Comments on: Real Estate Photography and The Truth

By: Cindy

Cindy — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:16:00 +0000

Is nice to see some good articles like this one, thank you.

By: larrylohrman

larrylohrman — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 15:39:39 +0000

I’d like to thank everyone for a very thoughful and useful exchange on this subject. It’s clarified where the line is for me on this subject. I particularly like Matthew’s phrase “making every effort to portray the subject in flattering and realistic manner” and the concept of reducing the opacity of powerlines instead of removing them.

I also like the concept of distingusing between “temporary” features and material or permanent features.

Susanne’s question about modifying grass is interesting since this is exactly the gray issue that got me started on this post. After this discussion I can see both sides of the argement on grass being a temporary feature that it’s OK to change. I think it’s essential that the client (presumably a Realtor) would have to be a party of that decision.

By: Susanne Hayek

Susanne Hayek — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 23:51:47 +0000

I agree with the majority of the posts. I have shot about 500 homes in the last 3 years and I have a rule: don’t change anything that couldn’t be true. Therefor, I don’t remove power lines, etc. since a potential buyer couldn’t physically do that. But since the human eye is millions of times more sensitive and the human brain millions of times “smarter” than even the most advanced digital computer chip or brain, I think it is perfectly fair to do things like enhance color saturation, lighten dark areas in a landscape, etc. After all, that’s how we see it, our cameras just can’t usually replicate it.

I think making grass greener (especially if it’s really brown or in bad condition) and changing the contour of a landscape is a gray area since that involves money to the buyer to replicate. I would love to have some of your comments on that issue.

Matthew has the most important point, which is, that misleading people is not a clever marketing strategy and diminishes us and our client.

By: Matthew Robertson

Matthew Robertson — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 16:22:13 +0000

I have to agree with D Young, and certainly appreciate Ian Vonesh’s perspective.

The purpose of a real estate photographer is to get the people who would want to buy the house to visit it in person. A bad photo will not do this, but a photo that is misleading or raises the potential buyer’s expectations beyond what the house can deliver has also failed. Even worse, it wastes time for everyone involved and can create ill-will toward the listing agent. Buyers are sellers too, and they’re potential leads for the LA.

My contract includes a clause that reads: “Photography is an interpretive process and as such the photographer will make every reasonable effort to portray the subject in a flattering and realistic manner appropriate for the client’s use. The client or a representative is requested to provide direction and approval at the time of the photo shoot. If not provided, the photographers’ decisions will be accepted.”

Replacing skies and correcting perspective distortion are two modifications that simply re-create how the house is actually seen ‘in person’. Colour balance and saturation are subjective and interpretive, but the “flattering and realistic” still applies. I won’t completely clone out power lines, but I will remove them from one layer in photoshop and blend in back in at a lower opacity. Potential buyers still have the fact of their presence available, but their visual impact is reduced back to the background level of our ‘in person’ awareness of the visual clutter of daily life. Cameras see in ways that people do not, and photography is an interpretive process. My job is to create an attractive interpretation that can be (and often will be) viewed when the buyer is actually at the property, and have them say, “this looks right.”

By: Ian Vonesh

Ian Vonesh — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 13:16:03 +0000

Many good points have been made here. I see both sides. I wanted to add my two cents as a Real Estate Broker/Owner. I don’t run my business from a scared perspective, but misrepresentation is a big deal and can cause many legal issues. When people get angry for whatever reason they try to take-out each link in the chain of the home buying-selling process. This ranges all the way from the previous owner and Realtors down to the landscaper.

To that point, I can see replacing a sky due to inclement weather because it can be sunny, unfortunately the day I was there it was not. Any permanent fixtures like power lines, cracks in a driveway, etc. come with the home and therefore should not be removed. As someone said in a previous post, it is the job of the photographer to take the most flattering images from angles where you do not see these things. The potential buyer will ultimately tour the home in person and notice any flaws or positives first-hand and then make an informed decision with all factors considered. No one forces you to make a multi-hundred-thousand dollar purchase, it is a process with many steps.

To remove flaws as if they do not exist is just not right. We as Realtors are held to a strict set of rules, standards and ethics, pointing fingers at the photographer when a problem would arise just won’t cut it. We know better and we are the professional trusted to represent a seller and their property in the most flaterring, but hones way.

As the saying goes, “Honesty is the best policy”.

By: mvus

mvus — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:03:44 +0000

This is where photography wins over video and virtual tours. It’s rare to find a property that doesn’t require at least a little tidying/enhancing on PS and this is very difficult and time consuming on video.
I think if your marketing a holiday property it is more acceptable to enhance an image, remove hanging cables etc as you’re competing with hotels etc that have glossy brochures and altered images.
When marketing a sale property you have to be careful not to misrepresent otherwise you end up disappointing prospective buyers and wasting everyones time, not to mention damaging your reputation

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 03:32:52 +0000

The mls has some rules about how photography is used but I have not seen them. And ultimately it is the realtor’s responsibility. There has actually been a law suit as a result of the use of the cloning tool. If something is temporary, I don’t have a problem altering to it’s ideal. I make rooms lighter than they are and frequently that is not temporary but I suppose they could paint the home a lighter color and increase the lighting fixtures. As one realtor told me after requesting a little magic on a charming but dark place, ‘Make it appear lighter. It will attract buyers and when they see the place they won’t have a problem with the lighting level.’ I’ll also zoom in a a view (or tight crop). That also makes sense to me as you can’t really see the view well in these little images on the mls.

By: Cherie Irwin

Cherie Irwin — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:36:42 +0000

I must agree with the general consensus. I won’t remove a “permanent” fixture or item from a photo, but I don’t mind cloning over waste cans or things like that. Likewise, I don’t have a problem with replacing a cloudy gray sky with a bright blue one…skies change from one hour to the next. I have also fixed patchy lawns. Now that it is Spring time and bright green grass is popping up everywhere, filling in brown spots has become part of my regular routine. These types of “fixes” are completely appropriate, in my opinion.

Often times, you can shoot from an angle that will omit the unwanted object from the scene anyway. However, I find it somewhat difficult to liken a photograph of an existing home to that of a architectural rendering. Often times, builders use renderings to show what an incomplete house will look like, but the buyer usually has a choice of the location where the house will be located (at least in the developments where I live). The buyer can choose to place a particular style of home on a particular lot, one that has overhead powerlines, an unattractive view or one that has no visual obstructions.

By: D. Young

D. Young — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:19:07 +0000

The specific purpose of real estate photography is to get a showing for a potential sale. Not too many folks buy a home sight unseen… not to many folks want to see more of a home if it looks unattactive. A poor photographer can easily highlight all the negatives that a property has… some are more skilled at this than others! Enter the professional real estate photographer. Job one is simply to present the home in its best possible light- without misrepresentation. I always look for the best perspective and avoid distractions whenever possible but I would never remove objects that can’t be worked around. Likewise, I would never add object that don’t exist. This is the challenge of a good photographer and what seperates the pros from the point and shooters.

By: Drew King

Drew King — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:09:03 +0000

As you know I’m a big blow hard on this issue.
IMHO, if you clean up a pile of gravel, remove a sale sign, punch up a sky, airbrush and clone out an spot a pot or roll off, then thats cool and isn’t out of line. Ive been asked to do the above and I usually do it anyways since nobody wants a 400k spot a pot on their new lawn.

Ive also been asked to clean up landscapes, “can you add some trees? fix those cracks in the driveway” . My standpoint and my Main broker who pays my bills feel the same on the issue…

Truth in Advertising.

If the changes are misleading or not apparent on the property then its not accurate. A roll off or spot a pot will be moved by the time thew buyer moves in. But the powerlines that block your view of the ocean will still be there. Im asked to clean views up all the time and I wont. I will be glad to shoot from a better angle etc. Unless in an extreme example, most power lines that cross the home can be cleaned up, but the main service line is there, will be there unless they are burying the cable or have wireless electricity. Major color shifts are a big no-no.

I will concede that I have overworked a few photos in the past but as I have learned what is required from the agents and Realty Commission for my area, my work and marketing materials have complied better and there are no issues and less revisions which I enjoy.

Thats my 2 cents.
Drew King