RE photography
 

I'm not sure this is in the correct forum but here goes. I applied for a job doing some RE photography. I'm not a professional photographer but have loved taking photo's of various sorts of architecture.

I interview for it and they look at my work on some local homes. They like it and say they are talking to a bunch of other photographers too.

3 weeks later I get an email from the RE company and they are holding a "contest", all the photographers in the running for the job are to go and take some images of the same RE listing.

Just before getting the email I got injured (at a dog park!) and end up dislocating my knee. I'm on crutches and had the leg in a full brace that won't let me bend my knee. So I email the RE place and tell them I was interested in the job but due to the leg can't do it.

But I did go and look at the house. Lordy. It was an ugly, dark, small, foreclosed on ranch built in the 1950's and probably never updated. Honestly it was a disaster. I was glad I opted out. Now this agency does have some higher end homes too.

So I assume I'm out of the running but yesterday I get an email from the RE agency and they said the people that did the "contest" had the most underwhelming group of photo's they had ever seen. Honestly with that house I don't know how it could be otherwise.

But they did say they loved the work I brought in to the interview and would like to talk to me again. (the leg is still on the mend, i'm off crutches and in a movable brace but getting around still has ups and downs). They really said they want someone to think out of the box and do some really creative work. They want to really "stand out from the crowd." I just need the job!

But my question is for those of you that are creative or have done this type of work... how the heck do you make a very underwhelming house interesting. Or make it stand out, honestly some of these short sales just don't really have much going for them. Some even have damage on the interior. Or should I just be honest and tell them in my opinion a really ugly, damaged home isn't going to ever be a stand out of the crowd house.

Comments?

Thanks, Susan

I am no expert and have not done much in the way of architecture photography but these are my thoughts.

I guess if it is an ugly home you have got to find redeeming features and also show potential, estate agents love wide angle lenses to give the illusion that rooms and gardens are bigger than they really are. Use soft diffused flash to light up rooms and make them look less gloomy.

If it was me I would look for interesting features, areas which do have light such as beside windows, look at the land around it etc. I suppose stating the obvious you have to try and sell it in the photograph so a starting point would be if this is the only house you could have what do you like about it or what would you do to improve by doing this you should be able to pick out the positives and also pick out some of the potential.

Try to also get shots on a bright day with a blue sky as that will make the property look more appealing from the outside.

Your job I guess is to get people to view the property ultimately when they are in the property a photograph won't change there mind that is the job of a salesman.

It sounds to me that the company have picked a very tricky subject as a test.

Hi Susan and welcome. :D

The whole point of the test is, as wavwmachine says, is to find the positive points of the building, rooms and surrounds which may give the house a brighter aspect. Rather than photograph the house from the front, back or sides try an angled shot, which can show it in a better light. Perhaps morning sunrise or evening sunset may make it more appealing. If it has a nice garden then use that as the main feature with the house in the background. It's like the old story of the flea bitten scruffy dog, but when you look in it's mouth it has white teeth. You mission is to find the white teeth for the house. Good luck. :D