Tilt-Shift lens worth it?

Started 3 months ago | Questions thread
Ed Rizk Veteran Member • Posts: 3,451
Re: Tilt-Shift lens worth it?
1

Michael Fryd wrote:

AZBlue wrote:

I'm a Realtor® who wins sellers with my photography. There are so many of us out there, how does one differentiate oneself? I've found that my photography sets me apart from other agents, especially when sellers realize that photos of their house will be seen as a "first impression" by 95% of home buyers.

When I work with buyers, I take a nice location portrait of their family at the new house which I have lab printed and framed. That's my closing gift to them, as a reminder of not only this happy day but of me as well.

That's a great closing gift.   I give prints of their properties to clients with good architecture and digital files to retail tenants that they can use in their marketing, but I hadn't thought of a portrait for the clients.

A lot of real estate agents end up incorporating their hobbies and passions into their businesses.

Assume for a moment you decided to never take another photo again, but would remain a Realtor. Let's also assume there are vendors in your area that will provide reasonable photos for $150 per house.

From a business perspective, how much extra would it make sense to spend to upgrade to photos of the same quality as what you have been shooting?

Does it make financial sense to spend an extra $100? How about an extra $500? Is an extra $1,000 unreasonable?

I think everyone agrees that better photos are a plus. I think everyone here agrees that if better photos cost an extra $1, then it's worth the money. I think everyone here would agree that if the better photos cost $50,000 then they probably doesn't make financial sense.

The question is what is the actual ballpark value to the Realtor? That's an important piece of information for a photographer targeting that market. If a tilt-shift lens isn't going to get the photographer more business, faster workflow, or higher pricing then it may not be worth the investment.

That is a valid question.  It costs me less time than it does the photographer, because I have to go there anyway.   Shooting and precessing time used to be a lot when I started, but now I generally shoot a property in less than 30 minutes and process it in about the same time.  Some places are very simple and take 10 minutes.   Once in a while I get some great architecture to work with and take a lot longer because I am enjoying myself.

Some years I beat that $150 an hour figure, and some years I don't.

Having control over the process is valuable.   I know better than a non real estate person what I want to include, what I want to emphasize, and what I want to exclude.    If I have to direct the photographer, I only save the processing time.   I don't really know what I want until I start shooting it.  It's not just art.   It's documentation.  Correct documentation in the most aesthetically pleasing way possible within a reasonable time is my goal.

-- hide signature --

Ed Rizk

 Ed Rizk's gear list:Ed Rizk's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS R Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon EF 24-70mm F4L IS USM +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow