I think all advertising should be honest. This is what happens in medicine commercials already.

With so many people starting their RE search on the internet, photos are the new curb appeal, so it’s very important to use whatever tools we can to make the photos stand out.

That being said, I think this code of ethics lays the ground work for RE photography standards. It doesn’t seem restrictive, and would give photographers the ability to produce outstanding marketing tools for the agents.

For example, if I use studio lights, I’m photographing something that does not exist in the property. The house is never that bright, but we can make an exception since it’s done to compensate for the lower tonal range of the camera can capture. But what about when the lights are arranged to shine through an exterior window? Maybe it can be that sunny, so we can make an exception. But is it a northern exposure? Does a neighbour block the light? That would be deceptive. Strobes can also be arranged to give the impression of a window that isn’t there — even done blatantly with a window-frame GOBO. So are strobes okay, but not with GOBOs? How about the barn doors that let the photographer get light into the kitchen on a look-through shot, or just highlight the back wall? That’s simply good photography.

This particular what-if game can be played with everything.
(for what it’s worth, I’ve lit a room through a window, but never used a GOBO.)

If we have a unified code, it needs to focus on intention and responsibility. Ideally it would be applicable to all product photography, which is what real estate photography is, even if the language is tailored to our niche.

A commercial photographer’s obligation to accuracy and fair interpretation is never higher than in photography for web and catalog sales. At least we know that nobody will buy a house on the strength of a few photos, and if the wall colour is a little off, or the perspectives a little exaggerated, there’s no real misrepresentation. Perhaps our specialty can look to the broader experience for guidance.

Thus from an agent’s perspective, if you WOW someone with your photos, but the house doesn’t deliver…you’re in trouble! Setting buyers up to be disappointed when they arrive at the property will surely have a negative result. An agent may well have difficulty selling a house to a buyer that feels cheated when he walks through the door. And this is not an isolated incident…these are things that we hear all of the time. Of course, as a photographer, we aren’t responsible for dealing with disappointed buyers and sellers, but our primary clients are. Agents are rarely dissatisfied when you intensify color saturation or make small editing adjustments to help draw attention to the house, but you will hear about it if your photos look distorted (this includes making rooms and yards appear larger than they really are). In fact, this subject comes up often comments in this very blog. Again, my point is to give consideration to your audience/primary client and aim to please. We are only as good as our reputation in this industry.

For me, and others as well, I think simply discussing the various technical aspects of this issue is valuable. For example, in the last discussion we had in this area the readers of this blog made points that lead me to re-think the advisability of removing power lines from my photos. I don’t do it anymore. In the end we are all going to make our individual decisions but hopefully we can each do that better decision if we’ve had a discussion with lots of varying points of view.

But, lets see what others have to say.

I don’t think that anyone is demanding that we follow a hard and fast set of rules, rather this code is being proposed as a guideline that those who are providing services to Realtors should try to follow. Following a code of ethics such as this, allows one to provide a great service and still maintain integrity. The purpose of photographing properties for sale is help market them…yet, they should accurately portray the offering. You cannot simply remove power lines or provide a lush green lawn in order to get people in the door. These practices may be acceptable in a magazine layout, but not for the sake of marketing a property. If Realtors must adhere to providing an accurate portrayal, we should likewise…since they are paying us to help them get their job done!

As I’ve said before, real estate photography is solely for the purpose of advertising and marketing. When you unwrap the triple decker grease burger with 12 slices of bacon, does it ever look anything like the photos on the menu? Does anyone think the clothes they see in photos of models (where hidden pins and pieces of tape pull out wrinkles & puffy areas) will ever look like that on them? Heck no!

Except for the Realtors who do their own photography, this should be a question of personal ethics - not a code of rules. The Realtors already have their own “true and accurate representation…” guideline to follow and they are the ones selling the property. The magazines like Homes & Land, Harmon Homes, etc. don’t try to tell the Realtor the wording “a spectacular view…” in a description of the property is misleading. If there is a problem, its on the Listing Realtor and maybe Seller to deal with accuracies.

And, if a wide angle photo has a larger hfov than a human eye does, then tough. Otherwise, what would be the purpose of wide angle and telephoto lenses.

These discussions are good for the awareness but lets get back to ways to make the photos look better.

Just my opinion.