In my office we have a professional photographer on staff, and he is the God of Photoshop. I get a new listing, finish up with the staging, then our guy goes in and takes the photos – and he is really, really good. He has a fabulous camera and lens as well as good lighting equipment. And he knows how to use them like a virtuoso musician plays a fine instrument.
When he returns to the office, he downloads them onto his computer and begins to work his magic. And he does it with integrity.
Once he removed a delivery van double-parked in front of a listing near Dupont Circle. He didn’t change a thing about the home’s façade, but with no van to get in the way, you could really see it.
Another time, he erased cat claw marks from the slipcovers on a sofa. Again, it didn’t change anything about the room, though it did make for a much nicer photo.
I remember a few years ago at another company, I watched as someone removed a window air conditioner (the place had no central air). Then he replaced the hideous portrait hanging over the fireplace mantel with a different work of art that looked much better. He tidied up the kitchen, zapping clutter off the countertops. He also “repaired” some nasty plaster damage and made the Formica counter tops look a bit more like granite. But he didn’t get the sellers to declutter the kitchen or paint and plaster the walls. Nor did they replace the ugly painting or the counters in the kitchen.
Photo editing has reached a point where you can take a total dump and make it look more than presentable. But just because you can doesn’t make it a good business practice.
For me, I guess the bottom line is keeping photo editing to a level where it doesn’t raise expectations too far above the property’s ability to meet them. You want the place to look good enough to attract buyers, getting them in the front door. And I can’t help but wonder – if what they see is markedly different than what they expected, is that better than having buyers pass up seeing the house because the photos, like the house, are not real appealing?
Having good pictures for on line listing information is a huge plus, and so is getting your clients to stage their home so it looks fabulous. If there is a hideous ancestor above the mantel, send her to the basement and replace the portrait with something or someone more appealing – in the house as well as in the photos. If the place is cluttered, stash the trash. If you have peeling paint and cracked plaster, you need more than Photoshop to repair it.
Goofing with photos on an ugly, messy house to tart the place up in Photoshop is like doing massive touch ups for a picture you plan to post on Match.com – sooner or later the guy is going to see the real you!
Is Photoshop For Virtual Tours Cheating?
35 comments • Patricia Kennedy • February 02 2008 10:37AMComments
This blog does not allow anonymous comments
Post © 2009 Patricia Kennedy (Evers & Company Realtors). Design © 2009 ActiveRain Corp.
Logos and service marks owned by copyright holder.
Our photographers will do touch-up as well, as long as it isn't "material" to the property.
For instance, if you go to shoot a house, and it's garbage day, and the neighbors are moving in next door, I see no problem with removing these transient items. Even cleaning off the counters or photoshopping a clawed up couch (it doesn't come with the house, right?) is OK.
But if you start repainting walls, or "fixing" material defects in walls, counters, etc, I'd say that's definitely crossing the line.
I haven't yet decided about things like making grass shot in the winter greener... I'd say that's probably a bad idea, too.
Essentially, anything to that alters a picture to look "like it REALLY does" is fine, and anything that alters a picture to make it look different from reality is a bad move.
Sounds to me that your office photographer is a great asset & genius. Wish my office had a guy like that to help with delivery trucks, etc. in the pics. Not cheating at all - it's called marketing. Let's face it your job is to make the home as presentable to the public as possible.
How is it cheating to erase a plate in the kitchen sink?
Patricia,
As a professional photographer for 25 years and having a crew of 14 great photogs working for me in WI for Obeo,
-common sense still rules.
The home should be represented accurately and transparently in photos just as it is in the inspection, and MLS data sheet.
It is great to know you have the common sense to hire a professional photographer!
Blog 0n!
Steve
It can most certainly get out of hand! I once had a listing on the 5th floor of a condo building. It had huge south-facing windows; with an obstructive view - and thus was (most) always filled with tons of sunlight!
Of course the week we put it on the market - was rainy and cloudy all week. Well I took my pictures and added some wonderful "sunlight".
My Photoshop'ing - made it just like it looked (on a Sunny Day) - not on a crappy rainy day.
I have yet to remove cars or moving vans... I am just not that good. (I need a MAC!)
IMHO Pretty pictures won't sell an ugly house. Why disapoint buyers when they get there. I rather have them pleasantly suprised.
I read a statistic once from NAR that said that one of the main things people use pictures for is to rule out houses the don't want to see in person. Other statistics show that the more pictures a listing has, the more views it gets, and the more activity it gets.
Therefore, I think good pictures are very important. I think this is especially so in a buyer's market, as searchers are quick to skip anything that doesn't WOW them since there's so much choice.
Plus, emotion is so important to choosing a house. Might as well start the warm-fuzzies as early as possible.
Patricia,
There certainly is an ethical line which should not be crossed..."He also "repaired" some nasty plaster damage and made the Formica counter tops look a bit more like granite." is crossing the line IMHO! I think Alan's got it right!!! Thanks, Fran
It's a fine line, for sure. However, I remember in the "old" days when MRIS used to go out and take just the front exterior and actually made the place look great. However, when you show up with your buyers the place looks like death warmed over and the neighbors' homes could use some help as well.
I don't have the resources you have with the great in-house photog with Photoshop skills but the virtual tour guy/company I use somehow makes room look larger, the angle of the photo is more flattering, and so on. The virtual tour isn't "photoshoped" but looks pretty darn good.
I'll personally remove refrigerator magnets, dish cloths from the stove and clutter from the kitchen counters if the place hasn't been professional staged. Velvet Elvises or Dogs Playing Poker are another story, though. If there up there, so be it. :-)
Wow - I'm lucky if I can get the lighting right. I agree, what is the point in changing a house if they will see the real thing when they get there. I think there is certainly an ethical question there as well.
Interesting
Patricia - wow! you are one lucky girl to have someone like that who is able to edit those photos! Good for you!!! That is not cheating, that is being smart! Bravo!
As a photographer and realtor, I deal with this with every listing. I would not redo a countertop or place artwork that was not there (maybe the artwork...) but removing personal objects and certainly cars on the street would be acceptable, even mandatory. A lot can be avoided by intelligent camera placement, but sometimes my trusty-ol "PS" is needed!
Look, I'm not sure if when writing this blo, your looking for an ethics lesson. Although I do agree with many of the posts.
I think good marketing is good marketing. Be honest, but make sure those photos look like a million dollars. I use a Nikon D80 with a 12x12mm super wide angle lense. I also use my Photoshop CS2 and WOW. With the Nikon I don't have to do much editing.
Please see my work online at www.ArizonaParadiseLiving.com
What a great post!
It is our job to get folks thru the door. But we can not disapoint them when they get there. So, in my book touch up is ok. Taking a car out of the drive way is ok. Changing the color of the drive way is not. Upping the contrast is ok. Moving windows and changing the physical nature of the home is not.
John Petrella, REALTOR®
ABR®, GRI, Broker/Owner
Direct: 808.640.3953
Local@LocalHawaiiRealEstate.com
Local Hawaii Real Estate
Honesty • Integrity • Commitment
159 Keawe St., Suite 1
Hilo, HI 96720
REALTOR® is a federally registered collective membership mark which identifies a real estate professional who is Member of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® and subscribes to its strict Code of Ethics.
There are ethical lines in any aspect of business: is it wrong to touch up a plate of food before photographing it for a menu? Will that shirt look as good on me as on that model? Photoshop and similar software will be here forever and so will the use of it. Where the ethical line is drawn is up to us. I believe enhancement and slight editing is fine: any reasonable adult, heck a 9 year-old knows that not everything is just like the picture on the box. The problem lies in changing or altering the fundamentals of a property. Putting a picture of a Mercedes in an ad and telling us this used car is for sale, when it is really a Yugo--the same principle applies to real estate.
One would think that common sense would apply, but I guess it isn't that "common" any more!
I love CS2. and use for enhancing every shot I take. I would never go as far as your example (change paintings, etc), that's just a huge waste of time. It might get one more showings, but misleading the buyers will not help the house sell faster. I do like what your photographer is doing.
One thing that I use, is adding text to pictures. Short sentenses like In the best part of Maspeth! It helps me tell a story of that particular home. Also, not too many other agents are doing it, so my listings stand out, and that's always a good thing.
Taken from NAR 2008 Realtor Code of Ethics:
Article 12
REALTORS® shall be honest and truthful in their real estate communications and shall present a true picture in their advertising, marketing, and other representations.
We won't remove anything that is immovable (e.g., powerlines, cable box, etc.). If it IS movable, then digital removal is OK as long as the representation is accurate. For example, we'll remove a dog from the bag yard, but I won't remove a stain off the driveway because if they buy the home the dog will be gone but the stain will still be there. Likewise, I've dropped a hot air balloon into the background (assuming balloons do go by in the area) for artistic license and mood because everyone understands that if they buy the house the hot air balloon doesn't come with the view. In general, we won't digitally remove autos from photos simply because of the hassle, but I have no problem asking the next door neighbor to move the car so the photograph looks nicer. The alternative, of course, is to take the photo so that you avoid the car altogether. Finally, as to furniture, this is all "staging;" if the furniture doesn't come with the home, you can bring your own props or touch up what's there to make it look good; if the furniture doesn't convey, there's been no misrepresentation. To me, these are just commonsense rules as someone suggested.