Buying & Selling: Photoshopping Listing Photos?

While searching Broadband Reports for some unrelated information, I came across a fascinating thread: The ethics of photoshopping listing photos. As you might imagine, the readers don't think too highly of it.

The forum linked to a Matrix post on the topic, wherein Jonathan Miller had this to say:

The physical marketing of a property includes showing a property at its best to influence the value, and this can include staging the home through furnishing, lighting and sounds. Those staging efforts don’t bother me because they help the buyer visualize the property potential. The new owner can effect change after purchase. However, the probability of the wires or a water tower being removed after purchase would be remote. That seems to be where the line should be drawn.

Honestly, I can't see any justification for altering photos of homes before listing. You're going to see the real deal in any case, and the idea that the seller would expect to get away with such crude fraud seems absurd on its face. Then again, I remember writing about people who bought plots of land via eBay completely sight unseen at the height of the housing boom, so maybe there's an audience for this sort of chicanery.

By the way, Adobe is apparently working on antifraud technology for Photoshop, but the commenters for that article aren't terribly impressed either. ;)

Posted at March 12, 2007 05:22 PM

digg this story

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://weblog.housing.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/340

While searching Broadband Reports for some unrelated information, I came across a fascinating thread: The ethics of photoshopping listing photos. As you might imagine, the readers don't think too highly of it. The forum linked to a Matrix post on the topic, wherein Jonathan Miller had this to say: The physical marketing of a property includes showing a property at its best to influence the value, and this can include staging the home through furnishing, lighting and sounds. Those staging efforts don’t bother me because they help the buyer visualize the property potential. The new owner can effect change after purchase. However, the probability of the wires or a water tower being removed after purchase would be remote. That seems to be where the line should be drawn. Honestly, I can't see any justification for altering photos of homes before listing. You're going to see the real deal in any case, and the idea that the seller would expect to get away with such crude fraud seems absurd on its face. Then again, I remember writing about people who bought plots of land via eBay completely sight unseen at the height of the housing boom, so maybe there's an audience for this sort of chicanery. By the way, Adobe is apparently working on antifraud technology for Photoshop, but the commenters for that article aren't terribly impressed either. ;)