You may not have heard of HDR photography, but you've most likely seen it. It's quite popular among digital photography buffs and can be quite beautiful, but sometimes these images end up looking like some sort of surreal, sci-fi movie version of reality. HDR (high dynamic range) photography is basically a series of photos of the same thing, taken at different exposures merged together using photo editing software.
This wider dynamic range allows HDR images to more accurately represent the wide range of intensity levels found in real scenes, ranging from direct sunlight to faint starlight. Wikipedia.
The results can be stunning, as in this photo taken by Sheldon's brother at Lake O'hara, in Yoho Park, BC (you can find more of his photos on Flickr):
LakeOhara
When it comes to real estate though, I think HDR (for the most part) should be avoided. The photos tend to turn out, well, just plain weird looking. Here is a series of photos of homes around Edmonton, the first is an HDR shot (taken by a local real estate marketing company) and below each one is my shot of the same room.
The gorgeous hardwood floors are the main feature of this room, but they are completely washed out in this HDR shot:
BadHDR1
In my shot the floors look warm and inviting, and most importantly they look the same in the photo as they do in person:
LivingRoom1
What is this...some sort of spacesuit/tinfoil duvet? Why is it that each photo is crooked? It looks like one leg on the tripod is shorter than the others:
BadHDR2
This shot is crisp, clean and realistic:
Master1
In this shot they managed to make the old furniture look even crappier and the floors look like they've been stained yellow:
BadHDR3
Here is a true representation of the room with light floors. less focus on the furniture, and straight walls:
LivingRoom5
Bad real estate photography has been a pet peeve of mine for years, and I'm happy to report many agents in Edmonton have started to improve their photos. I'm seeing agents starting to hire professional photographers as well, which is great. In my opinion the photos of a home should look as much like the real thing as possible, that's what I try to achieve when shooting and editing photos of our listings.
Which photos do you like better?
*sorry posted this on the wrong blog posting first… my bad!
First HDR photo actually isn’t bad at all. Maybe its just me though!
Certainly agree with you on the last two.
What about outdoor pictures of the house though?
Read more: Buying a home in Edmonton – Multiple offers
You know it’s funny….on my screen there is a HUGE difference….but I looked at it on Sheldon’s screen and they look almost the same. So for those on a MAC you’ll know what i’m talking about, everyone else will probably agree with Frank.
From an HDR vs non HDR perspective I think HDR provided a better first picture. That observation is on my properly color managed PC monitor btw
The second set HDR loses horribly but shouldn’t you have stopped at the HDR issues? The composition and white balance have nothing to do with HDR, same for the next shot.
If you are going to write a constructive article about the benefits or hindrances of using a particular piece of technology please try to stick to the topic and be helpful in telling your readers why something is good or bad. The rest of it just comes across as a rant and surely you didn’t mean to attack the person whose photos you used or Frank.
I think it is a matter of opinion… I love the brilliance of these hdr pictures as they highlight all areas of a space and allow you to see what is there and not just shadows. Even if it may wash a feature out…it shows everything which as a potential homebuyer, I want to see!!
The one photography technique that really bothers me is the use of wide angle and fisheye lenses — a lot of Edmonton real estate agents use them to make rooms look a lot bigger than they actually are. In my book, this is false advertising.
It’s not the lens’ fault…it’s the photographer’s fault. I think what bothers you is the incorrect use of wide angle lenses. I agree about fish eye’s though, they just distort everything.
To be fair. Those HDRs are in need of a photoshop hue shift. The whites are why to in the blue and yellow also the FOV (field of view) is different in the HDR and non HDR images you posted. HDRs are great but they need a talented touch up artist most of the time. I do see your point, and a good image can really catch a buyers eye.
You’re right. I suppose I wasn’t entirely clear in my article what I was trying to get at. There is a company here in Edmonton that says they take “Industry leading HDR photos of your property” and it’s clear from the comparisons they need to do more than just take HDR shots if they want to call them “industry leading.”
I am a photographer looking to possibly start offering real estate photography services to sellers or agents. What I am trying to determine is how valuable is this service to realtors? Is there a market for this in Edmonton? Why is it that real estate agents seem to have such a hard time spending $150 on pro photos when high quality photos are known to be the most important factor for buyers when viewing homes online?
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/realestate/11cov.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=df26766191f80c8c&ex=1328850000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)
I find it frustrating actually, knowing that agents could spend $500 on a basic studio photo for their business card but cringe when a $500 K property costs $150 total for great reliable photos.
Also, the true purpose of HDR has been taken to the extreme, with simplified software used to combine the images giving the images a cartoonish over processed look. A true HDR image has been carefully and manually crafted to allow the viewer to see the view (or greenery, garden, blue sky etc) just as well as the interior room the photo has been taken of. This evens out the extreme highlights, or shadows that can occur without it.
The examples you used in this comment I have to agree, are terrible. HDR is meant to compliment an already strong photo to add a subtle touch of detail most could not pinpoint the beauty of, but all recognize its attraction.
See a really good example of HDR here:
http://www.4waymedia.com/hdr.html
I’m interested to know the perspective of an agent, or private sellers about the benefits and downsides to hiring a photographer…..
cheers!
I would highly recommend hiring a professional photographer and yes there is a market for this in Edmonton (please contact me off the blog about this). As long as the photographer is willing to learn some real estate photography skills, as they are far different from portraits and artistic shots. I see a lot of “professional” photos of listings taken from eye level, pointing downwards so all the walls look like they are converging. Walls should be straight! That’s just one example… Check out http://photographyforrealestate.net/ it’s an excellent blog loaded with tips for photographers looking to become real estate photographers.
I agree with Fin.
These are my extra two pits. I don’t believe this is a fair comparison. There are ways to make beautiful HDR photos and there are ways to make crappy single frame photos. By playing with your camera’s settings one can make/take a nice picture. Using a semi-professional flash can make huge difference too, the ones that come standard on a point and shoot (or DSLR) suck. The camera lens also makes a huge difference as well. There are so many variables in taking a nice picture which this article doesn’t address. It might be your camera or the technique used to compile the HDR photo.
Great site though, love the data!
I guess I was addressing some Edmonton firms’ recent adoption of HDR photography, and their touting it as great. I’ve done many articles in the past on real estate photography in general, this was meant to reply to the crap HDR they are trying to pass off as good photography.
Fricken comfree! Hehe.
This is an excellent blog and certainly worthy to be checked out frequently. It would be cool if you checked out mine and gave me some hints.