Edit This
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-08 | The ethics of "Photoshopping" Real Estate Listings.
»matrix.millersamuel.com/?p=1102 |
|
bobrk
1 down, 2 to go, to get to 60
Premium
join:2000-02-02
San Jose, CA | UNETHICAL. |
|
xx
Premium
join:2006-02-27
Carmichael, CA | reply to Edit This
It comes down to false advertising. |
|
B52GUNR
KM 7D love and D3 Nirvana
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-06
Alameda, CA
clubs:  
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to Edit This
I have had listing agencies hire me and then want me to do editing, and I flat out told them no. Not only is it unethical, it's illegal. It's falsely representing the property. The only editing I do to architecture is:
1) Adjust white balance so it's accurate
2) Adjust for perspective
3) Sharpen
4) Nudge the curves if needed to bring the tonality to normal.
5) Clone out or patch heal my flash if it's reflected in a window
Nothing beyond that. I've actually had them ask me to clone out damage to surfaces, "transplant" trees, add foliage, etc. I refuse to do it.
--
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? |
|
35375105
Premium
join:2002-11-20
127.0.0.1
|  reply to Edit This
Dunno depends on how it is intended. Like for instance if they photoshopped the power lines out to get a clearer view of the property itself, then I don't really think it's unethical.
But if they photoshopped the powerlines out because they don't want the buyer to know it's there, then yes that is very unethical.
--
A sophisticated rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity. |
|
TJ19971
Blues fan with a camera
Premium
join:2003-10-11
Sioux Falls, SD
| reply to Edit This
Seems to me that it would be unethical and misleading.
Good for you B52GUNR  for standing firm to your beliefs, unfortunately not everyone would or does.
--
Don't bother me. I'm living happily ever after. |
|
B52GUNR
KM 7D love and D3 Nirvana
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-06
Alameda, CA
clubs:
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to 35375105
said by 35375105 :Dunno depends on how it is intended. Like for instance if they photoshopped the power lines out to get a clearer view of the property itself, then I don't really think it's unethical. But if they photoshopped the powerlines out because they don't want the buyer to know it's there, then yes that is very unethical. No matter how you slice it, that's still mis-representing the property. Now, I will of course shoot something from the best possible angle (which means I'll have the powerlines behind me or out of the frame), but if I can't the angle that I can achieve that and the unwanted feature has to remain in the frame, it stays in the frame, at least when I send it to them.
--
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? |
|
Mauricio
Premium,MVM
join:2001-12-04
Vancouver, BC
edit:
March 12th, @01:19PM
| reply to 35375105
said by 35375105 :But if they photoshopped the powerlines out because they don't want the buyer to know it's there, then yes that is very unethical. If you can't get a clearer view without the power lines by walking around or changing lenses, then the clearer view does not exist. Part of the value of the property is determined by how it looks from outside, power lines and all. If after putting on your superwide angle you still can't get a view without the power lines, then it means that they are going to be in your field of view no matter where you stand. Photoshopping them out amounts to misrepresentation.
Edit: what he said!
--
My photo galleries |
|
bobrk
1 down, 2 to go, to get to 60
Premium
join:2000-02-02
San Jose, CA | reply to B52GUNR
If I was a Realtor, I'd be scared as shit about this. People will sue at the drop of a hat, which means real money to a real estate office. |
|
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Budd Lake, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to Edit This
I saw a listing for a condo nearby - I'm very familiar with what the exterior looks like, and more importantly, what it's situated next to, which is a giant parking deck. The photo in the listing had no parking deck.
Not photoshop magic, they just used an old photo. Same idea though, and I thought that was particularly cheezy of the agent to misrepresent something like a 4-story parking deck next to a 3-story building.
If I were making any kind of substantial trip to come see the place, I'd be pretty upset. |
|
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ | reply to Edit This
Is it unethical for you to photoshop as per your customers' requests? I don't think so.
Is it unethical for the realtor to misrepresent a property or not to say that an image has been modified? Yes. |
|
Mauricio
Premium,MVM
join:2001-12-04
Vancouver, BC
| said by jjoshua :Is it unethical for you to photoshop as per your customers' requests? I don't think so. Is it unethical for the realtor to misrepresent a property or not to say that an image has been modified? Yes. I think you are confusing 'unethical' with 'illegal.' While it is not illegal to photoshop on a customer's request, it is unethical to do so if you know that your work will be used to mislead other people. For a realtor to misrepresent a property is both unethical and illegal.
--
My photo galleries |
|
KAD Imaging
Sansei Goju-Ryu Karate Do
Premium
join:2002-09-21
Hialeah, FL
·AT&T Southeast
|  reply to Edit This
Yep. I think I brought this topic up some time ago. Where do you draw the line? I say that "faking" news and sales photos goes TOO FAR!! 
When I was looking for a house, we checked a Condo add and liked the building, layout, floorplans, etc. We trek over to see it in person and the next lot down was "low income" housing!! WTF!! This was not only REMOVED from their brochure but from the pics as well. Needless to say we walked out and several others there to view as well.
I've had guys approach us to have their cars featured on our site but they have body damage, etc. They say, "you can just edit that out right?" I say HELL NO! We will not fraud our readers. If your car isn't spotless, don't bring it.
--
Like Cars? Visit:
SportCompactMiami.com
forums.sportcompactmiami.com
blog.sportcompactmiami.com |
|
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
·Comcast
| reply to Mauricio
said by Mauricio :said by jjoshua :Is it unethical for you to photoshop as per your customers' requests? I don't think so. Is it unethical for the realtor to misrepresent a property or not to say that an image has been modified? Yes. I think you are confusing 'unethical' with 'illegal.' While it is not illegal to photoshop on a customer's request, it is unethical to do so if you know that your work will be used to mislead other people. For a realtor to misrepresent a property is both unethical and illegal. So compare this with the videos showing how models can be enhanced before they go onto the cover of a fashion magazine. We are all amazed by those videos and the end results and wish that we had those kinds of skills.
Same thing, right? Still unethical? |
|
B52GUNR
KM 7D love and D3 Nirvana
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-06
Alameda, CA
clubs:
·DSL EXTREME
| said by jjoshua :So compare this with the videos showing how models can be enhanced before they go onto the cover of a fashion magazine. We are all amazed by those videos and the end results and wish that we had those kinds of skills. Same thing, right? Still unethical? I think it needs to be criminal, to be honest. We have young girls trying to look like these models at great risk to their health and the models don't even look like how they are portrayed. I think it's not only unethical, but disgusting.
--
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? |
|
EGeezer
Summer is passing
Premium
join:2002-08-04
Country!
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T CallVantage
edit:
March 12th, @02:49PM
| reply to B52GUNR
said by B52GUNR : ... I've actually had them ask me to clone out damage to surfaces, "transplant" trees, add foliage, etc. I refuse to do it. Well done - significant damage, presence of towers, wires, dumps, landscaping and trees would be likely be considered of significant value.
If the property is acquired on the basis of seller/agent supplied altered photographs that add trees, landscaping etc or remove the cell phone tower behind the house, a buyer could have a good case for misrepresentation of material fact in a suit, since these things would affect the value of the house. An aggressive lawyer would likely sue everybody in the chain, including the realtor, his/her company and you. You wouldn't likely be held liable, but would still burn time and money defending yourself, or have to burn a claim with your professional liability insurer, if you have one.
I suppose you could add a clause in your contract where your customer acknowledges the photograph(s) is altered, assumes all liability in the use of the photograph,specifically releases you from any claims of damage in its(their) use and agrees to pay you all costs you may incur in any litigation.
--
03:14:07 UTC Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2038 - a date that will live in infamy... |
|
pog
Premium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| reply to Edit This
I used to work with realtors on a daily basis... this was before digital cameras were really any good and before PS was in use by the "masses". 
When warranted, pro photographers would be hired to get shots that could be used in magazines, etc. I don't believe any of them ever really "doctored" the captured images BUT they would do a LOT with custom lighting, reflectors, etc on site.
It's a fine line. As the article says, most buyers (I'm sure) see the property in person before signing a contract.... or they have a proxy do it (home inspector, etc).
--
My Site |
|
bobrk
1 down, 2 to go, to get to 60
Premium
join:2000-02-02
San Jose, CA
·SONIC.NET
| reply to jjoshua
said by jjoshua :said by Mauricio :said by jjoshua :Is it unethical for you to photoshop as per your customers' requests? I don't think so. Is it unethical for the realtor to misrepresent a property or not to say that an image has been modified? Yes. I think you are confusing 'unethical' with 'illegal.' While it is not illegal to photoshop on a customer's request, it is unethical to do so if you know that your work will be used to mislead other people. For a realtor to misrepresent a property is both unethical and illegal. So compare this with the videos showing how models can be enhanced before they go onto the cover of a fashion magazine. We are all amazed by those videos and the end results and wish that we had those kinds of skills. Same thing, right? Still unethical? No, one is an entertainment, and the other is a representation of real property for sale. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars will be shoveled around in wheelbarrows for many months by many people with a lot on the line. It's way different.
--
Iraq Coalition Deaths, Graphic | RC5 | bobrk |
|
B52GUNR
KM 7D love and D3 Nirvana
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-06
Alameda, CA
clubs:
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to EGeezer
said by EGeezer :I suppose you could add a clause in your contract where your customer acknowledges the photograph(s) is altered, assumes all liability in the use of the photograph,specifically releases you from any claims of damage in its(their) use and agrees to pay you all costs you may incur in any litigation. I have just such a clause, it states: "Studio is not to be held liable for any damages caused by alterations to the photographs by persons outside of the studio's control. Additionally, alterations shall not be performed that cause the studio's business reputation to be harmed."
--
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? |
|
Maccawolf
Premium
join:2001-02-20
Hillsdale, NJ
edit:
March 12th, @03:17PM
| reply to jjoshua
AS a person who grew up with the "BARBIE IDEAL" hammered into my head all my life, I will say that I applaud Jamie Lee Curtis who a couple of years ago did a photo shoot and FORBADE them from touching up ANYTHING.
On a similar note. The original photog for Cindy Crawford's headshots wanted to airbrush out her mole, as did Cristie Brinkley's daughter's photog.
--
"The most affectionate creature in the world is a WET dog"---- Ambrose Bierce |
|
