Hills in the distance were visible.

I appreciate that the res of high-end MF would be wasted on normal houses, but might be of some benefit for posters and full-page adverts in magazines for the £1m+ market...

The previous owner of my Manfrotto Agnoscope used it for house photography for Estate Agents, and it came with a CCTV system for seeing the screen of a film Hasselblad... but I will be using it with live view.

The small cameras that are good for this type of application usually have plenty of DOF... you can correct verticals in PS, but a T/S lens would help... but I think very few Estate Agents use them.

Tethered cameras with live view and movements on 70ft masts are ideal for pictures to sell houses, but only the top Estate Agents selling very valuable property would spend the money, and it might be a waste of time for me to look for that type of work.

...but I know a town planner who tells me he has difficulty finding photographers to produce photographs good enough for the "montage" "artist view" pictures they need for planning applications.

The article recommends getting the Estate Agent to use a professional photographer, but...
Would they spend the money?
Would the average Pro produce a better picture?
« Last Edit: October 10, 2010, 03:28:49 pm by Dick Roadnight »
Logged
Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: It *is* the camera, stupid ;-)
« Reply #4 on: October 10, 2010, 04:16:50 pm »

I see what you mean about problems with foliage/grass and billiard tables...

Film was definitely the poor old baby in the bath!

Rob C

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Re: It *is* the camera, stupid ;-)
« Reply #5 on: October 10, 2010, 06:04:31 pm »

It's not only houses - interchangeable lens cameras get you laid. Guess why I got an MFT camera...

Paul Sumi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1217
Re: It *is* the camera, stupid ;-)
« Reply #6 on: October 10, 2010, 07:05:46 pm »

Guess why I got an MFT camera...

I knew going with Canon rather than Nikon was a good choice  ;D
Logged

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5882
Re: It *is* the camera, stupid ;-)
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2010, 03:32:48 am »

Quote

I appreciate that the res of high-end MF would be wasted on normal houses, but might be of some benefit for posters and full-page adverts in magazines for the £1m+ market...

Unquote

What is a normal house? :) ;) ;D

michaelnotar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 367
Re: It *is* the camera, stupid ;-)
« Reply #8 on: October 11, 2010, 04:26:35 am »

shooting a listing with a REBEL is overkill for those dumb #@$R#$%'s. as a photographer shooting homes for almost 5 years it clearly doesnt matter. i do like what the article was getting at better photos sell homes faster and perhaps for more. my good clients realize that.

the only time i brought  MF camera to a house shoot was because i wanted to play with my new toy a cambo wds. the agent asked how much it cost and i replied 3% of the sale price (which is their standard commission)
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: It *is* the camera, stupid ;-)
« Reply #9 on: October 11, 2010, 10:19:06 am »

What is a normal house? :) ;) ;D
Four walls, a roof, and a bed, with an outhouse within walking distance?
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: It *is* the camera, stupid ;-)
« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2010, 12:15:05 pm »

Four walls, a roof, and a bed, with an outhouse within walking distance?


Eric, don't be cruel: that was parts of Glasgow early/mid last century; it has mostly been gentrified (stamper, right or wrong?) and/or turned into motorways, and that goes for parts of a certain park, too.

Rob C

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: It *is* the camera, stupid ;-)
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2010, 02:23:10 pm »


Eric, don't be cruel: that was parts of Glasgow early/mid last century; it has mostly been gentrified (stamper, right or wrong?) and/or turned into motorways, and that goes for parts of a certain park, too.

Rob C
Not just Glasgow, Rob. My grandfather, who lived for some years in West Virginia in the U.S. of A. would frequently comment on seeing a falling-down shanty by the road, "Look! Another modest West Virginia residence!"

Eric
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5882
Re: It *is* the camera, stupid ;-)
« Reply #12 on: October 13, 2010, 04:32:27 am »

Four walls, a roof, and a bed, with an outhouse within walking distance?

Eric, don't be cruel: that was parts of Glasgow early/mid last century; it has mostly been gentrified (stamper, right or wrong?) and/or turned into motorways, and that goes for parts of a certain park, too.




Rob C
[/quote]

In Glasgow the outhouse was really a cludgie/shithouse/lavy/crapper/bog/ or if you were being polite a toilet. Yes these areas have now been mostly cleaned up now. They use toilet paper instead of newspaper. :) ;) ;D

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5882
Re: It *is* the camera, stupid ;-)
« Reply #13 on: October 13, 2010, 04:36:09 am »

Quote Rob

Eric, don't be cruel: that was parts of Glasgow early/mid last century; it has mostly been gentrified (stamper, right or wrong?) and/or turned into motorways, and that goes for parts of a certain park, too.

Unquote

Rob what park are you referring to? I think I know and I think I know what you are referring to. I do a lot of photography there .... but only photography. :) ;) ;D

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: It *is* the camera, stupid ;-)
« Reply #14 on: October 13, 2010, 02:26:54 pm »

Quote Rob

Eric, don't be cruel: that was parts of Glasgow early/mid last century; it has mostly been gentrified (stamper, right or wrong?) and/or turned into motorways, and that goes for parts of a certain park, too.

Unquote

Rob what park are you referring to? I think I know and I think I know what you are referring to. I do a lot of photography there .... but only photography. :) ;) ;D



Rouken Glen. Lived there a long time and loved it back in the day; shot a Barbour Threads calendar in it in one day(!) with a girl from Bobton's Agency called Jaleh Haddad. A woman that runs a restaurant here in Mallorca used to know her well - they worked on several shoots together too. I did stuff there for House of Fraser, Goldbergs and quite a few others. Boy, did the crows love nesting in the trees, though!

Rob C

Riaan van Wyk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 812
Re: It *is* the camera, stupid ;-)
« Reply #15 on: October 13, 2010, 03:38:23 pm »


What is a normal house? :) ;) ;D

Depends..these are normal for our "rural area. An outhouse is in this area is called a tree, away from the homestead.

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5882
Re: It *is* the camera, stupid ;-)
« Reply #16 on: October 14, 2010, 04:04:26 am »


Rouken Glen. Lived there a long time and loved it back in the day; shot a Barbour Threads calendar in it in one day(!) with a girl from Bobton's Agency called Jaleh Haddad. A woman that runs a restaurant here in Mallorca used to know her well - they worked on several shoots together too. I did stuff there for House of Fraser, Goldbergs and quite a few others. Boy, did the crows love nesting in the trees, though!

Rob C

Rob I thought that you were referring to Kelvingrove park. To be honest I am not a great fan of Rouken Glen. The lake area is nice but the waterfall is too awkward a place to get a good image of....if you like that sort of thing.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: It *is* the camera, stupid ;-)
« Reply #17 on: October 14, 2010, 05:09:15 pm »

Rob I thought that you were referring to Kelvingrove park. To be honest I am not a great fan of Rouken Glen. The lake area is nice but the waterfall is too awkward a place to get a good image of....if you like that sort of thing.


No, no! You just need to go down the path to the bottom right of it and then, looking back upwards, you can put your model on the rocks towards the right of the base (working here from memory of that Barbour calendar) and it looks quite exotic. At least, it did in 35mm black/white! The top part, looking over the edge of the wooden bridge to the small drop from the stream, isn't pretty at all.

The last specific memory I have of the lake at Rouken G is walking around it one Sunday wth my daughter, her kids, my wife and her mum; a dirty great seagull shat right on my head. I didn't know if to laugh, sue or just cut my losses, so I went into the loo and washed it off in bloody cold water. When I got back out and joined the group, all I got was more hysterical laughter: not a suggestion of sympathy, even from my wife. Payback time. It's what you get for wearing sunglasses in Scottish mist.

Rob C

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5882
Re: It *is* the camera, stupid ;-)
« Reply #18 on: October 15, 2010, 04:07:25 am »

Rob the problem with the waterfall is that you are facing the sun when you try to shoot an image. I have tried the angle you suggested and if I remember correctly it is best to try in midsummer in order to get a good amount of light from directly above. In winter the sun doesn't penetrate the trees enough and the low angle means it is near the top of the burn? Now if Glasgow city council would reverse the waterfall so that the sun is at your back then that would be helpful? ;D I haven't been in the park for three or four years. At the moment I am contemplating good places for autumn colours and if my memory is correct the park isn't the best.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2010, 04:09:00 am by stamper »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: It *is* the camera, stupid ;-)
« Reply #19 on: October 15, 2010, 03:26:08 pm »

It used to be pretty good for colours; I got some crackers of the two islands with reflections; some of the trees near the separate walled garden in the area of the plant shop and the restaurant were great, but then a lot of trees have been brought down by storms. And you know what? I don't have a damn thing left. Not the Kodachrome, not the calendar negs, nothing. I did another calendar for Barbour Threads down in Auchendrain and all I have to show for it now is two or three actual pages from the proof sheets that I had encapsulated in plastic. I may try copying them with a polarizer on the lens - the model was Susan Shaw and she had been the Librarian in the Smirnoff campaign of the time. She was perfect for the part: could look so 'country wench' that I almost believed the visual lies in the calendar myself!

Got a shot of her working an old mangle and another I liked very much where she is walking towards the entrance of an old building, shot from inside; the two sides of the shot are jet black and she is in bright light... loved it! I think I have a third where she's sitting cross-legged and it's quite tight and grainy. I shall try to find these shots and put them in my Biscuit Tin section of the site. I'll let you know when I manage it. Hell, life really was bloody good at times! I can't think of many jobs that can give you business mammaries memories so personal like that... yep, despite everything, all the crap and all the mothereffers I also met, I would do it all over again!

Rob C
Pages: [1]   Go Up