The Ethics of Photoshopping Real Estate
Great post by Jonathan Miller at Matrix today, who points to an article in Realty Times about the legality of photoshopping your listing photos.
It’s a really interesting question. Retouching images is pretty much standard fare in the fashion and entertainment industries. (Check out FluidEffect and Glenn Feron’s gallery for some before and after pictures of models - they’re quite revealing!)
Powerful image manipulation programs like Photoshop have pretty much leveled the playing field for amateur photographers and have given each of us the equivalent of a digital darkroom to go to town on our photos.
As Miller points out, the real question is, how far do you go?
On the one hand, there are some fairly easy lighting tweaks anyone can do to really make your photos pop. But is that really any different from doctoring a photo to remove some unsightly power lines from a badly shot photo? Not technically.
I’m kind of torn on this one. Marketing is all about putting your best face forward (case in point, some of those fashion photos…) and you want to position the property is as good a light as possible. But surely, there’s some ethical responsibility to also ensure that the photos are a fair representation of the property.
Like Jonathan, my gut feeling is once you start removing elements from a photo - that’s when you’ve crossed the line.
Thankfully, Adobe, maker of Photoshop, is not sitting still on this issue. Wired News reports it’s introducing an suite of photo authentication tools to detect forgeries.
Adobe plans to start rolling out the technology in a number of photo-authentication plug-ins for its Photoshop product beginning as early as 2008.
Among other things, the new tools will rely on algorithms to detect areas that have been cloned - a common method to add or remove unwanted elements from an image.
Detecting forged images is only half the problem though. Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the individual.
For some more examples of famous doctored photos, check out this gallery - Re-imaging History.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
11 Comment(s)
3 Trackback(s)
- From Why you can’t get a decent domain name anymore » Realivent Real Estate Technology Blog | Mar 10, 2007
- From ModelMayhem.com | Jun 12, 2007
- From Real Estate Blog - How Far Is Too Far With Photo Editing? | Jul 10, 2007
matt | Mar 9, 2007 | Reply
Realtors get payed big bucks to market the property, so they better make the photos look as good as they can. I agree there is a line you can’t cross, like removing negative selling points that will be obvious when actually visiting the home, and photoshopping a money tree into the backyard
Take Mcdonalds, do their hamburgers actually look like the advertising when you get one, nope, it all about marketing, it’s all about getting you to the merchandise.
John Schroeder | Mar 9, 2007 | Reply
For our listings we take hundreds of shots just to get the best shots possible. If Realtors would just take more time to actually capture the photos then they would need less “doctoring” after the fact.
It is amazing how many blurry photos of houses I see online. I guess when they say this house will move fast they really mean it!!!
Galen | Mar 9, 2007 | Reply
You know a lot of real estate agents’ personal photos are on shaky grounds by your standards, Joel.
A brighter sky and lighter paint fall under “making the picture look more like perception” category for me. Powerlines are right on the edge - they are usually much more apparent in photos than in life, but removing them entirely seems extreme to me.
Molly | Mar 10, 2007 | Reply
This is a huge issue for me. I do alot of marketing for the sales associates in my company and they are constantly wanting me to change things…remove the dead grass, powerlines…change the color of this or that…
The only thing that I can (and still live with myself) change is removing a sale sign from the yard. Our MLS system does not allow that information to appear in photos.
If they are not happy with the look of their photos, they need to take them again.
Marketing yes.
Misrepresentation no.
Incredible Agent | Mar 10, 2007 | Reply
Ethically, I agree it shouldn’t be done, but ultimately a home buyer is going to see a home with their own eyes anyways. It doesn’t really matter what you put in or take out of a home photo. It might make more people show up to see the home, but that doesn’t mean it will sell once the buyers see it for their own eyes. I wonder if anyone would even notice if you photoshopped some power lines out. In truth the photos don’t do anything but get people in the door. They don’t sell the home, the home and the buyers agent sell the home.
On the other hand you could have a little fun with your photos and place Waldo in them for home buyers to find. I don’t think anyone would mind that too much and it might bring some attention to your listing.
Mike | Mar 13, 2007 | Reply
I’m the owner of RetouchMyHeadshot.com, but I got my start in real estate brochures 15 years ago. Incredible Agent is right. These are just marketing tools that get people in the door. No one is claiming they are acurate representations of the property. Real estate photos give you a general idea of what the property looks like before you visit it. So go ahead, all you photoshop experts out there… remove that garden hose, paint those skies blue, and digitally reseed that lawn.
And to the agents: try it, if you haven’t already. It works. When I worked for Color Images in Northridge,CA (the first company to offer full color 100# glossy brochures), all of our clients couldn’t believe how much their closing ratio went up once they started using these services. In fact, I will offer you a 50% discount through the end of this month if you mention this post at my web site, just so you can test it for yourself.
Cecilia Sherrard | Mar 13, 2007 | Reply
If a photo clearly misrepresents the home itself, you’re doing only harm to your seller, (by having them deal with additional showings for no reason when those buyers are there for the home in the photo and not theirs.) You’re also doing harm to your reputation as a real estate agent. Buyers in smaller communities especially, remember names and false advertising. They don’t like it. Your reputation as a real estate agent is on the line when you doctor photos or exaggerate remarks on the home and its features.
Loren Nason | Mar 13, 2007 | Reply
Great post Joel,
I don’t see a problem with photoshopping a picture as long as the enhancements are minor. EX: Brighten picture, adjust contrast, make the sky more blue, make the grass more green.
But when people start removing objects from pictures like powerlines, A/C units, gapping holes in walls, etc… then that is just plain lying.
Here is one not many people use. When shooting pictures don’t use a cheaup little point and shoot. Use a DSLR and match it with a super wide angle lens.
Loren
Timm Delaney | Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Doing that sounds pretty shady to me. If you got a good property to sell you shouldn’t have to photoshop it.
Mike | Apr 2, 2007 | Reply
As with everything, just use common sense and you’ll be fine. OF COURSE you don’t want to make such a huge change that you’ll be misrepresenting the property, but every photo needs work before it goes to print - that’s one of the basics in any type of marketing. If a professional isn’t retouching your photos, they probably don’t look their best. It actually shocks me when I see a $12,000,000 listing without a blue sky, or with a horribly manufactured one (where you can see that horrible glowing white edge around the roof top). Don’t try this at home, kids! You could hurt yourself!
Seriously, let a pro with ethics retouch your photos once, and see what a difference it makes. Your customers will thank you for it with referrals.
Colin Johnson | Nov 21, 2007 | Reply
I do some retouching for Real Estate agents in the UK and on Mainland Europe, and the main requirement I find in improving the original shot, is putting some colour into the sky and correcting perspective.
Its more often than not the original photo that is misleading because of poor quality photography - how often have you seen a pure white sky? Have you noticed how some buildings seem to be leaning at a perilous angle?
As a previous poster said its down to common sense and ethics. In these days of consumer power the law is firmly on the side of the buyer, and a company would be stupid to misrepresent a property.
My clients seem to be aware of this and I have not even been asked to do anything ‘dodgy’