I have to respectfully disagree with you guys about the photos (sorry). I'm not a home inspector, but I've been a "forensic Architect" in an architectural engineering firm (read litigation) for the last two years and like home inspectors, our reports have to describe our observations and analysis to readers who usually don't share our expertise. It's been my experience that well composed photos, with succinct explanations, can get a client (attorney, juror, homeowner) to understand the story a lot faster and easier. Photos also serve to "benchmark" observed conditions to the time that you observed them. This is very important in litigation. It sounds like the main gripe that I'm reading about is the process of getting photos into the report and I'll bet that once you get a smooth system in place, you'll end up changing your opinion of their value. I have an example of our process that I'll share: We use Canon cameras that allow us to quickly make a 60 second sound byte associated with each photo. After each photo we snap the mic button and describe the image to the camera. The JPG images are matched to WAV audio files with the same file name (except extension). Later when writing the report, it's very easy to refer back to the saved audio file and remember just what the hell that photo was of, and where it was . I've been on many files where our client had a Canon and had no idea that he could do that as well. My $.02. A