I ran across an article by Andrew Brown in The Guardian (newspaper in the UK) via John Knack's blog, titled We all helped to speed the demise of professional photographers. It talks about the commodification of photography.This brings to mind the complaints that I hear all the time from RE photographers that so many Realtors don't want to spend the money to hire a professional because they think they can do just as good or good enough. Yet I see very few RE photographer websites or RE photographer marketing that demonstrate the difference between a good RE image and a bad one. I think examples like the one above from Vivian Toy's article last February in the New York Times are needed to educate Realtors and others about what a good professional real estate image looks like.Mike Martin sent me a good example below:The large background image is one he took with his Canon SD430 perched on top of his 32 foot windsock pole and the small overlaid image is one a Realtor took. To me this is a striking example of what you pay a professional for. In his case the equipment that he uses is unique and worth his fee. In other cases it's the lighting experience you bring to the table or just having a ultra-wide-angle lens. In many cases it's just having a good eye for composition. In any case, I think if you demonstrate and sell with examples the strengths you have, Realtors will see that photography is not a commodity.