Splitpair
Premium
join:2000-07-29
Cow Towne
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to tmpchaos
Re: The ethics of "Photoshopping" Real Estate Listings.
Once one moves from how something looks to how it could look ones goes from a photograph to a representation. Clean up the toys green up the grass make the walls look brighter all or any of it alters the actuality of what is there and changes it to something that could be there.
It is like altering a news photo to give the shot an edge it works but is a fraud played in the viewer and lowers the validity of all such shots.
Wayne
--
If you cannot fix it with a buttset and some beanies you ain't a technician. |
|
Splitpair
Premium
join:2000-07-29
Cow Towne
·T-Mobile US
| reply to tmpchaos
said by tmpchaos  :In many ways, just like the artist's renderings of new construction... No an artists rendering is clearly just that. To try to do the same with a photograph that is not clearly marked as a representation or as edited is to mislead others in a less than ethical manner.
Wayne
--
If you cannot fix it with a buttset and some beanies you ain't a technician. |
|
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Comcast
| reply to Mauricio9
said by Mauricio9 :Yes. Not illegal though. So it's the photoshopper's responsibility to determine how the image will be used and to make an ethical decision about taking every job and which enhancements can be done?
"So, you want those blemishes retouched? Ok, are you going to use this image in a magazine? What kind of magazine? How about for posting on jdate?"
Sure...
Let's say a homeowner wants powerlines removed from a picture so they can brag to their friends about what a nice house they have? Now is it unethical? |
|
stonecolddsl
Linux Junkie
join:2004-01-07
Sarasota, FL
 ·Rapid Systems, Inc.
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Edit This
Actually I have a funny Photoshop story involving Real Estate Listings.
So I do alot of custom database programing work for these sometimes less then ethical people. But there is one that sticks out in my mind as she is too dumb to be unethical... Apparently she took a few quick pictures of a house and was not paying attention to what she was doing. Probably because she had her blackberry in one hand and the camera in the other. So I get a frantic call from her and she pleading with me to edit a photo. I said no, assuming she wanted me to clone over bad spots on the structure which has been asked of me before.
She told me no it was not that kind of editing job she just needed a animal removed from the front yard, that she did not notice when she took the pictures. I was still a little uncertian if i wanted to do it but I told her to send them over and let me have a look. When I open the email it was the funniest picture I ever seen of a House going up for sale.
In front of the house was a dog which his side was facing the camera. squating pinching a loaf. Worst part was when she snaped the picture the turd was still in hanging from the dogs bottom.
I cloned out the dog and the offending fecal matter. was that unethical nooo just funny. But anything other than that i would have an problem with. |
|
B52GUNR
KM 7D love and D3 Nirvana
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-06
Vallejo, CA
clubs:  
·Comcast
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to jjoshua
said by jjoshua :Let's say a homeowner wants powerlines removed from a picture so they can brag to their friends about what a nice house they have? Now is it unethical? It's still deceitful, but it's the OWNER of the house not the SELLER who's making the change. Let's say, for example, he has a ridiculous amount of money and he wants to bury the power lines. He has an image taken and the power lines removed digitally and uses that as part of his proposal to do the work. That's perfectly okay as then it's been used as an artistic rendering of what it could look like. If he has it done just to show his friends, well, he'll be pretty embarrassed when said friends come to visit and ask, "Hey, where did those power lines come from?" At least, I would be  . Is it unethical in the strictest since of the word to deceive one's friends like that, I suppose so, but the only thing at risk of being harmed is the owner's reputation and ego.
Also, Mauricio, in CA anything that can be a negative impact on property value has to be fully disclosed. In our disclosure it said, "At one point in time, lead paint was used in this house". It was required by law.
--
Some assembly required, your mileage may vary, no pixels were harmed in the writing of this post. Brain cells, though, are a different matter. You want fries with that? |
|
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| reply to Edit This
Perhaps my distinction is not clear...
We're in agreement that it is unethical for the seller, owner, whatever...
But, is it unethical for the person being asked to make the changes? Someone who does photoshop for a living and who doesn't own the property. |
|
MsTerra
Completely Ridiculous
Premium
join:2002-08-20
Cambridge, MA
| reply to Splitpair
said by Splitpair :said by tmpchaos :In many ways, just like the artist's renderings of new construction... No an artists rendering is clearly just that. To try to do the same with a photograph that is not clearly marked as a representation or as edited is to mislead others in a less than ethical manner. I don't know what sort of renderings you're seeing down there, but here in the NYC metro area there are a lot of new "luxury" condo buildilngs going up, and the renderings the developers are using to market them are very, very realistic. I work for an architecture firm, so I have some idea of what to look for, but I find that sometimes I have to look pretty hard. They're not big on the disclaimers, either.
I'm following this topic with amusement because just a month or two ago I was apartment-hunting long distance and relying heavily on photos posted on the web by realtors. Even unretouched, a few photos can't really tell "the whole story," and I'm glad to see that the consensus here is that touch-ups are a no-no. I wish more realtors were better photographers, though. I ended up seeing one rental in person that my husband and I had passed over on craigslist because the photos didn't do it justice.
--
"Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right." Mayor Lenny, Ghostbusters II |
|
seagreen
Premium,Mod
join:2001-05-14
out there
·Rock Island Commun..
Host:
CenturyTel
Wireless Service P..
Southern California
HughesNet Satellite
WildBlue Satellite
| reply to tmpchaos
I don't see a problem with small aesthetic alterations to a photo of property for sale. We're not talking about Ebay items here - the buyer does not buy property without seeing it in person! The prospective buyer often sees it several times before closing on a purchase. So what if somebody cloned out some power lines to make the MLS photo look more attractive - the power lines will be there when the prospective buyers are shown the property. If they present a problem to the buyer, they won't buy. It's no more deceptive than taking a photo of a house on a (rare) sunny day in Seattle showing Mount Rainier in the background knowing full well that is a seldom seen sight.
The MLS photos are intended for potential buyers to get a very general sense of the place and to persuade them to come take a look... that's all. If somebody were to purchase a property based on an MLS photo alone - then they deserve what they get. |
|
Mauricio9
Premium
join:2001-12-04
Vancouver, BC
| reply to jjoshua
said by jjoshua :So it's the photoshopper's responsibility to determine how the image will be used and to make an ethical decision about taking every job and which enhancements can be done? No. However, if my client says "could you please remove those powerlines so my listing would attract more sellers" then I would walk away from it. If I am engaged to take pictures for a real estate listing, I know beforehand what is it for.
Let's see if an extreme analogy helps put this into perspective. Many German nuclear scientists during World War II left Germany or deliberately slowed down their work once they understood how their research could be used to build a nuclear bomb. Was it their responsibility to determine what their funny-moustached "customer" wanted to use their work for? Would it have been "unethical" to continue purely abstract science?
--
My photo galleries |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| reply to Mauricio9
said by Mauricio9 :The papers you are signing do not describe the neighboring properties or the paths of powerlines outside the property in question - those things nonetheless can have a large impact on property values. That's what your eyes are for. If you look at a house and don't notice things like power lines and other issues, then it's your own fault. Also, "bait & switch" wouldn't really apply here. Pshopping an image to induce potential buyers to look at a property may be a bait, but where is the switch? Same property, different surrounding area. Technically, you're buying the property and any land attached to it. Power lines aren't illegal as are most other utilities with easements on the property. It all boils down to the buyer. Open your eyes and LOOK at what you're buying before you sign on the dotted line.
Frankly, I could make an argument that a Pshopped property is no different from the actual property itself simply because it is up to the buyer to due diligence the property before he buys it. The seller is under no duty to disclose that there are power lines/utilities nearby.
--
The Toll
|
|
Mauricio9
Premium
join:2001-12-04
Vancouver, BC
| said by major marco :That's what your eyes are for. [...] LOOK at what you're buying before you sign on the dotted line. Thank you. We understood you have to look at the property before buying it. We agree with that. It is not necessary to say it again. Really. Point major marco.
Frankly, I could make an argument that a Pshopped property is no different from the actual property itself simply because it is up to the buyer to due diligence the property before he buys it. The seller is under no duty to disclose that there are power lines/utilities nearby.
So if I posted a picture of an 8 bedroom mansion and you drove from across town and found out that you would be viewing my 2 bedroom condo which Edit This beautified with his amazing photoshop skills that would be perfectly ethical and acceptable? I guess your time is not as valuable as mine.
--
My photo galleries |
|
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| reply to Mauricio9
said by Mauricio9 :Let's see if an extreme analogy helps put this into perspective. Many German nuclear scientists during World War II left Germany or deliberately slowed down their work once they understood how their research could be used to build a nuclear bomb. Was it their responsibility to determine what their funny-moustached "customer" wanted to use their work for? Would it have been "unethical" to continue purely abstract science? Call the analogy police... Let's not confuse ethics with morals.
A lawyer can ethically represent a murderer even though, morally, murder is wrong.
|
|
bobrk
You kids get offa my lawn
Premium
join:2000-02-02
San Jose, CA
·SONIC.NET
| reply to tmpchaos
Case in point. I used to live in a Planned Urban Development (PUD). Above are the artists renderings and "real life." I didn't buy the house on the basis of either picture (the second taken by myself during construction).
Indeed caveat emptor totally applies. However, I bought my first house in 1981. The stack of papers I signed was probably less than a 1/4" thick. My latest house had at least 1" of papers, including many many disclosures not of power lines but other things like nearest gas stations and any other environmental hazards, EPA sites, noise generators like freeways and parks, and any other disclosures that the seller sees fit to include. I suppose that they could include power lines if they wanted to. Most neighborhoods are homogeneous in their treatment of power lines, though. In some of the older neighborhoods I've lived in, the power lines run right down the front of the houses, with feeders going to each house across the street. My current neighborhood (not the house above) was built in 1914, and featured the power lines BEHIND the house instead of in front of it.
--
Iraq Coalition Deaths, Graphic | RC5 | bobrk |
|
Mauricio9
Premium
join:2001-12-04
Vancouver, BC
| And what's the difference between the two images? You mean that being surrounded by other homes rather than cypresses and palm trees actually affects the value of the property? And that a customer has no right in being mighty pissed off if they drove 50 miles on the basis of the top sketch and found the bottom scene? Geez, people are so picky these days.
--
My photo galleries |
|
bobrk
You kids get offa my lawn
Premium
join:2000-02-02
San Jose, CA | Not sure what you're asking. I was respond to tmp's comment about artist renderings.
In any case, I was buying this house before I saw the brochure which I found quite amusing. |
|
Mauricio9
Premium
join:2001-12-04
Vancouver, BC
1 edit | It was sarcasm... but I wonder what would have been your reaction if you had been attracted to the house by the brochure before actually seeing it. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| reply to major marco
said by major marco :Secondly, irrespective of the questionable ethics, if you buy a home based on a picture and don't bother to actually check out what you're buying with you're own eyes, then you deserve everything you get. I'd have to disagree. While common sense says you should try and see everything with your own eyes, these days, especially with the internet, property and assets are often bought and sold based upon pictures and testimonials of the property. Just because a buyer hasn't visited the site personally doesn't mean the seller (or their agents or brokers) have a license to steal, scam, or lie.
If you willingly misrepresent what you are selling then you are committing fraud, pure and simple, irregardless of any "Let the buyer beware" provision.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
bobrk
You kids get offa my lawn
Premium
join:2000-02-02
San Jose, CA | reply to Mauricio9
I wasn't sure. 
I did have fun sending that picture around to people after I bought the house. |
|
ric b
join:2006-03-23
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | reply to Edit This
There's LOTS of military people (and others) who may get transferred to a certain area, but are not able to travel for lack of time or money to travel back and forth long distances overseas or whatever. They have to rely on what they see in a photo on the net, what the seller sends them or tells them. Is it their fault that they had to buy without seeing the property in person? Is it their fault that they got duped, by a photo that mis-represents the property or surrounding area(s)? |
|
pagerboy
join:2007-03-16
Sudbury, ON | reply to bobrk
If the realtor had given you that artists rendering before you had seen the house then you get rid of that realtor. The rendering is a single family home and the picture looks like a condo. |
|
