Comments on: Ethics

By: visualdesigning

visualdesigning — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:18:07 +0000

Very interesting blog. I will come regularly here. Thanks the author

By: henrique

henrique — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:44:11 +0000

I cannot agree with removing items like power lines. Buyers do sometimes buy homes sight unseen but certain they have seen the photos on-line and buy based purely in that basis. I have heard anecdotal evidence of buyers threatening to sue because someone cloned out power lines or even power poles. The rest of your comments are on target.

By: William

William — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:14:10 +0000

We are commercial photographers who create images used to advertise market listings. We are not journalists nor are we recording documentary/historical information. The purpose of advertising is to generate interest in products. High-quality, attractive photographs create a competitive advantage for clients. This is true for fast-food products as well as for property listings. Viewing a professionally staged and produced photo of a hamburger creates interest in that product. Why shouldn’t listing photos use similar methods (excellent lighting, compelling composition and professional post-processing techniques) do the same? How many clothing catalogs contain photos of models who are much more attractive (as judged by the marketing director) than the general population? All of them do. Why shouldn’t home photos look as attractive as possible? I see no teleological difference between a Big Mac [tm] and a $1,000,000 listing when it comes to the fundamental purpose of commercial photography: create interest in the product as effectively as possible. If a photo is modified to make a hamburger appear twice as big as is actually is, this is not effective as buyers may not return due to disappointment (then there’s the FTC as well). Removing power-line poles is self-defeating as well. In real estate, misrepresentation and deception is especially counter productive because there are laws as well as codes of ethics that listing agents and brokers must follow.

In some cases the Reator [tm] is the defacto marketing director responsible for the ad content. In other cases a brokerage marketing director is responsible. Photographers can choose not to work with advertisers (marketing directors) with ethics and practices the photographer considers incompatible with their personal ethics.

I believe that Larry’s guidelines are reasonable and prudent. They should not be confused with a code of ethics. I think Larry used the word guideline purposely. A code of ethics has no meaning if there are no consequences for violating the code. So, the only ethics directly relevant to PFRE (unless the photographer is also the listing agent or is employed directly by a broker) are the photographers personal ethics. At the least, the photographers ethics must be compatible with the person who approves of the advertisement before it is published.

By: Monica

Monica — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 23:01:14 +0000

As photographers I think we are there to make the best shots of the home possible. However I do not “tweak” my shots with anything more than saturated color and maybe some sharpening effects. I think its best to show the home in the most flattering but also the most realistic also approach.

By: Sandra Evans

Sandra Evans — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:25:56 +0000

here in The Bahamas, I make it a practice to photgraph a home on a sunny day and at high noon. It might mean multiple trips to the home but it is worth it to me. If it is a waterfront home, I always use a depiction of the water as my lead shot, even if it does not show the home or, especially, if the home is not “all that”. I do level the horizon and crop. We have a practice here of posting our colleagues listings on our own sites (we do not have an MLS that is available to the public). I often have to edit other agent’s photos in the these same ways. The most I will do is clean up seaweed on the beach although my colleague raises the water level if the tide is low!! I stage homes and the property outside, putting garbage cans back in the garage and coiling hoses, etc.. To me, anything to sell the home means I do everything I can that is ethical.

By: Teri Short

Teri Short — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:22:42 +0000

Hi. I am a Home Stager–I spruce up homes on the market so they show well. When I staged my own home for sale in Yuma, Ariz., I Staged it first and then hired my Journalism professor who was also a professional photographer. He had a strobe light that illuminated my front door, which needed lighting since the house was a north-south facing home and the front door never got natural sunlight. It looked great when he photographed it. Our house was also a basement home, and after I painted it a light (not white) neutral color, ( and Staged it), he shot it with lights, and it looked like a well-lighted basement, and I didn’t think that it was misleading at all. In the other posts that I’ve read about putting kids’ toys away and getting rid of visible wires, etc., —that is a part of Home Staging, and is not deceptive in any way. Staging is presenting a house in its best light, and I recommend it to everyone who is selling a house. My house sold to the first family who toured it. Other homes in my area took many many months to sell, and ours sold in two weeks in a slowing market in August, 2007. Thanks to my husband’s home improvements, my Staging, my Realtor’s marketing, and my professor’s photography.

By: larry

larry — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:53:48 +0000

@Matt,
The “similar to” photo thing you mention is standard practice in the new home construction business in the Seattle area. It’s very common for builders to use variations of plans (mirror images etc) and use previously built model home photos to market the variations. I’ve never heard of any problems or even buyer complaints from this practice. Buyers actually appreciate seeing photos of a similar home.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:59:12 +0000

Dan, I couldn’t agree with you more regarding the grass. “Greening” is the most I will do to modify lawns – which is generally taken care of during my color corrections. Temporary feature or not, patching lawns or visually altering the layout of the lawn is a big no-no in my book.

I’m the in-house creative at my RE agency and often photograph the homes. This makes me partially responsible for the trust built between RE associates and their clients.

One caveat to this gray area is the use of the label “Similar To . . .”. For example, if an associate comes to me with a photo of a house from a certain subdivision and wants to use it to represent another house currently being built in that same subdivision, I generally place “Similar to . . .” on the photo.

I would certainly appreciate any feedback on this practice. I’m strictly a marketing person – no background in RE at all, though, I have learned a great deal about the industry in the past two years.

Thanks in advance!

By: Chris Murphy

Chris Murphy — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:03:44 +0000

Dan you are right that the PMA does tie your hands on some things. Wide angle lenses are not one of them, but you could contravene the act by purposefully leaving out of a photo or taking out in post process something that would affect the price of the property.

For example I would never clone out anything that is permanent. I would replace grass and a blue sky but I leave pretty much everything else alone. What’s tricky is, you could get into trouble for shooting a property and picking an angle that leaves out something undesirable, for instance a house next door to a petrol station if your image does not include the petrol station it could be interpreted as misdescription.

However I believe its the agent that generally gets hit not the photographer.

By: Scott Hargis

Scott Hargis — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:13:53 +0000

Aaron, I’d be pretty careful about some of those things — if the listing agent (your client) gets a disclosure lawsuit slapped on them, it’ll take them about 10 seconds to decide that they never told you that was ok, and that it’s all your fault, etc. etc.
Even if the agent as an individual remains loyal to you and supports you, his/her office will not hesitate to throw you in front of the bus. I’d get a waiver in writing absolving you of any liability.