My real estate agent brought in a professional photographer to take pics of the house. Nice guy, good equipment.
However, it seems to me he used HDR on all of the pictures and I don't like them! To me, they look ghostly, flat, and washed out-especially the darker colors. Wondering if I should just keep my mouth shut or whether there might be some good reason to use HDR over regular processing?
only one image showing up reasonably sized
and I would say its terrible work for a pro
I agree, flat, lacking contrast, richer blacks.
I dont know why he went to the extra work of doing HDR, if that's what this is. You can screw up processing with LR and other programs with far too much shadow and highlight recovery. Main advantage of HDR would be extremes of lighting which are too much for the digital sensor, and that doesnt appear to be the case in these images.
I'd talk to the photographer about his technique, processing and give some feedback, or take one of these images or the RAWs, if he lets you, and show him/your agent, the look you prefer. Sounds like it could be a delicate discussion.
OK, I see them all now, showing up larger.
Too HDRish, over-sharpened (unless sending to the web added additional sharpening), no perspective distortion correction (esp needed in first).
Of course, the other issue is, who will look at these images and under what conditions. Their eyes may not be as critical as ours.
wow, those are pretty bad for real estate photos. While you can't "undo" what he did, you can probably make them a lot better by doing what Bernie said. Boost contrast a lot, maybe add to just the blacks too. Aparenetly the photog is used to using HDR for indoor shots and thought why not for outdoors too? Right now they're just too cartoonish.
Thanks everyone. I don't feel like the crazy amateur complaining to the "trained" professional. I did write my real estate agent to ask that the photographer use non-HDR versions. Worst case I can see what we can recover with what's there to prove a point to my RE agent. Like you said, others are not as critical but when you're paying a 6% commission fee, they better market you in the BEST light!
Thanks AuntiPode. Already looks better. I'm just not a big fan of HDR - looks comic-book like.
I showed my RE agent the difference just between these originals and a boost in contrast. He said, "Oh that's good to know! I pay extra for HDR." He also said the photog agreed to post the non-HDR versions. I've yet t see those but bet the keystoning (shifted perspective) won't be removed.
Those photo's are truly outstanding. They stand out as being awful!
I like the way your agent pays extra for HDR. He should definitely get a refund because HDR can work, but the guy doing these just can't do it.
Whilst I'm sure in marketing terms it's worth having a different look to photo's, surely if there's one place where only documentary shots are required it's real estate!
Ultimately, it's you who are paying for the photo's. I'd insist on a reshoot, at a time of day when the light falls flatteringly on your house, with none of this messing about with post processing to get a 'cool' look, instead he can use the time to sort out the perspective problems!
If your agent can't arrange that, find one who can!
If you do get the RAW's and the agent uses your processing, don't forget to knock a couple of hours of your time of his bill!
I can't believe that this was professionally done. Although the lines between somebody who is a professional and someone who is not are beginning to blur greatly. My friend's wife, for example, couldn't tell you the first thing about aperture settings or shutter speeds etc. She has a rebel XT and 18-55 with a third party flash. She sets the camera to full auto and works weddings I couldn't believe it when I found out! Technically that would make her professional, no?
However, it seems to me he used HDR on all of the pictures and I don't like them! To me, they look ghostly, flat, and washed out-especially the darker colors.
Yep. This is a result of all those millions of poorly tone-mapped images circulating the web... They're subverting the masses! It's scary when people who call themselves "professionals" actually think that is an acceptable look for anything, much less real estate images.
Wondering if I should just keep my mouth shut or whether there might be some good reason to use HDR over regular processing?
If asked, he'd probably say it's to preserve detail in the shadows (since he was out shooting at noon). However, there's no excuse for blending the images in such a garish, cartoonish way... and I mean that for all HDR images, not just these.
Why go to the trouble to HDR the photos whilst not lifting a finger to correct the terrible perspective issues with the first?
Hard to salvage them. For the first, here's a version with quick stab at PS perspective correction, a slight rotation, contrast boost of 60, an exposure boost of +0.66, a gamma of 0.85, and a decreased saturation of -25. Despite all there corrections it remains odd and unnatural:
I think these are the worst photos Ive ever seen posted...plus they make my eyes water
I'm not convinced they are HDR. I think they're the result of using the shadow/highlight sliders---poorly. And no, I SURE wouldn't pay for them. They are crap.
i think this is to much touch in HDR...
i use to work with HDR image for villa and hotel interior exterior... but this is seems like to much HDR.
They can reduce HDR effect in this images...
Ugh. There are reasons to use HDR, and you can get plenty of 100%-realistic looking images out of them. This looks like the "pro photographer" had just read about HDR and decided to try it out (or was enamored of the comic-book look). In any case, totally unprofessional.
Thanks everyone for your comments and insights. Good news is, in spite of the pictures, we did sell the house on day 8 for full price. Looks like the market is coming back.
Right now they're just too cartoonish.
I couldn't believe it when I found out! Technically that would make her professional, no?