https://www.trulia.com/p/tx/allen/1608-whirlaway-ct-allen-tx-75002--2065455004

Here's a fun one. The 1st pic isn't horrible, but once you get past that....

My home we sold recently was in the neighborhood across the street from this community. This home has been FSBO for a while.

For fun here's one a few houses down that has been on the market for months. The realtor and/or the homeowner are morons because the home doesn't show on Realtor.com nor Redfin, only Trulia and Zillow. It has always been that way. I'd asked my realtor about this back when we were going to market and he said it had to be a glitch in those websites/the listing because it should be showing. I just can't fathom neither the realtor nor the home owner not being intellectually curious enough to see how it looks on the major websites.

Its pics are fine.

https://www.trulia.com/p/tx/allen/1624-whirlaway-ct-allen-tx-75002--2065455564

We wanted to save the best listing images (from the previous listing) until after we closed, as sort of a bonus. Here are their top 5 (going from bad to worst):


5. Neat.



4. What are you even trying to show here?



3. Yes, this shower has a drain.



2. Mystery shot!



1. The WINNER! A SHOWERHEAD.

Ouch...

I'd be more critical, but I'm sure it took them forever to take pictures with an old digital camera, print them out, take pictures of the printouts, and finally post them online. That's a lot of effort!

There's a certain 'ick' factor from the first pic. Nothing like the sun turning the jets in a tub a completely different color from what they're supposed to be.

The rest just show off their lack of ability in finding someone to build the showers.

Gramercy Riffs said:

---

JosephMarcus said:

---

yah. I'll have to trust you. those houses in these pics look like the same house and I don't really put much stock in a picture someone took with a better camera, but that's just me.

---

Well that's certainly an interesting take. I posted five comparisons from four separate houses (two of them are shown in exterior shots, so I'm not sure how those could have gotten confused). I can post hundreds of other examples from years of doing this, but that would just clog up the board. I didn't realize we were on opposite sides of the discussion, or that there was any opposition to the notion of using a professional photographer.

The camera is simply a tool, as is my lighting equipment, my tripod, my computer, my vehicle to get me to the location, my chair to sit in while I process the images, every book I've read, every class I've taken, and every conversation I've had with people who are much better than I am. They're all tools that are/were used to get to this point.

The people who build expensive homes aren't simply using better hammers. Monet isn't famous because he used the most expensive paintbrushes. Babe Ruth didn't hit all those home runs because he had better bats. If these images were simply created with the click of a nice camera, my job would be a heck of a lot easier and I'd have much more free time. For the record, I use a fairly inexpensive camera compared to other professional photographers. Heck, I'm not even using what would be considered a pro model at all.

The average real estate photographer could have used an iPhone and produced better images than those 'before' shots. And countless high-dollar architecture photographers can make me look like a complete amateur as well. I've got a long way to go before I'm anywhere near their level, regardless of what gear they use.

In a way, clients aren't paying for the hours that it takes to produce or deliver 20 images. An argument can be made that they're not paying for the images at all... they're paying for the years that it's taken to learn how to do it.

---

Interesting. I agree the photos might get more hits but when they see the house in person, it is what it is.

Pictures won't sell a house but the goal is to get showings. It's a percentage game. If nobody comes to see the house, you ain't going to sell it.