BackdoorArts
Senior Member
I don't know about you, but I generally want my verticals to be vertical as well.
Who does Real Estate photography?
- Thread starter hark
- Start date
I don't know about you, but I generally want my verticals to be vertical as well.
I've seen quite a few real estate/architectural images taken at sunset - with the lights on. I know it seems to be preferred. As for verticals, I know that, too, and using a tripod is a necessity especially when taking multiple images for bracketing. It does seem to be a lot of work, but since I haven't yet delved into it, I'm still interested in learning more about the process.
Thank you. I will have to look again - went through so many menus yesterday without seeing it. Do you have it enabled for jpegs (even though I know you don't tend to shoot jpegs).
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
I have everything turned off because I don't shoot jpeg, at least not with the D500s, and all it does is slow the camera down since it will still apply it to the preview image. Not really an issue with the D500 but I've watched it slow down the D610 and D750. Nothing significant, but unnecessary.
Thinking it through, I'm guessing it's better to leave it turned off. That way I'll know for sure whether my verticals are straight for my RAW images. I hadn't even considered that. And certainly didn't realize it would slow down shooting. Thanks for your input, Jake.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
It's not significant in the slowdown, but I suspect if you turned everything on and then everything off you can see differences in green light time.
I went out with this lens again today. This made me chuckle. 
However, taking exterior building shots might be challenging. I didn't use a tripod today so wound up aiming upwards to photograph a few buildings. Granted that can be corrected in post, but I'd need a step stool and a really tall tripod if I wanted to capture the verticals as straight in camera. :hurt:
I took a few building photos, but my scratch disc is full. Wound up having trouble just editing this one image. Oops! Gotta backup a lot of things to free up space.
However, taking exterior building shots might be challenging. I didn't use a tripod today so wound up aiming upwards to photograph a few buildings. Granted that can be corrected in post, but I'd need a step stool and a really tall tripod if I wanted to capture the verticals as straight in camera. :hurt:
I took a few building photos, but my scratch disc is full. Wound up having trouble just editing this one image. Oops!
Gotta backup a lot of things to free up space. 
Dawg Pics
Senior Member
Sometimes you will see that they spray down all of the concrete with water too.
They are doing walk-through images and videos with music that starts with a drone view of the area now. They also have images of the entire inside of the house without the ceiling. I don't know how they do that other than they have to stitch together images some kind of way.
I would love to do real estate photography, but looking at the equipment and video requirements makes me think that I would be out of my league and too broke to get into it. Although, sometimes I think I could make some extra cash doing retakes of some of the places that look like the owner took the images. You know, backlit and with towels handing on the shower door.
I'm in a couple of Facebook Real Estate groups where people have mentioned taking drone footage. That's definitely out of my league. Plus I always thought real estate photography was done with HDR, but some people prefer to merge flash photos with ambient lit photos and call them flambient. The more I learn, the more daunting it seems to become. So I dunno about pursuing this....
Dawg Pics
Senior Member
Agreed.
I don't know which real estate agents or companies are doing this type of thing. Seems like an entire new specialty within photography and videography. Never heard of 'flambient'. Sounds interesting.
That and window pulls - where they adjust the exposure of windows to show the scene outside rather than to overexpose the windows. The process is quite different than I expected.
I'm really not happy with this lens. My building photos seem to be a little soft compared to other lenses I use. Plus the contrast is significantly less, too. I'm going to return it and will simply use my 14mm and 18-35mm on my D750 instead for now. After learning more about real estate photography, I'm not sure I will pursue it as much as I had hoped. But I will keep watching some videos in case I change my mind.
I'm not sure how many members will read this thread, but I have a question on where Nikon lenses are manufactured. Since the 10-24mm DX lens wasn't nearly sharp enough for me, I am interested in upgrading from my Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 lens to the Nikon 16-35mm f/4. It will offer a slightly wider view, have a fixed aperture, VR, and is weather-sealed. Plus it's on sale right now.
BUT what I found out this lens is manufactured in Venezuela. :eyetwitch: For me, this is the first I've heard of any Nikon gear being made there. Does anyone know how long lenses have been manufactured there? I even called Nikon and spoke with a rep who couldn't find the answer. He only mentioned some things being made in Japan, Thailand, and Venezuela. I'm only concerned with quality/workmanship for a new lens and was under the impression Nikon switched from Japan to Taiwan for manufacturing lenses. Any idea when the change was made? Searching online isn't bringing up any info. Thanks for any help! :encouragement:
BUT what I found out this lens is manufactured in Venezuela. :eyetwitch: For me, this is the first I've heard of any Nikon gear being made there. Does anyone know how long lenses have been manufactured there? I even called Nikon and spoke with a rep who couldn't find the answer. He only mentioned some things being made in Japan, Thailand, and Venezuela. I'm only concerned with quality/workmanship for a new lens and was under the impression Nikon switched from Japan to Taiwan for manufacturing lenses. Any idea when the change was made? Searching online isn't bringing up any info. Thanks for any help! :encouragement:
Last edited:
BF Hammer
Senior Member
Cindy, I have never been disappointed with my Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Art series. No improvement for getting a wider field, but wider fixed aperture and great image quality. I even sold off my 35mm f/1.8G DX as it just became a redundant lens for my DX kit. My information has Sigma making all their products in Japan.
I have the Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G lens which is an FX lens. It just isn't quite wide enough. And my 14mm f/2.8 tends to stretch the edges of the images because it can be too wide. Even if I put it on a DX body, that would give a field of view of 21mm which is still too wide.
But the extra 2mm of the 16-35mm lens should make a difference. There have been times when 18mm left me wanting a little more in the viewfinder than the field of view would allow.
Isn't the Sigma a DX lens? That would give a field of view of 24-50mm which wouldn't be wide enough for a lot of architecture images. However it's good to know Sigma is still being made in Japan. The quality of many Japanese products tends to be extremely good.
Allen's Camera had a Nikon 16-35mm f/4 lens in stock that was made in Thailand so I decided to get it. Its sharpness and contrast is definitely more pleasing than the Nikon 10-24mm DX lens that I wound up returning.
Does anyone remember the TV commercial, I can't believe I ate the whole thing! Well, in a similar fashion, I committed a faux pas for the second time. I switched to Aperture Priority, but my ISO was too high. So I changed it...or so I thought. Instead, I must have hit the wrong button on the back of my D750 so when I used the rear scroll wheel, I moved out of NEF+jpeg to jpeg in both slots. :hurt: Now I'm considering switching to Auto-ISO when in Aperture Priority.
This isn't a great edit especially since I lost the auto-correction option for distortion having to edit a jpeg. But I simply wanted to see how the sharpness and contrast looked compared with the previous lens. And there is definitely a noticeable improvement.
Its sharpness and contrast is definitely more pleasing than the Nikon 10-24mm DX lens that I wound up returning.Does anyone remember the TV commercial, I can't believe I ate the whole thing! Well, in a similar fashion, I committed a faux pas for the second time.
I switched to Aperture Priority, but my ISO was too high. So I changed it...or so I thought. Instead, I must have hit the wrong button on the back of my D750 so when I used the rear scroll wheel, I moved out of NEF+jpeg to jpeg in both slots. :hurt: Now I'm considering switching to Auto-ISO when in Aperture Priority. This isn't a great edit especially since I lost the auto-correction option for distortion having to edit a jpeg. But I simply wanted to see how the sharpness and contrast looked compared with the previous lens. And there is definitely a noticeable improvement.
Well...this has turned into an enigma. My cards are labeled '1' and '2' and always get returned to their respective card slots. I even double-checked to make sure I hadn't made a mistake. Nope. both cards had jpegs on them. After I wrote my previous post, I returned the cards to the slots, reformatted them, then went into the menu to set the body to RAW+jpeg. It was already labeled that. :hurt: So I have no idea how both cards received jpegs. I took a test shot as a precaution and had RAW+jpeg on the respective cards.
Over the weekend I will remove the lens and put it back on. The only thing I can think of is a possible electrical glitch. Hopefully it never happens again.
At least the lens is very sharp with excellent contrast so no complaints. :encouragement:
I took a test shot as a precaution and had RAW+jpeg on the respective cards.Over the weekend I will remove the lens and put it back on. The only thing I can think of is a possible electrical glitch. Hopefully it never happens again.
At least the lens is very sharp with excellent contrast so no complaints. :encouragement: