Does having Professional photos get a higher return on your investment property?

Does having Professional photos get a higher return on your investment property?

  • Yes

    Votes: 54 56.3%
  • No

    Votes: 28 29.2%
  • Don't Know

    Votes: 14 14.6%

  • Total voters
    96
I would pay for professional photos every time...I think the key point that many of you are missing is that you pay for it once, and then re-use the photos each time it comes up for rent...Matt

+1 from me

I agree with most comments. If you have a good product, have good photos.

I have a friend who has a always listed his house with terrible photos and no common sense; from out of focus photos, kitchen with a dirty bench, streaky windows, untidy yard etc. Always has problems reletting...every single year ! :eek:
 
If you have a good product, have good photos.
Maybe it depends on the product. My last ad was advertising a low end rental. The agent took great photos. If they had not been good enough I would have paid for a pro. As it was I got a quick rental at above market for comparable properties. The photos were enough to get people through the door but it was the property itself that closed the deal.
 
With respect to all, it is more diversification of charges.

Any reasonably competent adult should be able to take some photos. A property manager should have a wide angle camera available for management and be able to take shots. It isn't a shoot at a debutante ball.

The cameras are cheap, made simple for the average consumer and there are no film and processing costs. If the PM is going to inspect the property, why not take those photos at the same time?

I am wondering what the next 'necessary' charge will be. No, it doesn't matter that someone 'independent' will be engaged to take the photos.
 
The cameras are cheap, made simple for the average consumer and there are no film and processing costs. If the PM is going to inspect the property, why not take those photos at the same time?
It depends on how the photos turn out. The photos mine took were good and there were plenty of them. I think we listed with over 20 photos in the ad. That sure got people through the door. The worst ads I see are ones with a blurry photo of the outside only or 3 blurry photos.

I sold my house last year for top dollar using photos taken with a phone camera. The photos were sharp and clear and did the job. No need for pro photos but then again it was a low end sale. If I was selling a million dollar property I would get better photos done.
 
perthguy,

I pay heaps for professional management.

Through diversification of charging, that professional management has somehow gathered umpteen new charges over the years.

Do you believe that a REA is providing professional property management if it does not have a decent digital camera and they are very cheap, and the PMs are incapable of taking the necessary photos to list the rental, and to document for the entry and exit condition reports and routine inspections?

Is it also being said that PMs do not have the time to take the photos? Because I wouldn't be happy about that either - see para above.
 
perthguy,

I pay heaps for professional management.

Through diversification of charging, that professional management has somehow gathered umpteen new charges over the years.

Do you believe that a REA is providing professional property management if it does not have a decent digital camera and they are very cheap, and the PMs are incapable of taking the necessary photos to list the rental, and to document for the entry and exit condition reports and routine inspections?

Is it also being said that PMs do not have the time to take the photos? Because I wouldn't be happy about that either - see para above.
Sorry, my post wasn't very clear. My property manager took the photos for the ad. They turned out great, so I didn't need a pro photographer to take any photos. I have now rented out a house for top dollar for the area for that type of house with PM photos. I have also sold a unit for top dollar for the area using phone camera photos. Based on this I would not stump up for pro photos unless I had a millon dollar property.

I always market my properties for rent or sale with good photos, I just don't pay a pro to take them.

For example, I would never market my property like this:

http://reiwa.com.au/Buy/Pages/More-...1&listingid=10449567&listingno=3451416&puid=0
 
I am a bit of a photographer on the side and have a 17mm wide angle lens. I also am good around photoshop to lift the colour, saturation and contrast. If you ever need a few shots taken and you are located in metro Sydney, just send me a message.

Will.
 
perthguy,

Thank you for your reply and very pleased to hear of a PM who did the trick and did it well.

Who better to take photos than the PM who presumably is the owner's authority on what tenants are looking for and should know how to best present the desirable features.

It is all so simple and a little practice makes perfect. Best of all, the photo is there on screen for the user, the PM, to approve or take another. The problem is that some REAs are probably expecting their PMs to take photos with mobile phones and unsuitable dinosaur cameras.

A Canon Powershot G1X would kill it, make professional results easily obtainable and motivate staff.

A PM should have one in her/his 'go-bag' to inspect properties.

It is tax deductible for the REA's business like any other office equipment.
 
I am a bit of a photographer on the side and have a 17mm wide angle lens. I also am good around photoshop to lift the colour, saturation and contrast. If you ever need a few shots taken and you are located in metro Sydney, just send me a message.

Will.

Hi Will,

Our posts crossed. For interest, what cameras might you recommend as a 'go to' business camera for a PM? External flash too if you like.

This is a subject that should be discussed more often. The role of a PM would surely require a decent camera that is easily to use.
 
Hello,

I'm new here so I am guessing PM stands for Property Manager. Today's world is all digital so for maximum coverage of rooms and architecture, you would need a wide angle lens with a average to decent DSLR. The camera body is not so much as important for photographing properties, rooms, lounges, backyards, etc. It's more about a good quality wide angle lens, good composition and perfect ambient lighting. Flash is not recommended in my opinion. A wide angle lens from about 14mm to 17mm would be perfect.

I wouldn't recommend going and buying one of those camera and body packages. Just buy the body and lens separate (unless you get a nice wide angle with the package). The lens you get in the package is cheap and plastic. However, even the average DSLR with a cheap wide angle lens will do the job well. We need to notethat we are not taking photos of models or landscapes of mountains. I say this because you're going to edit the image in Photoshop and apply adjustments, sharpening and cropping. As long as the image is in focus, good lighting and good composition, then you are pretty much set.

How many blurry pictures have you seen of tiny rooms with sun busting through the window causing glare. It's bad enough to turn you off from even inspecting. They say that you should take photos of rooms, etc in the middle of the day when the sun is up high and not beaming through the windows. If you're going to take photos of the big block houses with a pool where there are lights in the pool and glowing everywhere, then obviously you would take the images in the late afternoon when the sun isn't as hash. You want to see the lights in the pool and the lights around the big house switched on and capture these. You will require a tripod for these shots as the shutter will be a lot slower.

Point and shoot cameras for 300 bucks are not wide enough for tight rooms, etc.
 
That is a house for sale.

There are simple guides on real estate photography on the Net.

There are cheap, quality digitals with good low light sensitivity for inside photos.

A cheap tripod for inside photos helps.

Where you can see the result in the camera why would you keep an unsatisfactory photo?

Is it unreasonable to expect that a PM would be provided with the gear and have the basic skill to take photos on an idiot-proof camera that does everything but compose the photo? PMs should know what features to exploit to present the rental.

Inspection and damage photos are far more difficult. Should a 'professional' be engaged for them?
 
...Is it unreasonable to expect that a PM would be provided with the gear and have the basic skill to take photos on an idiot-proof camera that does everything but compose the photo? PMs should know what features to exploit to present the rental...

Minimum assumption + a bad PM can equal disaster...all you have to do is read a few threads on SS about PM's. They will leave you shaking your head. Of course there are good ones.
 
Minimum assumption + a bad PM can equal disaster...all you have to do is read a few threads on SS about PM's. They will leave you shaking your head. Of course there are good ones.

You are right.

I am assuming that a good, professional PM would be capable and motivated to take reasonable photos during inspections, and that the REA would have a suitable camera.

Regarding the diversification of fees and charges, an ant can eat an elephant. For instance, owners are already down up to a month a year rent for time allowances for tenant changeovers (thanks to tribunals). Maybe someone needs to tot up all of the outgoings. Those extra hundreds for all sorts of purposes do add up.:eek:
 
Photos

If you had just bought a new property and had professional photos taken, these pics could be used for the life of the rental property - not as some on going fee for every time it was looking for new tenants.

We use the same picture, especially if they are good ones, when re advertising a rental.

This saves us from putting up pictures of the property that have tenants residing who are less than house proud!

It also saves time in re advertising, which can be crucial to getting in applications.
 
I am assuming that a good, professional PM would be capable and motivated to take reasonable photos during inspections, and that the REA would have a suitable camera.

Thats like saying that those who have a drivers licence can actually drive.... how many times have you thought in your own head about another driver "how did you get your bloody licence!" or words to that effect :D
 
As an ameteur photographer that used to know nothing about photography (forced to learn mainly because wife plans to spend 2k on photoshoot for our baby girl! :eek: ). Taking good photos require skill, time and effort

Angles
It takes lots of practice before you can acquire the photographer's eye and able to take pictures from angles that will accenturate space and convey the right message

Lighting
Lighting makes a world of difference, especially the internal shots. A good camera, no flash, on a tripod and the correct exposure setting is needed. Point-n-shoot or camera phones won't cut it. This is why there is a lot of blurry photos on the net, all because there is not enough light for low-end camera

Post processing
Once you have a good enough photo to work with, post processing will add the wow factor. Edit out the imperfections, cropping for the best angle, increase the lighting, accenturate the color etc

It would be highly unfair to the expect a property manager to 1. know these, and 2. actually spending that much time on a property
 
I just want to know if paying $110 to get a professional photos in your mind is worth doing

For selling - yes - for renting - no ... although decent photos need to be taken by the leasing agent, not just a quick snap snap with a camera phone.

I've learnt how to take really good photos on my camera phone - it's not hard - but it does mean being aware of the entire space (foreground and background) and angles
 
Back
Top