<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.1" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Staging, Styling and Good Marketing Photography</title>
	<link>http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/03/04/staging-styling-and-good-marketing-photography/</link>
	<description>Tips and Techniques for Real Estate Photography</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:23:06 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: mvus</title>
		<link>http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/03/04/staging-styling-and-good-marketing-photography/#comment-255</link>
		<dc:creator>mvus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:02:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/03/04/staging-styling-and-good-marketing-photography/#comment-255</guid>
		<description>Great website.
One aspect mentioned various times iinc (NY Times article) is the need to show light, bright photos of properties.  Whilst looking through all the pro photographers websites listed, I was struck by the number of pictures taken at night.  The photos are excellent but some portfolios consist entirely of night shots and I would say 70% of all interior shots.  Whilst the occasional night shot looks good I would want to see what the home looked like in daylight and would wonder if there was something to hide by not showing them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great website.<br />
One aspect mentioned various times iinc (NY Times article) is the need to show light, bright photos of properties.  Whilst looking through all the pro photographers websites listed, I was struck by the number of pictures taken at night.  The photos are excellent but some portfolios consist entirely of night shots and I would say 70% of all interior shots.  Whilst the occasional night shot looks good I would want to see what the home looked like in daylight and would wonder if there was something to hide by not showing them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Hargis</title>
		<link>http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/03/04/staging-styling-and-good-marketing-photography/#comment-256</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Hargis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2007 04:18:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/03/04/staging-styling-and-good-marketing-photography/#comment-256</guid>
		<description>Here in the Bay Area I find that houses are ALWAYS staged. Even when the owners are still occupying it, the agents have them remove almost all of their own furniture and bring in the stager. Makes a BIG difference.

Out in the suburbs it's maybe 50-50% on staging - and those are the "beige boxes" that need it most!

Staging a typical house around here runs anywhere from $3000 - $7000, and I cite that frequently when pitching my measly 3-figure photography fee to agents! It's a powerful argument.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here in the Bay Area I find that houses are ALWAYS staged. Even when the owners are still occupying it, the agents have them remove almost all of their own furniture and bring in the stager. Makes a BIG difference.</p>
<p>Out in the suburbs it&#8217;s maybe 50-50% on staging - and those are the &#8220;beige boxes&#8221; that need it most!</p>
<p>Staging a typical house around here runs anywhere from $3000 - $7000, and I cite that frequently when pitching my measly 3-figure photography fee to agents! It&#8217;s a powerful argument.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
