Dave from New Zealand asked the following:
Any feedback on how far this has gone in the USA, I think its a bit over the top re "grass" ( attached photo from a Property Weekly in NZ had label on the grass "digitally enhanced grass") ... Surely this is not in the same class as Power Lines as in the removal of them from property shoot?
Reason I am asking was it only seems a year or two back when someone in Canada or US was driving around in a truck with a big tank on the back and they were painting lawns green specifically for RE shoots.
Over the years, we've had a lot of heated discussions here on the PFRE blog about ethics of image modification in the context of real estate photography. I think the subject is important enough that I have a separate page dedicated to summarizing the consensus that has evolved out of these discussions over the years.
Here is a general outline of that consensus:
In summary the photographer is working for the listing agent, not the potential buyer and representation of the property is the listing agent's legal responsibility, not the photographers. However, prudence suggests that if the photographer is asked to modify photographs they believe materially misrepresents the property, they should document in writing the fact they are modifying the photograph at the agents request.