Real Estate Agents sell homes (well, the good ones do anyway); and to help sell homes, we take pictures of them... inside and out, high and low, this room and that room, front yard and back... all so potential Buyers can see these pictures, which will help them decide if they want to take an actual tour of the home. To take the best pictures, we turn lights on (or off), use our camera's flash, some Agents will climb up on furniture or counters, others will crouch down under a shelf or stairs, some even hire professional photographers (who bring-in additional lighting and know all kinds of tricks) to take the best possible pictures and show the homes in their best light (pun intended). I always felt that there were some Agents that seemed to go to extraordinary lengths to get great shots that showed homes in a manner that they deemed most enticing to potential Buyers... little did I know how far they'd go.

I was on an airplane to (or from, I can't remember) a real estate convention when I recall hearing about Agents editing photos for the first time. I heard one Agent say to another, that they often adjusted the contrast on photos to make darker pictures appear lighter (or vice-versa). "Ok" I thought, this was normal, nothing too out of the ordinary here (I've done it). After all, who hasn't taken a picture, only to discover later that the flash didn't go off, and had a need to lighten up the contrast (or, conversely, darken an overexposed picture taken in the sunlight). After all, this is not much different than if you had used the flash in the first place to brighten a room. Then, I heard a different Agent mention that they had used Photoshop to "green-up" grass that was still pale from the winter or "blue" the sky in a pic. taken on a cloudy/overcast day. "Hmmm" I thought, "that seems a little strange, but I guess it's not much different than taking the shots a few days or weeks later (when the grass would be greener and the sky more blue)." Something didn't sit right with me on this though, the more I thought, the more it bugged me... then I about lost my lunch when I heard an Agent say that, yes, they had edited photos too... that they would never display pictures with power lines or a water tower in them, so they had "photo-shopped" these items out of pictures before. My stomach turned at this thought and I believed that this was certainly crossing the line ethically.

At a later date, I asked a few agents about this practice and one said that, while they felt that it was wrong, it wasn't much different than if the "editing Agent" had returned to the property and taken the shots from a slightly more favorable angle (so as not to show the power lines, water tower, or whatever). He then said that "photo-shopping" items out of pictures (or adjusting colors of grass, sky, etc.) was not terribly different than turning the lights on or off, using a flash, or standing on a chair or counter, to get the best possible shot... that it was all manipulation of what people would see when they came to the property and saw it in normal lighting, from normal angles.

On a related note, I've heard of MLS providers and real estate boards disallowing and demanding removal of "edited pictures." However, I've only heard of them demanding removal of the blatantly edited (i.e. where the Agent had added his contact information, or his picture, to the shot). I can't remember if they demanded removal of the one I saw where an Agent had combined four images into each picture (like placing four pictures in a square and taking a photo of it... theoretically giving him room for forty pics. in the MLS instead of ten). Is this over the line or just ingenuity?

Ultimately, I thought I was OK since I had not edited pictures beyond occasionally adjusting the contrast of a shot where the flash didn't activate... but wait, is using a flash falsely lighting the home? Then, I have also stitched multiple photos together into a panoramic shot (similar to taking a pic. with a wide-angle lens... see below). Am I wrong for doing this? I just thought I was helping the Buyers better grasp the layout of the home and the Sellers to better display it. I hold my moral standards very high and believe that, to many, Real Estate Agents already have a bad name (look at anytime we're portrayed on TV shows or commercials). So, I would never want to exacerbate the stereotype, much less do anything unethical. However, I'm curious to know what my readers, both Agents and home Buyers/Sellers, feel about the practice of editing photos. Where should we draw the line and what is acceptable vs. unacceptable? After you've thought about your response, put yourself into one of the other shoes (Agent, Buyer or Seller)... does this change your opinion? I ask this because I've heard Buyers say that they don't want to be deceived with edited photos or inaccurate property descriptions, but then turn around as Sellers and ask that the pictures or description of their home be sugar-coated as much as possible. Speak up and let me know your thoughts...

Stitching a panoramic picture to give a better feel for the actual floor plan/layout of a home:

VS.