the Pathetic state of everyday architecture photography
I have come to accept as a given that real estate agents selling ordinary, single family homes have absolutely no regard for photography. I don't remember the last time I saw real estate photo that did not look like a complete hack job (save those fancy, multimillion dollar homes on the other side of the tracks...). I'm pretty sure that most middle of the road real estate agents just go out to the site and photograph the home for sale themselves. It is so pervasive that I just tune it out.
But, then today, I was looking through the Walll Street Journal and right there on Page A-10, is one of the most shockingly crummy photos of a building I've ever seen printed in a news article. I understand that the WSJ has gone down hill since News corp took it over but...this is apalling...and the photo is credited to Getty Images...
I found the story on line....check it out for yourself...
i know what you mean brad ..
i have friends who are realtors and they told me
it really doesn't matter what the images look like bad and worse,
because it is just supposed to "spark the interest of a potential buyer" ...
not to mention they don't want to pay for anything since it comes out of their
can't see the image since i am not a subscriber
Crappy snapshot helped the film industry refine their products buy providing film sales. Crappy digisnaps will do the same for both analog and d------l industries.
It would be a good idea to encourage every lousy snapshoter and digisnapper to take every snapshot or image they can.
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
Originally Posted by jnanian
Odd. I googled "carl icahn kerkorian" - the subject of the article - and was able to see the photo when I followed the first link provided by google....copied that URL here but, when I follow the link above (should be same page - right?), I cannot see the photo or read the whole article. Perhaps, I got re-directed.
Just out of interest, what does the 'real' in 'real estate agent' mean? In the UK, the term is just 'estate agent' without the 'real' which seems more logical (at least, to us!).
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by Steve Smith
Oh...we could have a whole dicussion of weirdness in the two languages...
In the UK a solicitor is the guy who asks questions in a courtroom in an effort to get witnesses to reveal the facts of the case. In the US, a solicitor is an annoying person who comes to your door asking you to buy magazine subscriptions you don't want or need...
We could go on and on...
PS. I have no idea what makes our estates "REAL" those over there ...uh, not real
Last edited by BradS; 04-17-2009 at 12:49 PM. Click to view previous post history.
from the on-line dictionary/ reference real estate means:
somehow it makes sense.
Basic types of property in English common law, roughly corresponding to the division between immovables and movables in civil law. Real property consists of land, buildings, crops, and other resources, improvements, or fixtures still attached to the land. Personal property is essentially all property other than real property, including goods, animals, money, and vehicles.
"There's more to the picture
Than meets the eye." - Neil Young
& My APUG
No, only one of them is weird!
Originally Posted by BradS
Which one depends on your location.
It does indeed. Now back to our regular program..... (sorry, I meant programme).
Originally Posted by naeroscatu
Speak and write Canadian: then you have the best of both...