Just noticed the black halo surrounding fish eye photos. Are these types of photos predominately used in smaller houses? Should we have a fish eye photo contest to go along with the ugly photos out there? Example http://www.sdlookup.com/Pictures-150058439
Close to half a mil, at $290/psf, for the privilege to live in a 3/2 in lemon grove (sigh). I’ll go out on a limb and say this – there’s a housing bubble out there in lemon grove.
Yeah that one may look expensive, but look what it may cost to live a mile north in La Mesa. http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-150057773-4477_Palm_Ave_La_Mesa_CA_91941
Cracked and stained driveway,older looking roof,1946 (not craftsman or victorian) and 2 window units, under 1000 sq.ft. and the floor needs refinishing. Now that’s a bubble!
that is a horrible way to take RE photos. lens distortion the enemy of architectural subjects and yes, the seller camp here is trying to create the illusion of larger spaces. a 24mm FF-equivalent lens ought to be plenty of focal length to capture an average home. maybe tilt-shift if you are shooting a luxury unit for that precision look.
i still think though, that burnt-ass HDR pics are THE WORST.
I think the RE agent grabbed some cheap wide angle lens or saw two with two significantly different prices and went the cheaper route. You can get a good 12mm full frame rectilinear wide angle.. but it does cost. An 8mm lens will be a fish-eye, and you can get them at almost half the price of a rectilinear(or even less). My 12-24 cost around $1k, and I shopped to get it at that price.
I suspect the cheap lens route. The vignetting at the edges is uneven and soft on one side. It may be a ‘wide angle adapter’ for a cell phone or point and shoot.
.
