Agreed. But in 8 years, I’ve never generated a report without photos. I include on average a dozen to aid in the defect description and to help any repair persons identify the exact location. If it’s an older home, there may be three dozen photos in my reports.
Joe, on average, how many pages is your average report, which includes on average a dozen photos???
Jeff ,you need to bear in mind that not all software reduces or zips file size enough to make pictures practical and also how many can fit on a page matters.
I took my typical 40-60 page report and changed settings from 2 per page -3 per page and the reduction was 30%.
Did your grandson have a list of Inspectors from agent or only the one that performed the inspection?
If from a list did he choose the inspector based on price or qualifications.
No images in report with little data does not sound like a quality inspection/inspector.
Hire someone based on there qualifications not the low fee.
I hope it works out for you grandson!!
Was he from ASHI ? or Nahi ?
aS FAR AS i AM CONCERNED ALL A WASTE OF TIME. uN NEEDED FLUFF.
damn caps. The photos mean something to you because you know. They do not show anything to the unedcuated client. Except the outlet tester if they can see wwhat the light codes mean in the picture.
Not trying to offend you it is just the way I see it.
I use pictures as well but try to use only ones that the client can see something in. the rest is just fluff.
They mean something when you add a label to them letting everyone know what the picture is.
I would agree that just having 100 pictures at the end of the report and not labeled would be useless!
I am just saying every comment I make does not have a photo anymore. I feel that it is useless.
I did another Home Inspection Alternative today and another client was thrilled.
No pictures no report. Knocked out a condo in under an hour and saved the lady big bucks.
I really feel a ton of home inspections contain a ton of useless info that a lot of folks do not want or need. Especially the vast majority that say well the home is as is.
The client was told to have everything turned on and there was no water and no power.
It sure would have sucked if she had to pay the price of a full home inspection for that.
Don’t worry, it takes a lot to offend me. I was simply commenting on this
Then my reply was:
To which you tried to prove your point that defects don’t really show well in photos by giving me examples of like this:
To which I simply put photos of the defects you mentioned (btw this does not mean that I include all these photos in my reports), which are pretty clear to me (you don’t have to be a Homie to see that the floors are not level, you can see that receptacle outlet is not wired properly as I also have the tester color code clear on that photo, as well as the overheating light switch, or even a running toilet etc…) without the need of any other explanation.
If you choose to think people are not that bright, that’s your prerogative.
Last, I would agree with Eric, once you add a label to the photo, then it’s all clear.
Do as you wish. Just my 2 cents on the matter.
Not many around here feel the way I do about anything anyhow.
What takes longer, posting a pic or writing all about it? Do the math… 
Our recent InterNACHI chapter meeting had as guest speakers, two guys from the insurance broker company,
the Inspector PRO Insurance program, with handouts that advertised as “InterNACHI’s Only Endorsed Insurance Affiliate”
and you know what they were suggesting?
You should be taking no less that 150 pictures with your average home inspection.
I almost fell off my chair when I heard that, but I always take upwards of 75 - 100 myself,
so it wasn’t too far a stretch.
Their reasoning was, if they have to back you in a claim against you,
you’d better have something to show and have said about it, so they can take a strong stand on it…
i.e. they certainly don’t want to have to pay a claim, if they don’t have to, and their only ammunition
is the inspection report itself, along with the photos you took, (
and the case is VERY weak if you didn’t take any about the issue)…
I vowed to take photos of everything I can, working or not, for those rare cases of “he said - she said” that might occur.
Do what you will, and to each his own.
Another example would be the inspection I did today. This lady had stuff everywhere and told me, that if I broke anything, I bought it. And, most of this stuff was expensive. 40 pictures of just the interior areas I didn’t inspect.
At least they are honest.
What I am reading is an insurance company telling those in attendance that they have every intention in the world of settling your claim for your deductible … unless you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are not at risk in defending you against the claim with photographic evidence.
Hell, with conclusive photographic evidence … you can defend yourself without their “help”.
And they actually have the balls to charge an annual premium for this? WTF?
I have always been skeptical of insurance companies as well,
and know full well that they only make money by NOT paying claims
any way they can…
that said, I still think it best to take as many photos of stuff as I can.
I agree. I had one inspection this week with 230 photos. Only 60 made it into the report. The rest are kept on file.
Trying to use less pictures screwed up my usual high standard report look.
Pay no attention to the less is more guys.
Stay high quality.(mad in Chicago)
look = fluff
Not saying it is wrong I just do not do it anymore.
Remember i DO TAKE A TON OF PICTS THEY JUST STAY ON FILE AND DO NOT GO IN THE REPORT UNLESS i FEEL THEY ARE USEFUL.
With your spelling I think pics would help.
Sorry but you complain all the time about needing pictures and seem to think everyone should just trust you and your memory but you are wrong.
I see you as a guy looking to get out of work but want to get paid anyway from your recent posts.
It will not just be handed to you.