As far as the realtors in my area, if they would just learn to take a good picture, they wouldn't have to do stuff like that.
The picture they show on the website could have been a lot better if they had chosen a) a better day to photograph b) better light to photograph in and c) used a polarizer. I've had skies come out of the camera as blue as the after picture, so there are some things you can do "in camera" and avoid a mess like this.
That said, i think it is a bad move on the part of realtors. If I'm looking at a picture of a house, then i go see the house and it has been photochopped, I'm immediately going to wonder what else the realtor may be hiding.
There are a couple of agents here at dpc. jpochard, I believe and a someone else. I would like to hear their take on it.
As an example, the article spoke of one person who objected to photoshopping out power lines, but you could use a wide angle lens (like the Sigma 12-24 on the EOS 5D) and get so close to the building that the power lines were not in the frame. Or you can stitch a couple of photo's together. Or use an angle where the power lines were not visible.
So there are several ways to eliminate power lines. Where do you draw the line? Are any of these methods ethical, or do you have to limit yourself to a "normal" lens? (ie a 50mm on a full-frame, or ~30mm on an APS crop sensor.)
When I shoot real estate property, I will limit my "artistic license" to overexposing a tad for those dark, mountain lodges or perhaps removing some ugly wall hangings. But I would never remove actual, real aspects such as damaged roof and the things like that. That is unethical to a certain extent. However, ultimately it is the responsibility of the buyer and the buyer's agent to perform due diligence on the property, no matter what a photograph might show.
Usually real estate photography's job is to get the buyer to the property to view for themselves. It is a marketing tool as opposed to a documenting resource. So I try to present the property as clean, bright and inviting. That is it.
I can certainly understand the guy who was pissed because he put two million in escrow and flew over the atlantic to see the house and it looked different. I'd be pretty upset about that too.
I can certainly understand the guy who was pissed because he put two million in escrow and flew over the atlantic to see the house and it looked different. I'd be pretty upset about that too.
I just read that part. First off, the guy who put 2mil in escrow without ever seeing it, is just about the stupidest person I have ever heard of in the real estate business. He should have a limited time in which he can pull out with all his money, so its not a big deal, but still. Idiots will be idiots and I guarantee you that photograph doesn't explain away his actions. Of what use is money in the hand of a fool..
But since he was deliberately deceived, regardless of his less than intelligent investing, it is not surprising he was upset.
I can certainly understand the guy who was pissed because he put two million in escrow and flew over the atlantic to see the house and it looked different. I'd be pretty upset about that too.
I just read that part. First off, the guy who put 2mil in escrow without ever seeing it, is just about the stupidest person I have ever heard of in the real estate business. He should have a limited time in which he can pull out with all his money, so its not a big deal, but still. Idiots will be idiots and I guarantee you that photograph doesn't explain away his actions. Of what use is money in the hand of a fool..
But since he was deliberately deceived, regardless of his less than intelligent investing, it is not surprising he was upset.
Well, yes and no. If this was back when the market was red hot, it may have been possible that houses weren't even staying around long enough for him to get on a plane and fly out to see it. He may have had to put the money in escrow to hold off other bidders from closing while he was sipping beer in first class...
Well, yes and no. If this was back when the market was red hot, it may have been possible that houses weren't even staying around long enough for him to get on a plane and fly out to see it. He may have had to put the money in escrow to hold off other bidders from closing while he was sipping beer in first class...
Yeah I know. That would be the primary motivation to put it in so recklessly. But he would still have a due diligence period where he can get all 2mil back in full. You usually have something like 30 days for things like due diligence, financing, loan approval, inspections, etc.
Heck, as a Realtor myself, most agents use their cell phone camera or a very cheap P&S. If ya surf the MLS listings generally the photos are very very amateur. In reality, most buyers see very little of most of the pics or they are printed in B&W or small color. If someone makes a decision on these photos if they want to buy a house ... their nuts. You'de be amazed at how many realtors shoot the house picture from inside their car, I have seen many that show the car window or hood.
I agree that photos aren't the driving factor behind buying a house, but they help make the first cut, and help a buyer waste less time looking at the less-than-impressive properties. I went through a home buying process, and my decision to see each particular house was based in a large part on how it looked in the picture (once I had the shortlist of properties based on more precise specs, of course). There were a couple of showings that had me looking at the MLS printout twice. I know that it's advertising, and it's trying to get the client out to the place in hopes of making a sale, but why waste someone's time, knowing the property had been misrepresented and won't sell (as in the case of the gentleman millionaire - how he managed his money is another story)? Just my opinion...
