Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It would have been nice to have received an invite to the party, Bill.
Anyway, in the interest of having my full statement about Photoshopping practices put before everyone reading this threat:
I posted right here in the open, for all to see & participate. There was no intention to exclude you from the discussion. You don't need a personalized invitation to enter somepleace you go all the time.
The statement you posted here was not yet posted as I was writing my post to you. Even if it were, however, I don't see how it justifies the practice of editing a photo to present what can never be an accurate picture of the property. I understand to whom your obligation is. I understand that photos are very important in the marketing of the property, and that buyers will use what they see in those photos to eliminate properties from their search. I dispiute NONE of this. Still, you are esentially LYING when you edit something substantial, like a power line, out of a photo. You don't want to show the power lines, take the photo from a different angle. Perhaps I'm missing something. Can you tell me why you think this practice is not problematic?
Capt - I honestly do not know what you are talking about - I take digital pictures (family portraits, landscapes etc) and photoshop them all the time. It is not rocket science.
I agree GD...you don't understand this stuff. That is why you should stay away from it.
Any digital camera makes a significant set of corrections to the information it receives to change colors to achieve a view pleasing to the human eye...not to reflect reality.
Any professional photographer rountinely fixes the images as he looks at them.
There is no such thing as an untouched photo in digital photography.
Still, you are esentially LYING when you edit something substantial, like a power line, out of a photo. You don't want to show the power lines, take the photo from a different angle. Perhaps I'm missing something. Can you tell me why you think this practice is not problematic?
I'm not surprised that it was that sentence that caught your eye.
In this particular case, we're not talking about a gigantic power transmission line - we're talking about a pole that is in the neighbor's back yard.
Unfortunately, any photograph of the front exterior of my listing yields a result that makes it appear that the property has a power pole sticking out of it's roof...as if the pole is planted in the living room of the home.
To anyone standing in front of the house, it is clear that a power pole is not rising from the living room of the home - if one even notices it at all. In the three dimensions of real life, it barely barely registers that the neighbor has a power pole in their yard.
I could have easily left the power pole in, but will someone looking online at a 2-inch photo receive the most accurate (and, yes, presentable) depiction of the property? I don't think they will. In the two-inch photo, it's all you see.
Perhaps you still disagree with my decision and always will. I'm fine with that. I do feel this is a very worthwhile topic for discussion.
Your accusation that my use of photoshop in this instance is the equivalent of lying (in all capital letters, no less) is, in my opinion, more than a bit over the top. On another thread earlier today, you strongly implied that 26 different agents were all incapable of marketing because we hadn't any showings of units in a condo building that are listed with us. But you made this statement with no knowledge of our market or the building in which the units are located. Before you go making your breathless statements, at least make sure you know the facts, Bill.
Last edited by Eric Young; 11-29-2007 at 08:47 PM..
I agree GD...you don't understand this stuff. That is why you should stay away from it.
Once again Capt - perhaps it is you who needs to "stay away" from "it"
We are discussing those agents who add, or subtract, things from photos - such as power lines, bad driveways, new paint - in other words, make the property look different than what it REALLY is -
This is what I was discussing.
Evidently, you are off in your own little dream world
I'm not surprised that it was that sentence that caught your eye.
In this particular case, we're not talking about a gigantic power transmission line - we're talking about a pole that is in the neighbor's back yard.
Unfortunately, any photograph of the front exterior of my listing yields a result that makes it appear that the property has a power pole sticking out of it's roof...as if the pole is planted in the living room of the home.
To anyone standing in front of the house, it is clear that a power pole is not rising from the living room of the home - if one even notices it at all. In the three dimensions of real life, it barely barely registers that the neighbor has a power pole in their yard.
Eric - I have to tell you that it is the very issue you raise (taking out the pole and other substantial changes to a photo) that the Pro Stds Committee has been asked to address - to determine if it comes up to a violation of the COE.
I want to make this very clear: I am not, in any way, saying that it does violate the COE. I am saying however that the Pro Stds Committee will have the issue as a part of their agenda at the May meetings. And it is hoped, that a recommendation can be made, one way or the other, to the Board of Directors to be considered at the annual meeting in Orlando in Nov '08.
As an aside, this type of issue is becoming a recurring complaint with various Boards around the country and it is these boards, and their Pro Stds Committees (local / state levels) that are asking for guidance.
Once again Capt - perhaps it is you who needs to "stay away" from "it"
We are discussing those agents who add, or subtract, things from photos - such as power lines, bad driveways, new paint - in other words, make the property look different than what it REALLY is -
This is what I was discussing.
Evidently, you are off in your own little dream world
We were discxussing puffery and whether or not we need new regulations regarding modifying reality via digital photography.
You seem to feel that There is some precise formula that can be derived to state what is deceptive as opposed to what is OK. You sound like removing a physical object is objectionable while brightening a dark room is not.
I merely suggest all photos are puffery to one degree or another and perhaps a disclosure that they can't be trusted is in order. But if we start banning puffery where do we stop? "Gorgeous Inside" when it ain't? "Cozy sitting room" when we know it is a telephone booth? "professionally landscpaed back yard" when the water has been off for three months?
We have a condo that is routinely written up as gated with swimming pools and a gym...even though the gate has been down for a year and the swimming pools and gym have been closed for 18 months. It does have a gate and two swimming pools and a gym...but all unavailable to the residents Should we fine everybody a grand or admit it does have the facilities they just are not available?
Exact truth needs to come out in the process. Upfront? I don't think so and it would be hard to legislate.
I've been to a couple of properties that were absolutely overhauled in the pics, right down to the color of the house. I went to one home that had been on the market for almost 6 months and is priced below all the other comps. That should have clued me in but in this market, I figured maybe I would get lucky. The actual place looked like a teardown and it was right next to a firestation. It's still for sale and the price has dropped significantly. I'll have to go find the link...
We were discxussing puffery and whether or not we need new regulations regarding modifying reality via digital photography.
You seem to feel that There is some precise formula that can be derived to state what is deceptive as opposed to what is OK. You sound like removing a physical object is objectionable while brightening a dark room is not.
No, what I stated, if you would take the time to read and apply some basic comprehension is, that the issue was presented to the Pro Stds Committee - a number of examples to substantiate the issue were presented and that the issue, which I clearly described, was referred to the Pro Stds workgroup
This is not my opinion, as you continue to try to present it as - it is fact - the issue was referred to the Pro std cmte workgroup to come up with recommendations.
I agree that photoshopping negative (and permanent) fixtures of the neighborhood out of the pic is deceptive. Brightening a dark photo is one thing, removing a building or power lines is W R O N G!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
