I do try and keep a certain standard, and I know these aren't the worst RE photos out there, I know they are not the best , but certainly not of the lowest standard. I simply did not have the time, or experience, to be able to shoot and edit this in 1 hour and produce amazing photos. Honestly, RE photos are only something I do on the side for two different agents and if they come to me with a $75-200 job and I have nothing else going on, then I am happy to do the work, and happy to do it quick and dirty if that is what they need. If I really got into RE photography then would take it much further and buy the Canon 17mm TS-E and maybe the 24TS-E and make sure I had all the proper lighting necessary for every job. Then it would no longer be a side job for me. I real work is in wedding videography. And that is something I have done ALOT of and have based all my gear purchasing decisions around. I also do wedding photography, but video is more my bread and butter and is where I believe I shine. RE photos are just a side thing for me and keep my mind fresh and learning by posting the images here. I am only 20 and have only been shooting photography for 1.5 years and video for 3. But I really do appreciate your critiques. I think a little bit of it just came off a little strong.
By no means was that to say that your work was bottom of the barrel...what I intended to say was that it's always best to hold high standards rather than to 'settle' with what the client wants, even if it is only $100 per job - "always shoot like it was a million dollar set". I started a computer company when I was 18 and one of my goals is still one that I teach & lecture today - I always educate my client to what should be a minimum standard (my minimum standard, that I've decided is the lowest I'll go - which may be way above what somebody else would accept). "An educated client is a good client and good client's pay good". I don't shoot full time, I write specialty software. However, when I am shooting, I block out a few days from the programming and go shoot like it was the only thing I did.
And, I didn't mean for you to think that I meant you HDR'd the images, just that the images were processed to the point where they had an HDR effect to them - the re-edits are much better and seem much more "real" to the originals that you posted.
I hear ya about not wanting to drag out all the gear for such a fast and cheap shoot - but I would have done it anyways so that I could "educate" my client on what I could do. I've had a few clients who wanted to pay $100 for a set of shots, but I lit it properly, rich and bright, and showed them the shots compared to what they wanted (the "quick" shots). The next time, they paid me extra to "work my magic" with the properties. I even gave them an out by choosing the "cheap and quick" or "purdy" shots and they chose the latter. Kinda like giving yourself a raise!
...that's all that was meant, no intentions of "coming off a bit strong"...
I appreciate your response, and I understand where you are coming from. This however is something I have done. I've been doing work with this client for the last year and a half or so. I've always shot his expensive listings, where I spend more time and polish the images to much higher standards than these. For all of his cheaper houses, he has been shooting "standard" jpeg with T2i and Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. He recently asked me if I would be willing to shoot those cheaper houses for him and keep it much more basic than normal. So I can make a few bucks and get in and get out. He know what he can pay me for nicer jobs and he know what that looks like, and for his $1 million+ houses he does get the nicer ones. The reason I posted these here was just to share what I did fairly quickly.