If you can come up with an efficient (cheap) way to produce quality images real estate agents will buy them. I have a friend who did this. He had a menu list of x exteriors, interiors and QTVR's that where very quick and easy for him to produce (30-60mins per site plus drive time) and were far better than the quality of the stuff most real estate agents produced on their own. The problem for traditional photog's is that he charged ~100.00 per house whereas most Archetectural photogs would require a min of a 1/2 day (600.0 0and up).
I got my largest Architectural client because of the crap that is produced. They had gone through a couple 'photographers' who were cheap and fast and equally as bad. I am happy that there are boneheads out there it makes my meager offerings look so much better.
The way I see it the buyer decides. A real estate agent wants something cheap and fast, an Architect or Designer wants something attractive and will pay what they can the former will understand perspective control and lighting the latter may not, a contractor wants something that is serviceable and as often as not wants it cheap, and photo editors may only want something to fill the hole that represents the subject, is not out of focus and is reasonably professional looking -- they are not looking for art.
Last edited by jd callow; 04-17-2009 at 02:29 PM. Click to view previous post history.