Photo doctoring in real estate advertising

Do you see the difference between real things and fake things?

Yeah. But I’m saying it dosn’t matter. It isn’t relevant. WMC take your panties off, un-twist them and get dressed again. It’s a non event.

Changing the colour of grass is not misrepresenting anything. Are you suggesting that the vendor of a ski chalet should not include a picture of the property blanketed in snow if it is being sold in summer?

You normally strike me as a reasonably bright chap, so I must say I’m a little surprised at the way you’re flogging this. But to put it simply:

If you put something in a picture that isn’t there, THAT’S LYING. In trade, THAT’S ILLEGAL.

Want to show you ski chalet with snow on it? TAKE A PICTURE IN WINTER. Want to make it look like there’s grass there? LAY TURF. Your baking and polish examples are irrelevant, because THOSE ARE REAL THINGS. The grass is NOT REAL. It’s OK to bake cookies, because doing so doesn’t make false representations about the house. It makes a representation that the house smells like cookies when you bake cookies in it. The photo makes the representation that there’s a nice green lawn, BUT THERE ISN’T. It’s not like they made a green lawn greener. THE DIRT IS GREEN. GREEN DIRT HAS NEVER EXISTED, AND WILL NEVER EXIST AT THE PROPERTY.

Do you see the difference between real things and fake things? Can you accept that it’s dishonest to say that something’s there when it isn’t? If you can’t do both of these, there’s not much point continuing this discussion, because you’re living in a fantasy land where real and imaginary and right and wrong are meaningless concepts.

Hells_Bells74 said :

MWF said :

Ruby Wednesday said :

You can see such things at It’s lovely! I’ll take it!.

Thanks for the link. Now I am addicted.

+1

Ha Love it. And just for CK, here’s one that should suit him to a tee.

Clown Killer said :

There’s a bunch of people queuing up here for the nit-picker-of-the-week award. Changing the colour of grass is not misrepresenting anything. Are you suggesting that the vendor of a ski chalet should not include a picture of the property blanketed in snow if it is being sold in summer?

It’s not just changing the colour of the lawn though – it’s making it look lush, thick and alive when it’s most probably dead. The lawn in the second photo looks like turf.

It is a misrepresentation, and it matters because it costs money to replace dead, brown grass with turf-like new grass. A potential purchaser will have to bear that cost.

Also, the “buyer-beware” advocates need their heads read. Caveat emptor is reasonable up to a point, but it doesn’t excuse blatant lying or deceptive behaviour.

MWF said :

Ruby Wednesday said :

You can see such things at It’s lovely! I’ll take it!.

Thanks for the link. Now I am addicted.

+1

dvaey said :

How is this different to the agent baking a cake or setting up a vase of flowers on the table as a welcome.

Clown Killer said :

But why stop there. Let’s stop people liberally applying furniture polish, and brewing coffee and baking cookies and having the fire raging and tidying up their place for open house inspections because that might make people believe the place is welcoming and homey. Hell, if there’s nice leather upholstered furniture in the picture get rid of it – everyone knows that first home buyers cant afford good lounge suites and that when they move their crappy hand-me-down furniture in the [place will look nothing like the picture they say three months ago in the add.

The difference is that this image has been electronically altered. It’s a misrepresentation. If it came with a caption “This image has been digitally altered” or “Artists impression” or “Landscaping suggestion”, as others have said, it would be fine. But they are claiming this is what the property actually looks like, which is false.

I do need to spend some serious time in the garden this weekend. Given the weather, I might stay in the warmth and just fix it with photoshop instead. I might even get the extensions done as well.

Clown Killer said :

Turn up the colour on your monitor Angryhenry – there’s plenty of visible green grass in the original picture.

this is a non issue. It’s up to the buyer to make their own investigations of the condition of a proprerty.

Tosh! What grass?

This is, IMO, misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of either the Fair Trading Act or the Trade Practices Act. It is an attempt to portray the property as something that it is not, some here are suggesting that the pursuit of profit on the basis of deception is what we are meant to expect, therefore its okay.

This simply doesn’t fly, its all well and good to say that they are trying to get the best price they can, but that doesn’t justify attempting to mislead the people they’re trying to sell it to. If someone bought this property without inspecting it (as they are entitled to under a Torrens Title system),as could happen with someone coming back from an international posting, for example, then they have been deceived through no fault of their own.

We are entitled to rely on what is represented to us, these rules are designed to create an environment where consumers can be certain of the things that are represented to them. Economically, market outcomes are only balanced when there is disclosure, the same arguments by those above justify lying on company profit statements or making false claims in advertising. Ridiculous.

p1 said :

My normal rule of thumb is, if it looks photochopped, then it goes too far. If it looks real, but then turns out to be total fake, then I’d be pretty irritated, but they might have me at the open house by then.

So forgeries are OK, as long as they’re good forgeries?

FYI the agent is Luton’s in Weston Creek.

Obviously an agent who are prepared to put in the hard yards to try and get the best price for their client. They should wear this thread as a badge of honour.

To OP, are you sure it has been digitally altered?

99.5% – I pass this house frequently. And it just looks it – have a close look at the pic, you’ll see the green-ness is equally applied to grass and patches of dirt. As my other half said – it’s not even cut-and-paste grass.

FYI the agent is Luton’s in Weston Creek.

Let the ACCC know. If it is mis-representation, there will be court precedent and the ACCC will tell them what’s what

Ruby Wednesday said :

You can see such things at It’s lovely! I’ll take it!.

Thanks for the link. Now I am addicted.

#41 – damn CK you beat me to it, and said it better than I did anyway.

How is this different to the agent baking a cake or setting up a vase of flowers on the table as a welcome. Also, while it may not apply in this situation, Ive seen areas of ground turn green from grass within only a couple of days of rain, grass isnt like a tree or shrub that takes years to grow, you can achieve a good green ground cover within only a couple of days with ther right conditions.

Gungahlin Al said :

AngryHenry said :

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

And you sleep with green women.

Jealousy makes them try harder.

???

Star Trek reference.

Ugh! Thanks!

CK’s “potential” argument is ludicrous.

How so? Right now my lawn looks dead – not because it is, but because when you have a random selection of paddock grasses that substitute for what others might call ‘lawn’ it browns off in winter. Come spring it will be green again (even more so this spring with the new watering system that’s going in).

There’s a bunch of people queuing up here for the nit-picker-of-the-week award. Changing the colour of grass is not misrepresenting anything. Are you suggesting that the vendor of a ski chalet should not include a picture of the property blanketed in snow if it is being sold in summer?

But why stop there. Let’s stop people liberally applying furniture polish, and brewing coffee and baking cookies and having the fire raging and tidying up their place for open house inspections because that might make people believe the place is welcoming and homey. Hell, if there’s nice leather upholstered furniture in the picture get rid of it – everyone knows that first home buyers cant afford good lounge suites and that when they move their crappy hand-me-down furniture in the [place will look nothing like the picture they say three months ago in the add.

AngryHenry said :

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

And you sleep with green women.

Jealousy makes them try harder.

???

Star Trek reference.

And you sleep with green women.

Jealousy makes them try harder.

???

Tee hee hee

it has been pointed out to me that the 2 photos are at different angles, and that photo 1 does show some green grass.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

And you sleep with green women.

Jealousy makes them try harder.

???

And you sleep with green women.

Jealousy makes them try harder.

James-T-Kirk said :

Where is it written that the photo has to be during the listing period?

Thats a pretty bug assumption!

I have a photo of my place, before they put the multi-story car-park beside it, before that welding shop went in next door, and just before the runway was extended past the front of it that I would like the agent to use!!!

Do your OWN research…

Yeah well, your father was a starfleet commander for 12 minutes…

And you sleep with green women.

For god’s sake Jim! You’ve got to start somewhere and if you’re being mislead from the get go it can hardly be fair!

People who are looking for houses are giving her all she’s got Captain!

Where is it written that the photo has to be during the listing period?

Thats a pretty bug assumption!

I have a photo of my place, before they put the multi-story car-park beside it, before that welding shop went in next door, and just before the runway was extended past the front of it that I would like the agent to use!!!

Do your OWN research…

Jazz said :

How would you feel about it in this scenario. Photos of house taken just after REAL grass has been laid, property stays on the market for a month or two, grass dies back a bit before you go visit it?

Jazz – the difference is that a photo such as what you’re talking about would be an actual depiction/record of a house or property on the day it was taken. The allhomes agent photo here depicts a scenario that doesn’t exist now or at any time in the listing period. If they want to photoshop something in (or out) they should include a disclaimer in or under the image like “artist’s impression” or “image enhanced”. If you think that sort of disclaimer might affect buyers’ perceptions negatively, then there is also an issue with not declaring that images have been altered.

How would you feel about it in this scenario. Photos of house taken just after REAL grass has been laid, property stays on the market for a month or two, grass dies back a bit before you go visit it?

I’d feel that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fraud apparently committed in this case by deadsh.t sc.mbag real estate agents for whom dishonesty and ‘marketing’ are one and the same.

CK’s “potential” argument is ludicrous. This is no different to make false representations or claims for any other product or service. If they want to say “this is how it should look”, so what they do on cereal boxes and print a “landscaping suggestion only” disclaimer.

The shading of the tree in the second pic would have been difficult to do, it seems a big waste of time for not much reward.

The shading of the tree didn’t need to be touched. Its hue gets adjusted at the same time as the grass. Imagine they just laid a piece of green cellophane over that circle, shadow and all – that’s pretty much all they’d have to do in Photoshop. It’s not like they painted in the grass then had to paint the shadow back in. It’s all the same raster layer.

Clown Killer said :

I’d like to see what your definition of getting a life is CK?

I’m sure that both our lives are just splendid. I went a bit over the top on that, sorry AH.

Hah! Don’t sweat it.

I appreciate the passion. It inspires me to respond!

I’d like to see what your definition of getting a life is CK?

I’m sure that both our lives are just splendid. I went a bit over the top on that, sorry AH.

Clown Killer said :

Get a life. Fining a property for sale on Allhomes is not “investigations of the condition of the property …”. What if you have an internet connection? Should my old man stop buying investment properties because he doesn’t have the internet?

I’ve got a pretty decent life and buying a house will actually enable it to be even moreso.

I only said it ‘starts’ with finding a property on allhomes. If you don’t have an internet connection buy the paper, like you did 25 years ago before fancy presses and the like. If they posted the altered photographs in the paper instead of on a website the fact would still remian they are misleading the public.

At no point did I say allhomes was the be-all, end-all of finding a home, merely a place to start.

I’d like to see what your definition of getting a life is CK?

Clown Killer said :

For those of you who are old enough to remember, 25 or more years ago before there were fancy presses and the like and colour pictures in the paper were reserved for queens visits and grand final day, houses used to be sold with a little pen-and-ink drawing that represented an artist’s impression of the property on offer – this is no different.

Yeah but you knew that was an artist’s impression.

This is being presented as an actual photograph. It is not.

Huge difference.

Look in this case it probably wouldn’t bother me, it is only grass, if the rest of the house was decent and the price was right I’d look into building inspections and the like, find the weaknesses in the place that I could exploit to knock down the price and if that worked out, consider making and offer.

The problem with altering something that is put out there as an actual photograph is that you are lying. Just because it happens a lot doesn’t mean people need to accept it.

A lot of agents do this. When we were selling our house we were pretty pissed when the real-estate agent came in without any warning and took photos of the place without allowing us to tidy the place up. When we called them they said ‘ohh not to worry, we just photoshop it all out’. There have been instances where agents have photo-shopped power lines out, and have got in quite a lot of trouble for this. At the end of the day, you shouldn’t be buying a house from the photo anyway. Although, if i had traveled a few hundred kilometers to see a house that had been shopped – i would be quite pissed.

…part of their investigations of the condition of a property starts with looking at an advertisement/listing on allhomes.

Get a life. Fining a property for sale on Allhomes is not “investigations of the condition of the property …”. What if you have an internet connection? Should my old man stop buying investment properties because he doesn’t have the internet?

For real CK? So by extension, if there’s ‘potential’ for adding a studio out the back, then it’s fine for the agent to photoshop one in there??

You’re misrepresenting me there GA. In the original photo there’s grass – it’s just half dead- what’s the problem with adding a little colour. As I said – it’s not like the front yards actually concrete and they’re making up the lawn, or there’s one of those electricity junction boxes and they’ve edited it out. There’s a lawn there (albeit in pretty ordinary shape) and they’ve just made it look a bit better.

For those of you who are old enough to remember, 25 or more years ago before there were fancy presses and the like and colour pictures in the paper were reserved for queens visits and grand final day, houses used to be sold with a little pen-and-ink drawing that represented an artist’s impression of the property on offer – this is no different.

Clown Killer said :

Turn up the colour on your monitor Angryhenry – there’s plenty of visible green grass in the original picture.

this is a non issue. It’s up to the buyer to make their own investigations of the condition of a proprerty.

Bull! There is a massive patch of dry dead dirt in that first photo, due to the angle it looks a little smaller but you can clearly see how big that patch of dirt is from the second photo and shonky photoshopping.

It is far from a non-issue, part of their investigations of the condition of a property starts with looking at an advertisement/listing on allhomes.

Sure grass might be petty but if people think that they can mislead people by altering their images on allhomes in order to lure them to inspections then it leads to people wasting valuable time and money on fuel.

More importantly is the wasting money on fuel part which I believe anyone who is just about to dive into debt on a home loan could do without.

I mean if you were selling a place at the long stay caravan park and put up a picture of Windsor Castle I think you’d probably get in trouble for that. It’s an exaggerated example I know, but it’s the principle of the matter.

The people who photoshopped that grass are dodgy bastards in my book.

How would you feel about it in this scenario. Photos of house taken just after REAL grass has been laid, property stays on the market for a month or two, grass dies back a bit before you go visit it?

anatoli said :

My landlord has just put up an advert on allhomes for the apartment I’ve just vacated. The photos are of a different (much larger) apartment, and it’s advertised to have 2 car spaces in the basement carpark where it only actually has 1.

This is par for the course as far as real estate goes (particularly the rental market). I know of instances where people have been burned by the “advertise 2 car spaces where there’s only 1” thing – not realising until after they’d signed the lease and half moved in that there were less car spaces in the basement than advertised. All I can say is don’t ever believe a word the lying bastards say (landlords or agents).

Although the vendor shouldnt advertise the wrong details, but seriously who doesnt look over the contract, the units titleplan and such before signing any lease?

My bridge is mostly gray – I wonder how it will turn out?

I am curious to see what the Google Street view shows.

The second one has definitely been ‘shopped – you can see sand around the tree in the first which has turned a fascinating shade of green in the second.

And frankly I see no value in this. For every person it helps “imagine” what the place could look like, you’ll get ten people who rock up, see the place looking far dumpier than it did in the photos (possibly due to e.g. bad maintenance) and will instantly revise their first offer downward.

To OP, are you sure it has been digitally altered?

It really looks like fake grass, or carpet to me. The shading of the tree in the second pic would have been difficult to do, it seems a big waste of time for not much reward.

I think the line is blur-y, just like in all other advertising. My normal rule of thumb is, if it looks photochopped, then it goes too far. If it looks real, but then turns out to be total fake, then I’d be pretty irritated, but they might have me at the open house by then.

The pic above looks fake as hell to me when looking closely, but flicking though the paper I probably wouldn’t notice.

My landlord has just put up an advert on allhomes for the apartment I’ve just vacated. The photos are of a different (much larger) apartment, and it’s advertised to have 2 car spaces in the basement carpark where it only actually has 1.

This is par for the course as far as real estate goes (particularly the rental market). I know of instances where people have been burned by the “advertise 2 car spaces where there’s only 1” thing – not realising until after they’d signed the lease and half moved in that there were less car spaces in the basement than advertised. All I can say is don’t ever believe a word the lying bastards say (landlords or agents).

This is bizarre

Who does the agency actually *work* for? I can guarantee it is not the punter who reads the glossy brochures! Surely it is up to the buyer to beware!

You don”t actually believe a salesman when his lips are moving? Do you?

You don’t actually believe a politician when their lips are moving?

Fortunately, my kids have been brought up properly – whenever a poly sprouts forth words on the box, they say, in unison – “Oh look, the lips are moving….”.. Same principal applies.

If, on the other hand you actually *believe* what you see in magazines, then I have a slightly used bridge that might be coming up for sale soon.

Shonky as!!! Which agency is it? (I’m taking bets…)

Clown Killer said :

Digitally greening up the front yard is embellishment, in any sense of the word

I disagree. If there’s a grass there (even half dead grass)then there’s the potential for it to be green – adding a lawn, or implying that there was a lawn there when, for arguments sake – the front yards was really wood-chip or paved with concrete would be embellishment.

For real CK? So by extension, if there’s ‘potential’ for adding a studio out the back, then it’s fine for the agent to photoshop one in there??

I agree on the abuse of wide angle lenses too. There’s wide angle for purposes of showing more in one shot, and then there’s just misleading the viewer – and there’s all together too much of that happening with certain glossy colourful ad producing agents in this town lately.

I think it backfires on them too. You show up to have a look, find yourself in some little rabbit warren, and you have nothing but ill-will for the agent for wasting your time.

You’s be surprised what people will pay for, Sepi. The problem is that many people can’t buy property without emotion, which leads to market inconsistencies (which are good for investors, not so good for potential owner-occupiers).

I don’t think most people would pay much more for a property with a circle of green grass out front anyway.

If you purchase a property *without* physically looking at it yourself, and obtaining expert advice on its state – you are asking for trouble.

Also, keep in mind that the printing, and computer display processes do not maintain colour accuracy – so you may find what looks green to you on your monitor looks brownish to me 😛

Turn up the colour on your monitor Angryhenry – there’s plenty of visible green grass in the original picture.

this is a non issue. It’s up to the buyer to make their own investigations of the condition of a proprerty.

You can see such things at It’s lovely! I’ll take it!. My favourites are when they photoshop random art onto the walls of the house or add random photoshopped furniture. Prime example is here, where some tulips and birds have been added to the garden very, uh, convincingly.

There’s also the potential for there to be ‘improved’ paintwork, rooftiling, half-dead shrubs replaced with healthy ones etc, adding several $,000 to the apparent value of the property. What a precedent for personals ads …

It looks like the lower pic was taken some time ago, before the grass died back near the lawn edging- likely taken by owner, and given to agent, who (I’ll be generous) used it without looking too closely. Or maybe not. Is it any wonder real estate agents a ranked up there with used care sales people for trustworthiness?

they could do a carnell, and paint it green in real life, not just digital…

Clown Killer said :

I disagree. If there’s a grass there (even half dead grass)then there’s the potential for it to be green – adding a lawn, or implying that there was a lawn there when, for arguments sake – the front yards was really wood-chip or paved with concrete would be embellishment.

Rubbish! There is no grass whatsoever where they have added green in the second photo, it is a dry patch of dirt therefore it IS embellishment.

Do it at your peril I reckon…

And if I show up to your exhibition after being mislead by your airbrushed pictures, expect to cop an absolute earful for wasting my time, and petrol.

For most people, you won’t be buying a property without viewing it anyway (and by the time you’re ready to buy sight unseen you’ll know to identify these tricks and price risk), so who really cares?

Real estate agents are paid to gain the best possible price for a property, and many of them are not beyond bending the rules a little to achieve that. The best thing to do if you are worried about getting ripped off for a property is take along someone who has bought properties in the past, knows the market, and can spot the little tricks used to upsell a property. There’s no need for angst, just knowledge.

Digitally greening up the front yard is embellishment, in any sense of the word

I disagree. If there’s a grass there (even half dead grass)then there’s the potential for it to be green – adding a lawn, or implying that there was a lawn there when, for arguments sake – the front yards was really wood-chip or paved with concrete would be embellishment.

what also intrigues me is the use of a wide angle lense. making the property seem bigger than it actually is creates a let-down when you visit it during inspection. saw a property with a massive backyard, we went to take a look, and found that it was a third of the size.

digitally greening up the lawn is just dumb. you are usually found out at the exhibition…