Your Houston Real Estate Information Source: Digitally Enhanced Listing Really Looks Like Garbage In Person..... GO FIGURE

Greg,

Kind of a lousy business practice, representing the home as it isn't.

There is a great opportunity to show people the potential the property has with some photoshop work, but that should be properly presented so no one would assume that the altered pix are indicative of the home's current condition.

I'm gonna try that with my own house... then maybe I'll want to go home! lol

Greg, don't be bitter just because someone else thought it it first! ;)  . . . But seriously, Realtors that use those kind of tactics should have their licenses pulled. It's dishonesty in the worst kind of way.

Greg,

I've never been a fan of this "virtual staging." More like "virtual bullsh_t" if you ask me.

Rich

That sounds like dishonesty to me.  Now touching up a photo that is overcast and make it blue could be just fine.  But don't make it look desirable when it isn't.

Greg,

I've been so involved for so long I though I'd heard every absurdity!

But, "photo's" on the MLS have been digitally altered" sets a new standard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Be glad it wasn't land, alterted to show it after the swamp is drained and filled!

On the other Hand digitally removing pounds from my photo might help!

Bill

That's just sad. I feel for the buyers who go looking for this great-looking property and are extremely disappointed when they see they've wasted time on a property that is absolutely nothing like what they thought.  What a mis-representation.

~Emcee

Wouldn't that fall under the category of false advertising?

Would you like me to digitally enhance the interest rate? 

I'd call their broker and complain, that is poor business practice.

Greg Is Phil Donahue still alive?...The only thing I ever did to a photo to enhance it was add Snow in the winter...No wait a minute, I went out after the first snow and took a new picture...never mind.

Holy cow... I'm actually speechless trying to visualize this... What were they thinking??? Seriously (LOL).

I have to admit, that's a new one to me, too.  I would be so ticked off if I took one of my buyers to that listing.......how embarrassing that could be.

I would not be a happy person (buyer) if I went to look at a home and was expecting what I was shown in pictures of the property online.  I have a saying that when realtors retire they should all go into photography because we can make some really BAD houses look pretty good in pictures.  But this seems deceptive to me.  There should be actual photos also and it should at least need to be disclosed to prospective buyers that property needs work.

I guess if that agent continues this practice you would have to personally inspect every listing before you took a buyer there or at least call & ask if the photos are real, enhanced or taken 5 years ago before they had 3 dogs and a few kids.

I find it hard to believe the agent's reputation in the community will be "enhanced" by this stunt.

Greg - I remember a post a view months back about someone that is a photographer as well as a real estate agent and was selling a home that was in need of a front door. She photo shopped a new door, as there really was one on order, and it caused an uproar with AR community. Most thought IT to be dishonest. I thought it creative.
But to have pictures that misrepresent the home I personally don't agree with it and feel it is dishonest to market the property as such.

What people will do to get a house sold. Hmmm. Sounds like that plan backfired.

Pretty sure this is a COE violation for misrepresenting.  Just stating digitally altered shouldn't be enough to get them off the hook.  Realtor Mag ran an article on this not that long ago.

Wow, I'm in a serious minority here.  I thought of NOT telling this and slinking away, but I too have upon occassion had a profession "digitally enhance a photo or two".  Did I add furniture or make repairs? NO.  But I have made the sky a little bluer on a cloudy day, taken the muddy out of the lake after a solid week of down pouring rain and even greened the lawn a bit in the dead of winter.  Why did I do it instead of just waiting until those things occured naturally and taking new photos?  Deadlines for print advertising.  Might I ever do it again... maybe, maybe not... since I don't really do print advertising anymore.

Kathy White - you crack me up!

I myself have never experienced this before...

Coming to you from Texas...

Sussie - with over 50,000 listed properties.. we see EVERYTHING!

Tammy - Yeah.... I do that too. I don't see anything wrong with adding a little contrast or color, but furniture & repairs? No way.. wise.

LIz & Bill - I agree!

William James - Ha.. yeah, backfired? Not so sure as of yet. I hope some other poor consumer doesn't "assume" anything with the silly photo's.

Ken Barker - What? Send me a link!

Melissa - I'm a little surprised she's doing it. She's well known and she should know better to be honest.

C - yeah.. I wish I could post some of the photo's here!

Steve - lol, who knows ...

Kathy - HaHaHa

I tweak photos to show the property in its best light - but I don't misrepresent the home.  Sometimes I just adjust the exposure if it was a cloudy day or something.  Not anything radical.

Wow, that's really risky. Especially since no one EVER reads the copy! I have a new house listed - small, already built but never been lived in, we've built this model 5 times. I added a couple of photos with furnishings in it so people could judge room size but each picture and the remarks state this. Please keep in mind this house is brand new - perfect condition - not trying to hide anything and people still want to know where all the furniture went.

Greg, of course I will be sacrifice myself and be the desenting vote, I use virtual staging on my condo projects, We typically finish two units to show what the units look like completed, but the buyers have many different options to choose from. We use the two "models" for showing, but this is different from what you are talking about, these are brand new or yet to be completed properties. Still the virtual staging has been helpful in this context.....anytime you need someone to disagre, just let me know,,,

Amazing. Who has this lind of time? I'd call this cyber-folly!

Sounds like the glamour was out of that shot in person!

I agree with you, I wouldn't use this type of service. I would prefer, and do use actual home stagers, none of this virtual stuff. 

I think virtual staging is a great idea, as long as you don't blow it out of portortions. It's been rules that it's not false advertising just like when you have a listing where it was occupied, you took pictures, and then the house was vacant and you didn't update with vacant photos.

As long as you disclose their altered/staged, you're ok. However, I'm a firm believer in posting the actual picture and then the virtually staged picture so the consumer can see both the condition and the possibilities.

Greg that is absurd!!! and I also believe that would be an Ethics Violation/SOP. I could see if they had actual pics and then had one 'enhanced pic' to give some vision, but, not all of the pics. CRAZY that someone would think that's okay! I believe in staging and I definitely believe in making necessary repairs. But I do not believe in Virtual Repairs which is really what they've done!

Donna - I like the "both pictures" idea better!

Here I am Paige!!! :-)

I have seen this sort of virtual staging done very well using the "before and after" approach to picture presentation.  What you are describing is very misleading in my opinion.

This is really crazy.  I think that either both pictures need to be posted or the actual photos NOT the in a dream photos.

Images of the home should represent what IS for sale, not what COULD be for sale.  This is dishonest representation of the highest order and a perfect example of what gives real estate professionals a bad name. 

Just had the same thing happen to me.  A great price on a riverfront property, the photos were enhanced to make plain cheap panel walls look like rich color tongue and groove!  It was terrible.  This was not even tagged as being virtual anything!

Posting both pix is the way to go. I have had people yell at me because I made a house look too good online, but it wasn't that great in person...I don't even use photoshop!!! I just post what I see is the best about the property.

Even if you used one or two "enhanced" pics at least do the consumer and their agent the courtesy of posting true ones as well so we/they know if they even want to see it. It does smack of falseness doesn't it?!

From the TREC Rules:

§531.2. Integrity. [Adopted January 1, 1976; amended February 23, 1998] A real estate broker or salesperson has a special obligation to exercise integrity in the discharge of the licensee’s responsibilities, including employment of prudence and caution so as to avoid misrepresentation, in any wise, by acts of commission or omission.

If you would like to review the Deceptive Trade Practices Act you will also find violations there as well.

I would hope that you have reported this individual to the Texas Real Estate Commission, the MLS, and the individuals local RE association for all of the blatant and obvious violations?  The RE industry needs to police itself to protect the public.

wow thats interesting, 1st i have heard of that. What a waste of time.

Why don't you giev us the address so we can look on realtor.com ourselves?

Our MLS would NOT allow these types of photos to be used with a listing.

In marketing, they say to sell the sizzle and not the steak.  With Virtual Staging, this can be done but you have to be careful not to set the wrong expectations.  Yes, the home looked better in the photos to get you out to the home, but then the let down would have killed the sale since the buyers expectations were not met!  Spending money that won't be recouped with that extreme of a difference doesn't make sense.

I think any digitally altered photos need to disclose exactly what was altered.

You need to set realistic expectations to get the desired results.  It is kind of like the days of the "Miracle Bra" which created a "let down" when it was removed as well.

Moral of the story - Be Real!

The time has come where you can put a smoking gun in someones hand and the public will believe it.  As this gets more common place it will pay off to keep previewing homes before I take my client to see them.  Then give them feedback.  This helps me not waste my clients time. Thanks for posting.

I'm with Jonathan.  Report the agent to TREC.  I have had ocassions where a listing agent has erred and uploaded a wrong photo (it could happen).  But to digitally enhance is misleading.  Not to mention a waste of time for you and your client.

This is deception at its worst !

While we offer Virtual Staging with our Virtual Tour Photography Company, we never do it deceive rather we offer it as a less expensive, less cumbersome way to stage a Vacant home. Realtors rarely Virtually stage the entire home , just a few select rooms. We only place furniture and window coverings into the digital image of the room. We never change walls and flooring. Just as if the Realtor brought in a physical home staging company, they would place furniture, window treatments, accents and maybe an area rug to enhance the appearance of the home. This should be looked at no differently then viewing photos of an occupied home. No one expects the furnishings to come with the home.

Also, Photo-shopping an image other then to enhance the quality of the image is a HUGE No-No !

I have, on rare occasions (twice), touched up a sky or added a touch of green to the parched summer grass in the picture. I was experimenting with a new program (basically playing a little). But I have NEVER touched up a house photo, inside or out. That is definitely over the line in misrepresenting a property.

Greg,

Virtual Staging is an interesting concept. Our MLS rules do not allow these types of photos although I'm sure they are out there. 

"7.28 ...Only a true current photograph of Listed Property may be placed in the "Property Photograph" section without decorative borders, other embellishments, or any digitally enhanced modifications that would misrepresent the true condition or appearance of the property."

Tom

Good posting.  Obviously, digital photography in general has gone the same direction.  Almost ANY picture you see nowadays in a magazine has been digitally altered, so this does not surprise me.  As with everything else, there is the potential for abuse, so to me it's not so much a problem that photos are digitally altered, but the use of that technology to potentially misrepresent a listing.

Expect much more of this in the future.

Doing something like that makes no sense - there is nothing worse than seeing the home in person and it's not at all what it looks like in the MLS. I haven't seen anything like what you mentioned, but I can't tell you how many times I have shown homes that looked fabulous online and when my clients saw them in real life they were just so disappointed. So far in my career, I have never written an offer on a property like that - my clients were always just too disappointed and in some cases, actually mad and offended by the misrepresentation of the property by the listing agent.
Show the home on the MLS how it really is, a true representation, and put "digitally enhanced" flyers in the home to show what you could do with it and give buyers ideas, I think that would be ok.

Clean, paint, and hire a REAL Stager, please! Create POSITIVE change, not phony virtual fluff.

They might want to read the code of ethics change that came out last year, since it addressed this very thing and made it an ethics violation.

Well said Dale! I agree.

They might want to read the code of ethics change that came out last year, since it addressed this very thing and made it an ethics violation.

Greg,

WOW.  I don't even like when I see wide angle lens photos.  They look all curved and make things look huge when I know they are not but my clients are tricked by this, only to say..."These rooms look much larger in the pics!"

Tammy (#17) - what you are doing is changing the seasons, IMHO, not altering reality. Not at all in the same league as what the initial post described.

Digitally enhancing images is something I do with virtually every photo shoot - that is, adjust color, contract, etc.

Digital staging - or digital rehabbing - is a completely different animal.  Absolutley misleading, and a deceptive practice.

Besides - who would imagine that a buyer attracted by the lovely photos would be anything but PO'd on arrival.  So how can that be a useful business practice?

Tammy (#17) - what you are doing is changing the seasons, IMHO, not altering reality. Not at all in the same league as what the initial post described.

Digitally enhancing images is something I do with virtually every photo shoot - that is, adjust color, contract, etc.

Digital staging - or digital rehabbing - is a completely different animal.  Absolutley misleading, and a deceptive practice.

Besides - who would imagine that a buyer attracted by the lovely photos would be anything but PO'd on arrival.  So how can that be a useful business practice?

This borders on a "Truth in Advertising" violation. 

As a Professional photography company for Real Estate, we are always asked to photo-shop different things into our work.  We do so very carefully, and never change the actual home itself. 

Adding Furniture, or Green Leaves to a tree is one thing, but adding Paint, New Windows, or a complete Remodel is a bad practice and can get you into trouble.

Of course a professional photographer will always capture the best angles and make every home look it's absolute best.  Many times the home does not show as well as the imaging.  If this has happened, the photographer has done their job well to attract a prospective buyer. 

If one of my photographers presented "False Imaging" for Marketing purposes they would be fired on the spot!

Good luck to you

Furniture might be defensible since it's personal property but adding carpet and wood trim that's not really there?  What a waste of time for buyers and showing agents.

Some professional Stagers include Virtual Staging in their service offerings.  My understanding it is usually for vacant houses, with appropriate disclosure.  One real estate office in my area uses it, and shows before and after photos, with disclosure. 

The issue with Virtual Staging is that once the potential buyer enters the house, there is that huge let down (@#39 Miracle Bra - gotta love it!) - they're seeing it for the first time, and still have to wonder if their furniture will really fit, what various spatial functions are, how traffic will flow, etc.  Best bet is to always Stage!  Julie

If it is OBVIOUSLY DISCLOSED that it is NOT the true condition of the home - I see no problem with it. It would be best if they included true photos as well as enhanced ones.

Wondering if this is any different than listing a clutter-filled home and you took the pictures only after moving crap off counters, to be put bak later...?  that's not a true representation of the home either.  People will show up expecting to see clean counter tops and instead see a cluttered up mess...

Greg,  I couldn't agree more!  I recall reading somewhere 3 or 4 years ago where someone got sued for deceptive advertising because they had digitally removed some power lines from a property photo.  Perhaps the agent could have shown "before" to illustrate what it looks like now and also the digitally "renewed" photo to show what it could look like if the buyer had a lot of bucks to throw at it.

It's bad enough that you hold your breath when you pull up to a house for a showing, I always tell my buyers do not believe in the pictures, let's look at facts first and then go look at reality. If the price is under value there is a reason, if it has been on the market more then 45 days there is a reason. In this case of altering photo's or enhancing them is just down right crazy and unethical. Whatever happened to you get what you see. Report these people.

Virtual Staging would be OK if the public knew that's what it was but too often that's not the case.

Obeo (a virtual tour provider) has tours that show the home as it is BUT while touring you can click some buttons to see how the home "might look" with different paint or carpet.  But it only changes if the viewer makes it happen.  No deceipt there.  (If anyone wants to see how that works, em me. I don't want to put a link here and have it viewed as a hijacking.)

I'm curious as to how any of you consider this type of artificial property marketing enhancement to be different from staging a home with actual furniture and furnishings? Again, assuming either type of enhancement is noted so that potential buyers and their agents are informed that the furnishings do not come with the property.

Showing a before and after photo might have been the better and honest way of portraying the home. Otherwise, the only digital enhancement that should take place is making a photo brighter (or darker) if the photo didn't come out well.

Professionalism at its worst. Bad oart about this is it gives all of us a bad name. Maybe your MLS board should create a rule about digitally inhanced photos. I guess if enough consumres complain the practice might be stopped

John #51 - I use a 10mm super wide angle lens for most interior shots. I've never had any complaints from sellers or buyers.

Tom 

I "digitally enhanced" a photo just last week!  After geting home I discovered a photo that I really needed had a problem. Looking out the window of the pic one could see the neighbor guy bent over in his yard (eeww)...so I photoshoped the "Butt Guy" and made into him a nice bush! Unethical? Perhaps!

I could understand digitally enhancing the photos to help brighten colors and make it mroe representative of how the property REALLY is, but not this.  That's ridiculous and a waste of everyone's time.

Chuck,

I've had to Photoshop myself out of a mirror or two over the years!  Bathrooms can be the worst places to shoot...

Tom

This would be a really interesting story if it were one of those where a distant buyer bought the property sight unseen!  Now were talkin lawsuit! If you are going to use virtual staging, you had better post true photos as well!

Our MLS does not allow digitally enhanced photos.  I think the fine is $1,000 per infraction (not sure, it may be $500).  However, the MLS police don't really have time to look at all the pictures and find the fakes.

Since it was disclosed that these were digitally enhanced photos, I don't think it's unethical at all.  Different story if it was not disclosed.

I agree Greg. A complete bait and switch move. Why not just add another couple of bedrooms and a swimming pool while your at it!

How funny is that, some folks are desperately trying to sell their listings and I guess they think this brilliant (not) idea will work!

I see no deception as along the photo is well marked that it is 'virtual'.  This agent is in a lose/lose situtaion apparently....home looks bad without the virtual staging and looks 'too good' with it. What's an agent to do???? Perhaps make some remarks that it is a 'bomb' right now...but look how large the rooms are with king sized furniture and look what you can do with a little elbow grease and imagination???? C'mon...give the agent an B+ for effort....not deception....they didn't deceive, did they? (I've never done this by the way!...the virtual staging thing.)

Shock and Awe! It is almost laughable except if you were the embarrassed agent who took a client to see this "lie". I agree this agent needs to be reported to TREC and if TREC hasn't addressed this new marketing technique, they need to immediately.

This has become an issue. From a marketing perspective if they show what the place looks like and then what it could maybe I see their point. If it's straight out deception as in your blog then I'm afraid I wouldn't be showing any of that agents homes.

What if the pictures were paired with one labeled "Property Now" or "Property in its Current Condition" and the other labeled "Digitally Enhanced to Show Possible After". Combine that strategy with remarks such as "Needs Significant Work". The agent might even want to obtain written estimates for needed repairs and post them online with the contractor's permission and expiration date for the estimate. That information would tell a prospective buyer whether they were interested. Many buyers  look at fixer-uppers but don't buy because they can't see the possibilities or don't know where to start to get a handle on the costs. I am interested in whether the AR community thinks this strategy meets the COE requirements.

Given the fact that the disclosure about the photos having been digitally altered was not visible to buyers (only realtors) seems highly unethical at best and I'm surprised it would even be allowed in the real estate industry.  It's blatant false advertising.

I like the idea!

I pulled up the listing.  The listing agent included pictures of the rooms before the changes were made.  So, you can actually see the room pictures with and without the digital enhancements. 

I don't believe it's unethical either....  check this link out: http://www.realtor.org/rmolaw_and_ethics/ethics/pastarticles/1006_ethics_virtualstaging

Greg, I appreciate your post and the comments it's produced.

While I offer my clients renderings/conceptual drawings, what you've described explains my reservations in offering digitally enhanced photos--strikes me as an area fraught with possibilities of misuse when the rendering is "photo quality."  

Yet, as pointed out, there clearly is a place for "Virtual Staging."  In particular, I think #22 has touched on something important: "...virtual staging has been helpful in this context..."  

The "context" must be clear.  Digitally enhanced photos can serve a very useful purpose, as a picture really is worth more than anything you can tell someone about the possibilities a space can offer. In fact, how many agents have that area of expertise?

HOWEVER, the photo should be readily identified as just that; a conceptual or rendering for that expressed purpose. Perhaps a watermark or label to that effect...

Glad you brought it up! 

I think the idea of virtual staging can be a great tool if not abused.

I agree that placing furniture and accessories should be ok b/c it is not altering the physical condition of the property.

However, to alter the condition by adding trim, and covering up damages is totally deceptive. I don't know of anyone in my area of Fayetteville NC using this yet but I certainly would report anyone who does that.

In this case the digitally enhanced photos should have been placed in a flyer.  The flyer placed in the home "What this home could look like", it would be a good tool to tweak a potential buyers imagination.  The photos on the MLS should depict the reality of the home. 

I don't know that it's unethical, they did state that the photos were altered, but it isn't very bright. Photoshopping out electric wires and other less than desirable features....that I would call unethical.

I'm going to be the odd one out here, not a new thing for me!  I am not a fan of "altering" a home or it's defects, however, "virtual staging" in its true sense would be to add furniture to a vacant home in the MLS pictures.  All the other deceipt is just that, but I don't feel that virtually staging a home for pictures is a bad idea. I have just done this. I show the furnished room and the unfurnished room, I disclose that the room has been "virtually staged", not "virtually enhanced", a BIG difference in my opinion, what do you think?

I'm going to be the odd one out here, not a new thing for me!  I am not a fan of "altering" a home or it's defects, however, "virtual staging" in its true sense would be to add furniture to a vacant home in the MLS pictures.  All the other deceipt is just that, but I don't feel that virtually staging a home for pictures is a bad idea. I have just done this. I show the furnished room and the unfurnished room, I disclose that the room has been "virtually staged", not "virtually enhanced", a BIG difference in my opinion, what do you think?

I can see where someone might want to know what the potential for a home is, however perhaps some kind of disclosure would be in order.

Makes me think of the agents that use "GLAMOR SHOTS" or some other service to "enhance" their personal photo.  Have you ever been handed a business card and swear that wasn't the agent that have it to you?

Happy Monday Morning to all!

Amazing.....I hope you follow thru with reporting this.  This could be marketed better (as described above), but IMHO, it just shows lack of professionalism.  Your Buyer insists on "seeing" this beautiful home, you question showing it (in your head), and sure enough you get "bit" by the embarassment bug having to explain/defend another REALTOR's behavior for a misrepresented home.  We've all been there.  Just not right......

In my former career life, I'm a trained graphic artist. I know the power and capability of photoshop very well. Using those skills for good, not evil, is the difference between an ethical Realtor and one that is not. Making lemonade out of lemons is having a good attitude. Making a home look like something that it isn't is just wrong.

We had a Virtual Photographer who took great, amazing photos (real, not altered) with a wide angle lense that didn't distort - he made houses look wonderful. 

Had a client from over 1500 miles away looking for a home - studied the internet thoroughly; called me to come down and see this $1,100,000 home.  When we pulled up - he was devastated!  "The pictures made the back yard look much deeper, the driveway much longer, the living room much bigger"...etc.  In short, his bubble was burst - even though it was a great home, he had been expecting more based on the virtual tour and the actual house fell flat.  The good news - we found him a home he loves for $1,250,000, but our $1,100,000 listing is still unsold. 

We did learn from this - found another virtual photographer whose pictures aren't quite as fabulous, but they are good - but most importantly, they acurately depict what the house really looks and feels like when you are inside. 

So we should go ahead and list the 2 bed, 1 bath as a 5 bed and 4.5 bath since we can add on to the home, right?

What a waste of everyone's time!

Rotten watermelon in the sink? Did the listing agent even go inside?

That is just totally ridiculous - pictures of what the home really looks like along with comments about the work/repairs needed should be clearly disclosed. I wonder if this is allowed under the MLS rules since the remarks about the photo's was under confidential remarks not viewable by the public.

Fixing a dark picture is one thing.  Re-buiding the house on pixle at a time is another.  It is at the least deceptive and at the worst totally unethical.

That said, I listed a home that was rented.  The renters tried to mess up every single picture that we took.  I was able to cut them out of all but one.  In that one picture, the renter was painted over to look like the wall.  Once they moved out, new pictures were taken and posted.  INterestingly, in that same set of pics, the renter's dog was in one.  I noted it on the mls as not being included in the listing

I think that is pretty awful. MLS photos should depict the property without enhancing any of the material attributes of the property... doing so is intentionally deceptive.  I use the word intentionally ----with purpose --- the poster has evaluated what (in their opinion) is lacking and has created a "virtual solultion" to fill the gap -- this is not an accident or an oops, it is an intentional action to mislead the viewer as to the current visual attributes of the property. and I don't think disclosing it suddenly makes it OK. Why? its wrong to intentionally mislead .. disclosing it ... doesn't make it right --- but could rather in a court case be assessed as an admission of the wrongful act.   

To me, there is a difference between "marketing photos" and "property photos".  If an agent desired to photo-shop in virtual interiors or attributes as a "what if" visual --- then my suggestion would be for them to create that package and have it SEPARATE from the listing photos. Separate "pretend" from "real" . As an example,  I create software that allows viewers to select furniture icons, size it to their needs, and then slide it around the top of the floor plan; this allows them to configure the space in multiple  ways and see if their stuff will "fit".  This is in a separate file accessed off the MLS...and is a SEPARATE file from the floor plan of the property.

Intermingling photo-shopped photos with real ones and posting them in the photo gallery is, I believe, a deception and (1) one that is not favorably received by the public as well as (2) help contribute to the "weasely" reputation of realtors in the public's mind.

I think if each virtually staged photo had an as-is comparison photo paired with it, and was clearly stated as such, this might not be so outrageous, but to show nothing but virtually staged pics, and indicate that in only the small, unreadable print seems more than a bit deceptive.  Is this an experienced agent or a newbie?  Someone should point it out to her broker.

All this talk of photoshopping in brighter skies and turning plumber's cracks into shrubbery reminds me of a favorite entry on www.lovelylisting.com (if you haven't visited, take a moment, it's always good for a laugh or two, or the waste of a perfectly good morning).  In the picture in question, the creative agent had apparently used Microsoft Paint to create the lawn, using solid bright kelly green: horticulturally speaking, amazing!!

And if you look at lovelylisting today, you'll find a recent digitally enhanced entry that seems to have photoshopped Angelina Jolie and Maddox into the scene--but at least it was disclosed as an artist's rendition.

I find it amazing that someone would go to the trouble of doing this. It begs belief that they think someone will see it and think with work they can do the same. I bet 101 out of 100 people who falsely get drawn to it do not buy it. And more so the agent who is helping misrepresent it will miss out on possible listings from these same people. Virtual staging is not something I like but if done correctly could be a tool. That is placing virtual furniture in a room. Not by any stretch of anyones imagination should it expand to repairs. When I photograph a property I do try and present it to its absolute best. Especially with things like lighting, looks in a house can change. People then say that it has "incorrectly may I say" been touched up. We are as professionals very careful of how we process our photos. The person or persons who goes to this extreme definitely isn't a professional.

Nothing is more embarrasing than showing a home that is completely different than the one in the photos!

That agent is doing their seller a disservice, because buyers are going to be really ticked off when they see how misrepresented the house has been. Get the right buyer in there who is looking to do a rehab, not the innocent bystanders looking for "home sweet home"!

I think it's something you are going to see more and more of in the future. As long as it is disclosed  that the picture has been digitally altered I see no problem. I also like the idea of now and future possiblity pics. I wish I knew how to do it.

Certainly a controversial matter. Displaying only digitally enhanced photos that 'create' an environment that does not exist within the property and without clearly showing before and after is absolutely misleading. i think the agent should be contacted immediately and if does not remove then reported to the local Board of Realtors and the MLS. You did do that, right, Greg? If not , please do immediately. I think you have an obligation to the professional community and your Board and MLS. I would think any MLS worthy of the title will have regulations prohibiting this, as was quoted by Tom Branch #44.

It's my policy as a photographer, for my own reputation and for that of my clients, to not edit a photograph in a way that physically alters the property.  That means that power lines stay, street signs stay, etc., etc.  I may not zoom in and focus on a power line, but I won't take it out.  What is acceptable to me is enhancing a sky (they're constantly changing), adjusting white balance for accurate color representation, and obtaining an accurate exposure that shows a property well.  A wide angle lens is a necessity to show the space (unless you just want to show nothing more than a window in a medium/smallish room), and used professionally, will not misrepresent the size of the room or show strong curved distortion.  I'm strict in my policies, and I still hear that sometimes my photographs look "too good."  For me, virtual staging and actual staging are not even in the same leaque; virtual staging is one digital step too far.

Also reminded of an ad in The Real Estate Book seen years ago, in the boom days in California, that might have enjoyed a little photoshop.

This handsome 2 bedroom 2  bath shack, with a $579,000 price tag in the Monterrey area, made it to print with an upended garbage can and contents strewn across the front lawn. Unbelievable!

I suppose there is a fine line in tweaking the photos to make the image come to life, and literally "SUPERIMPOSING" a coffee table into a superimposed living room :) I would love to see these photos.  

Article 2 of the Code of Ethics "REALTORS® refrain from exaggeration, mis-representation, or concealment of pertinent facts related to property or transactions."   I would think that this listing is a little exaggerated if the photos do not show current and clearly state "virtually staged."  Maybe the public comments should also state that the photos have been staged to show what one could do with lots of elbow grease?

Just my .02

While the listing agent is at it, he/she might as well put the house on the lake or ocean "digitally enhanced" to show the property as a lakefront/oceanfront home. That's absolutely ludicrous! I hope this deceptive practice ends here.

Did you contact HAR?  If not, DO SO NOW!  It is against the rules to completely alter the photos like that.  We have an agent out here in Magnolia that always "enhances" his photos of land.  The sky is some unnatural blue and the grass and trees are neon green.  How he thinks that helps, I'll never know.

At any rate, I really think they need to be reported.  It's allowed to lighten a photo that's too dark but it's not ok to make it into something it's not.  It's called misrepresentation.

If this happened in my market area, I'd contact my MLS association and lodge a complaint.  They control the regulations regarding photos and descriptions that agents and the public rely upon in making decisions about which homes to see.  Agents will push as far as they can to sell a property.  It's up to the MLS association to make the rules clear and then enforce them.

I have seen those "virtual staging" sites and they are meant to be used for vacant houses that don't have furniture - to give the buyer a sense of what the house looks like furnished.  I've never seen anyone go in and "virtually renovate" a property and then try to pass it off that way.  I believe this falls under the Code of Ethics, in the fact that they are misprepresenting the property in it's true condition. 

I could see having photos of what the house really looks like, and then showing a contrasting photo of what the rooms could possibly look like, with a disclaimer.

I have used software to remove dogs in pictures, or to "green up" the grass when the photo has been taken in the dead of winter, but I have never used it to do a "virtual remodel".  

They are definitely opening themselves up to a possible lawsuit.

This post certainly brought out everyone's sense of humor!  Most of our buyers begin their search on line from across an ocean way.  You can imagine their level of disgust when they see a home whose reality is nothing like the photos. It can be more subtle than this.  Showing a big ocean view, when in fact the only ocean view is in between tear-down houses, for example.

I believe in helping buyers see the possibilities but they also need to see the realities.  It would have been so simple to show the current and a few "possibility" photos.

Misrepresentation is a bad practice.  A real NO, NO!

Well, I'm off to the Oval Office for a meeting.  Gotta Go!

digital enhancement is outright deceitful and is a violation of the Code of Ethics. however, there would be nothing wrong with leaving a brochure in the home to show what the possibilities could be.

J.L. Winey,

Thank you for the comment. Furniture is not considered a "fixture" in Texas, so it does not come with any home unless advertised as so, and even that is extremely rare.

Adding wood trim, paint and granite countertops is very deceptive. Consumers need full disclosure, accuracy and transparency.

Charlotte and everyone else - YES, I've called the broker (who was quite rude) and have reported the listing to both HAR & TAR. We'll see what happens.

The agent actually said that what she did was COMPLETELY ethical considering she has "disclosure." It think she's full of that brown squishy stuff!

What is great about a full motion video tour is there is no deception.  Just an actual view of a walk through the home.

Sorry.. but "virtual" staging is a risky business! And being "risky" with ethics is not a river I wanna paddle in guys! I do appreciate everyone speaking their minds!

What I find most amazing here is the number of professionals who think using substantially altered images is okay... this is clearly a breach of the Code of Ethics for REALTORS®  (although I realize not all agents are REALTORS® and not all REALTORS® know an understand their Code of Ethics) ...and have you checked your MLS rules and regs?  MLS photos are to show the actual property as it is...not someone's imaginative display of what could be AFTER someone throws a ton of money into the house.

I think there is a fine line between "enhancing" a picture by greening the grass, removing trash cans, etc, and making the picture a pure piece of fantasy.  "Installing" granite countertops?  C'mon!  I can't imagine that sort of thing yields positive results.  If the place is a dump, you go in expecting a dump and usually adjust your expectations accordingly.  If the place is a dump and you go in expecting granite countertops...

I believe a "before" and "after" would have been the best way to go...to show the POSSIBILITIES and help the buyer visualize what could be with a little elbow grease.  May have been a better idea if the agents left some sort of book of "before" and "after" pictures in the home.

That way the buyer could have known what he was going to see once he went to see the home and not have been disappointed.  With the before and after "book" there, he may have been encouraged by what the property could be and resulted in a more honest approach to advertising the property.

I saw an ad for that company or maybe they were at a conference - Anyway I never went to check the site out because what I saw was enough for me to realize how much they misrepresent the property. They are a waste of time for buyers and their agents. Buyers may mark it as one to see and be utterly disappointed when they get there. 

It may actually hurt ones ability to sell the house. Buyers arrive only to be disappointed with the real property. At least if the photos accurately represent  the property the buyers have lower expectations and might still like the home in the end.

The POWER of Active Rain!

I am not an attorney, but I say go ahead and do it (as long as the existing structure remains the same) and disclose this clearly to the public in the comments.  Add some furniture and color like a stager would do.  It would help to show before and after pictures. 

Is it legal?  I don't know, but I'm not sure where anyone gets hurt if it is disclosed properly.

And we wonder why we have such a miserable reputation...  Showing what could be done to a property with loads of elbow grease and a gargantuan gift card from Pottery Barn is one thing.  But the MLS is not the place to do it.  We're professionals, or at the very least we need to act as if we are.  Sometimes the truth is ugly, but completely misleading buyers is uglier.

Hi Greg,  The only way I could understand this would be for the agent to include a few " What if... " enhanced pics after the actual shots and included an approx cost to accomplish.

Pathetic... I'd be pissed wasting my time showing a "digitally enhanced" home when in reality it was a dump.

Kind of the same thing as listing a home with a $500,000 value for $200,000...

I haven't seen it in any of our MLS lsitings, but perhapsI simply haven't notice (nor was it disclosed). It dseems especially deceptive, and I don't see how it wll sell the home, unless the buyer buys sight-unseen and doesn't realize the reality. Disclosing the fact really isn't enough.

Hi Greg,

Great post. I think many of us are guilty of the small enhancements like brightness, color warming, etc. But what you mention is beyond what should be acceptable. Maybe putting the pictures in hard copy within the space itself would be a great idea, but not to "hook 'em". I thought those days were over...

all the best,

Okay, so let me play devil's advocate here.  First, I am not an agent or Realtor.  I'm a professional photographer and until this post I had never heard of "virtual staging."  The closest I've come to this is a few years ago, when I starting out, I had someone call me to ask if I could Photoshop furniture into a photo.  I said that I could do it but I wasn't going to do it so they should find someone else.  I know of photographers that will remove unsightly light posts and trees from in front of a house.  I would never do that or anything else that would be considered fraudulent.

Now, with all that said, how many times have we all seen artist renditions of model home elevations of new homes that aren't even built yet?

What is the difference between these Virtual Digitally Enhanced Photos and Architectural Renderings?  Why aren't they viewed the same way?  You mentioned that the listing agent clearly pointed out that the photos were altered.  I'm missing the fraud part because it seems like they were up front about the situation.

Gregory

Agent Headshots | Real Estate Photography

OK, I give the agent credit for disclosing the fact the photos were "digitally enhanced," but have a problem with ALL the photos being altered (no comparison). As someone above pointed out, this is potentially also a violation of the Code of Ethics (in that it's not presenting a "true picture").

Have I ever retouched a photo? Yes, but no "material" alterations. I did recently remove a pig poster over the fireplace that one tenant had in a property - something that could easily be done physically, but with the property still tenant-occupied... you get the idea.

In fact, our MLS has some specific guidelines on what is and isn't allowed. For example, it's not OK to digitally remove electrical wires. It is OK to remove the "For Sale" sign since we're not allowed to post "branded" photos and the sign will be removed when the property sells...

Personally, the only 'enhancing' I've done is to lighten up a darker picture so you can see it a little better.  Not only is it unethical, but what I don't understand is WHY someone would want to radically alter the pictures.  What's in it for you?  NOTHING!  You might get a lot of traffic, but it's basically a waste of time.  What buyer would want to work with an agent that would pull this kind of baloney (I sure wouldn't) and why would the agent want to waste their time showing the property to people who won't be interested anyway.  It's just ridiculous!!  And I agree with some of the other statements above.....it really should be reported.

As a side note, it would be ok if the REAL pictures are posted online, but the agent carried along the digitally enhanced photos to show a prospective buyer what the house COULD look like with some work.

This is an interesting post and certainly worthy of a feature.  The disclosure was there not clearly stated, and it could have been shown as before and after (as a possibility).  That would have made it clear what the possibilities lay in the house.

Very often, I have found that in catalogue shopping sometimes the picture does look better than the item pictured, and often a photo of a house that has not been digitally enhanced looks better because of the angles or the lighting...

I also understand your upset at seeing a house that did not reflect the actual photo, it must have been quite disconcerting especially with clients in tow. 

why not just take an actual pic of a nicer home and tell  the buyers that if they spend enpough to remodel  the one for sale their new home can look like the one in  the pic?

Ha...On the lighter side...

When I saw your headline my first thought was "Is this about homes, or the 60 yr old agent that enhances their headshot to make them look like they were 30ish? "

There's another blog just waiting to be written.

Thanks for the post.

The profile sacrcasim is funny! That would irritate me too!

It's all about disclosures to the client, if they understand what they will might see might not be represented in the photo, I feel it would be ok. It's the ones that don't say anything and your buyer is mad after that I would have an issue with.

I too think it is an Ethics violation especially because they are on MLS. It is misleading and dishonest.  I wouldn't want to work with someone like that.  I can understand using it as an additional piece of material to show buyers what it could look like once they have seen it,but don't deceive them about the property to lure them in. Photos that have been digitally enhanced for selling/advertising purposes should say so in a foot note.I now we all want to paint a pretty picture but people don't like to be deceived.

Hera's more "food for thought"...time to pay Realtors an hourly showing fee. Our "Virtual income" has met it's match !! Consumer be ware. You get what you pay for. Anybody check the labels on two jars of peanut butter lately? Both jars look the same size, but one is 3 oz LESS, with a bottom pushed in. Has reality come to REALTY??? ... tHE TRUE ANSWER FOR REAL ESTATE IS THAT THE "mls" HAS TO CATCH UP WITH TECHNOLOGY. There should be a way to show both. How about the FHA203K Loan to get the work done? Showing the finished product is needed for rehabs and new construction too. Are you buying a dirt lot or a finished house? How can Realtors honestly express this concept on the internet and MLS? Let's find a way.

Gregory,

Very interesting question!!! Especially when they add landscaping, upgraded elevation and so forth! Excellent point!

I have never used virtual staging, but the idea of two sets of pics might have possibilities. I like the idea of one set of pics as the house is and another with this is what you might be able to do.

Greg, when I saw your blog title, I first thought, awe, come on, what is today's whine?  They airbrush the supermodels and agents have glamour shots all the time and no one ever looks like their picture, everyone is #1, objects in mirror are closer than they appear.  But WOW, I guess I could never have really conceived of this one.

We recently had professional photos taken of a listing and it was superb compared to our photography skills - I guess I'm still having a hard time of getting my head around using artists rendition for anything beyond pre-construction.

Thanks for the heads up.

Greg / Gregory -- the difference, to me, is that its very form and format identifies it as an ARTIST's RENDITION, a CONCEPT DRAWING.  That is the difference .. the form/format identifies it as a concept, ... a drawing ... whereas a photo (historically) is an image of reality imprinted on film (and of course, we don't use film anymore) -- but photos historically are perceived to be TRUE depictions of reality.

And that is the issue... inter-mingling "pretend" photos with "real" photos and depending on a sellers disclosure to make it OK.  Clearly the action itself contributes to confusion in the marketplace.

If an agent wants to do "what if" photos, and I can see how in some cases where that might be beneficial, then a separate marketing package of "what ifs" should be uploaded --- distinct and separate from the MLS property photos, purportedly depicting the attributes and materials of the property that are exported out of local MLS's and data-streamed around the world.

On our MLS (HAR.com) there are 5 public PDF postions for uploading. A marketing package of what ifs or virtual staging or whatever you want to call it could easily be uploaded in that manner thereby avoiding any confusion as to what is "real" and what is "pretend".  #137 - JT -- maybe your MLS also has such an opportunity for uploads?

Greg, I just read this on Lenn's page....As I commented on her blog, this agent SHOULD have included actual photos so the buyer can make an educated decision without wasting their time.   I feel it IS misleading when you won't even load a few of the "true" condition of the home.  I would have been mad too!  We can load 24 photos on our MLS....If it would have been me, I would have loaded 5 or 6 of the enhanced to show the possibilities but used the rest to show the actual property.  People make concessions for value and would still consider it if it's priced right....doing otherwise is misleading I feel.  Go get 'em!!!

I had something kind of similar happen recently, found pictures on the MLS of a very beautiful home, agent comments did say the home needed a little work. When I got there the yard was overgrown, the lockbox didn't work but the broken door wasn't locked so I decided to take a peek anyway. Inside was trashed - carpenter ants, mice, rotten flooring, broken windows -  you name it. Apparently the pictures had been taken years earlier before the home had been abandoned. I was so glad I was previewing and did not have the client with me.

Hi Greg - I would have been mad that they wasted my time.  Inappropriate to change the condition of the home in photos, unless they are willing to change the condition!!!!

I know the line can be blurry but they definitely crossed it.

What's next? Digital homes? Why not list vacant land for the price of a developed lot , with a digitally altered photo stating this is what the land COULD look like?

Better yet, perhaps the buyer could purchase with a digital photograph of money, with a "disclaimer" to the seller that this is what the money WOULD look like, if I were to pay you for the home. LOL!

IMO, when all is said and done, it comes across as simply desperate.

As an agent and photographer, I think Gregs photos are excellent example of how quality photographs caan help sell a listing. My only gripe is with extreme wide angle photos that distort the true size of rooms. When I see measurements listed that don't jibe with the overly spacious pix, I'll warn the buyer to prepare him  for a letdown.

Thanks for your post about "virtual staging."  Over the past year or so, I've contacted local Realtor associations and even NAR to have them clarify the rules regarding using altered photos.  The bottom line is that virtual staging is permitted providing the agent places a disclaimer on all materials where the photos are used.  NAR's magazine recently addressed this issue here: http://www.realtor.org/rmolaw_and_ethics/ethics/pastarticles/1006_ethics_virtualstaging

But I agree that photo enhancement is a total letdown to the buyers.  My advice is to hire an experienced, professional home stager to bring in quality furnishings to show buyers room function and furniture placement.  If you're unsure who to hire, contact me.  I provide international assistance with home staging referrals.

Joan Inglis, Master Accredited Staging Professional

www.LakeWylieHomeStaging.com

I don't think being deceptive to Buyer's is something we need to do!  IF the actual photos were in the MLS with a before and MAYBE after pictures, it would work, since there was a VISUAL disclosure.  Otherwise, let's not deceive!

Just don't digitally enhance those murky ethical lines that you don't ever want to cross.

I like this. It makes us buyers agents job more valuable to our clients.

Geoff #148,

My job as a listing broker is to present the home in the best possible way and to drive traffic in the front door.  Photos are the best way to do so.  But there's no room for unethical behavior.

Greg #141, nice work.  HDR?

Tom

Joan #149 - I agree with you that NAR supports the idea of virtual staging. The problem is that MLS rules have not caught up it.

Tom

It's usually best to have a nice surprise waiting to be discovered rather than a nasty one.

same thing happends with the models in the magazine, the real word is different

I appreciate the comments, but lets please remember to follow AR guidelines and some common courtesy. If you want to promote yourself as a "stager" please author a post. Same if you own a photography business.

Thank you very much for the discussion.

I like the idea of virtual staging, but it should have before & after photos.

This way they can see it for what it is now.

Great Post

LOL - The same goes for every "middle aged" agent who puts their picture on a business card or fridge magnet. It was taken when they were 20 years old!!

shortsalekiller.com - Can you avoid a short sale or loan mod?

I read all the comments so far, and can't resist commenting. A wise old agent once told me "You will always be far better off to under-promise and over-deliver".

Sure, you might get traffic with the fancy photos, but it is very unlikely you will get a real buyer. Real buyers for this kind of property are not afraid of rolling up their sleeves, trashing it out, fixing the drywall, and making the necessary repairs. Those buyers come with their own ideas of what it will look like when it's done.

Buyers for these properties want to see the whole problem, warts and all. Anything less just ticks them off and sends them to the next one. Save everyone some time and just represent what it is now.

I can understand using virtual staging for a vacant home to show what it would look like furnished, but this is really an embarrassment to realtors and professional home stagers.  I would hate to be the realtor who took a client to view this property and didn't know of the deception until they arrived on site. 

Pretty Funny! The same thing goes for a "glamorized" business photo. Talk about bait and switch...

That's awful. As a copywriter who sometimes helps folks with marketing for sale by owner properties, I have altered photos for them... but only to remove the hose laying across the lawn or the trash can in front of the shop.

Some here have suggested that the agents could have done "before and after." I think it should be "Reality and fantasy." But really, all those agents did was use up a whole lot of their time to deceive people who will not be interested when they see the real thing. Oh - and use up a whole lot of time for buyers and agents who go see it.

My husband has the same problem with the deceptive photos of burgers in the fast food places... he'll get a burger, look at it, and say "This is supposed to be THAT?"

Meanwhile... I understand an agent being stuck with a house that needs major fixing - but what kind of a person would leave the watermelon in the sink? If they were too queasy to pick it up - go get some rubber gloves!

Virtual staging at its worst; I am not fond of this type of advertising either for the same reason you stated.

Virtual staging at its worst; I am not fond of this type of advertising either for the same reason you stated.

Our MLS system has rules against enhancing the photos.  I sure wouldn't want to be the Realtor that did that and have to take the phone calls from irate showing agents.

I'm a professional home stager and not a big fan of virtual staging. The actual description of the property with the real photos should be used and then the virtual staging to show the home's potential. And the disclosure should have been listed on the public side fo MLS as well. Since close to 90% of home buyers search the internet first, pictures need to truly reflect the home's condition and appearance.

As a consumer I'd find it a let down which would negatively impact my feelings about buying the property...

Deception, pure and simple.  I once showed a house where the write-up said, "Great ocean view."  The only ocean view was from the edge of the property, craning your neck.  The prospective buyers were so angry (after we'd traveled up a canyon for 15 minutes) that they called off the rest of the showings for the day. 

There was a (members only) post put up by a Realtor® (who shall remain nameless) a short time ago, crowing about her photoshop skills and how she'd altered the main photo of a listing she had to show doors that weren't in fact actually there.  They were ordered, and would be installed when they arrived, but at the time the photos were placed on the MLS (and then syndicated out into the internet) they were a flagrant misrepresentation of the material facts of the property.

I said it was, at the least, disturbing.  Her responses to my comments included the statement, "I'm sorry you feel that way."  I was also flabbergasted at the chorus of praise and support she got from other Active Rain members.

I guess they do real estate differently in NY than in SC.  In our MLS, digitally altered photos are not allowed.  And any photos that show the property looking other than what it looks like is a lie.  An artist's rendering of what a new construction will look like is obviously that -- an artist's rendering.  A photograph looks like a realistic representation of the property -- unless the agent adds a caption into the photo stating clearly that the property doesn't actually look like this.

I can't wrap my brain around the thought process a Realtor®, who has taken an oath to abide by the Code of Ethics, would have to go through to come to the conclusion that lying about a listing was in any way acceptable. 

Greg: The scenario you are describing is unethical and dishonest. I'm not a big fan of "conceptual staging" since there is a great possibility that home buyers who chose to see a home based upon conceptual photos will be disappointed with the real thing. While I think every home should be professionally staged :o) I'd rather see a home shown empty than have dishonest photos.

I have a hard time calling manipulated photos "staged".

Recently I had to copy and move a piece of grass already in the photo to cover the date code another agent's camera automatically created on the image AND I wished the date code had been on top of another section of the lawn in the photo that was dry and dead ;-)

I agree with Vanessa Stalets, if an agent is going to use virtually staged photos, place actual photos right along with them and CLEARLY LABEL the virtually staged photos as such.

False Advertisng.... clear and simple... big difference in enchaing the color of the sky and do a complet redo... maybe they could add ocean access too.... if there is a big earthquake and all the land drops off to right in front of farm land in Kansas... come on... this is false advertisng and the agent should be reprimanded at the very least.

The Northwest MLS states in Rule 10:

"The photographs
input into the NWMLS database must not contain any superimposed graphics or text, must not
contain more than one photograph (i.e. combining more than one photograph into a single image is
prohibited)"

This appears to preclude using a before and after in the same shot but definitely does not allow graphics to be altered although here in Seattle I see a lot of grey skies altered to bright blue cloudless sky!

I agree with #81 that having photos of the "possibilities" at the house is best. Pissing off clients and showing agents by misrepresentation doesn't help anyone. I've even had clients that are angry when photos using wide angle show the home as having an "extra long" driveway and "large" rooms when that wasn't the case at all. There are plenty of investors and do-it-yourselfers that would be happy to see and read the REAL condition of the house.

Greg:  Good post, the listing is a violation of MLS rules as it does not show a real and true description of the property.  Call HAR, and ask for MLS and you can verbally report them, they will be told that it is an infraction and will have 4 days to correct the problem, if they don't correct it they can then be fined for each instance which would be $200 per picture I believe.  It is truly false advertising, even with their little disclaimer.

Greg:  Good post, the listing is a violation of MLS rules as it does not show a real and true description of the property.  Call HAR, and ask for MLS and you can verbally report them, they will be told that it is an infraction and will have 4 days to correct the problem, if they don't correct it they can then be fined for each instance which would be $200 per picture I believe.  It is truly false advertising, even with their little disclaimer.

I find this subject very interesting.  I did just see an article in Realtor mag recently on the "ethical" approach to enhancing listing in such a fashion....if I recall, the article suggested making a note of the enhancement in MLS remarks, BUT....

I see no problem in making the sky bluer or brightening the picture if there was low light and flash didn't go off.  Filters are used for these very reasons...I do, however, see a problem in just about everything else. 

I know in high-end new construction you might see an artist rendering - ok; not built yet, I get it. But on a house that is already built and is in shambles?? No way.

Do they think buyers really dont have that vision for themselves? Maybe they would if the property was properly priced to begin with.  They wouldnt have to spend so much time making it look like more than it is.

Greg has addressed the question I was going to ask.  Is it a violation of your MLS?  Since it is, the course of action to be taken is defined.  Maybe this listing agent can use this service to get his sellers to make the necessary improvements to the property? 

Wow, I've never come across this.  I'm always pissed when I read, "beautiful, fabulous", blah, blah, blah, and then get there to find holes in wall, dead animals in the basement.  LIKE WE'RE NOT GONNA NOTICE!!!

"I see no problem in making the sky bluer or brightening the picture if there was low light and flash didn't go off.  Filters are used for these very reasons...I do, however, see a problem in just about everything else."

We agree!!! We also put all our pictures through photoshop before putting them on the MLS.  But to enhance beyond that is a criminal as agents taking pictures with  a $200 dollar ditigal for the MLS.  We are supposed to be providing people with professional service-- and a cheap pocket camera certainly can not do that.

What happened to truth in advertising? I thought that photos and videos were created to shorten the process of finding a home by letting a buyer get a preview of what they were going to actually see. Why waste all of our time?

Wow, I can imagine the buyer was incredibly disappointed.  Whenever I see comments like "digitally enhanced" or "designer touches" that is always a clue to me to go preview before I take my buyers.

I wouldn't have a problem with "before" and "after" photos on a website to show what the possibilities are, but digitally created pictures on the MLS is another thing.  Homebuilders and architects "envision" properties all the time, but this is when the home hasn't been built yet.  

What some Realtors won't do....

Article 12 of our code of ethics is very specific in that our advertising should paint a true picture (no pun intended).  You desciption sounds like a coe violation.

Article 12 of our code of ethics is very specific in that our advertising should paint a true picture (no pun intended).  You desciption sounds like a coe violation.

I think I will try digitally enhancing by real estate agent photo...maybe I could get more buyers...hehehehe...really, I think this falls under the catagory of FALSE ADVERTISING....law suits messy things like that...

Like anything else, virtual staging and digital photo enhancement can be a great thing; but it can also be used in a way that is bad business practice or even unethical.  I do use both frequently with my listings; but I follow a strict guideline when differentiating good marketing from false advertising:

1.  I do believe it is perfectly ok to leave the image of the room untouched (i.e. same paint, same condition, same molding) and have a company digitally add furnishings only for staging purposes.  This is no different than traditional staging in which people pay money to physically move furniture into a home to make it show better and the furniture does not come with the home.  Usually, what I will do is put a disclaimer in the photo to indicate that it's been virtually staged and then actually put an enlarged printout of the staged room in the empty room; so they see it empty and furnished side by side.

2.  When making "repairs" or upgrades to a home digitally, I believe it is ok to do this for anything that the seller is willing to actually have done for a buyer at the seller's expense.  Of course, it is always best and I would encourage my clients to actually install the upgrades and show the home in its upgraded state.  However, on occasion, I will run into a client that has a combination of no cash and tons of equity and can't get an equity line of credit due to today's lending market.  This is a great candidate to do the next best thing; which is digitally add those wood floors and show the photos of it to prospective buyers so that they know that the home actually comes with wood floors and have an idea what it will look like once they are installed.  It's not a bait and switch IF the seller will agree to actually put in the floors once a buyer is procured.  For example, I once digitally planted a few flowers in the front flower bed of a home.  The home was vacant and nobody was there to water real flowers; but it made the home's curb appeal go way up.  If anyone complained that the flowers weren't really there, I would tell them that if they buy the home, I will personally go to home depot and buy the $5 worth of flowers, dig the holes and stick them in the ground prior to closing. 

If you agree with my philosophy on this and wish to try out a good virtual staging company, check out http://www.PictureFurnish.com

I go that extra mile to make my photos look better than the home does.  It is my job

The code of ethics says we are to present a TRUE and ACCURATE picture in advertising. This ia referring to words, but allies to pictures as well. I sit on the local grievance committee and I would say that this is a violation of the code of ethics and this should be reported.

The agent may have disclosed this to other agents, but the agent to agent comments are not available to the general public. Buyers looking at REALTOR.COM or other syndicated portals will not get a fair and truthful view of this house.

This is a BAD practice!!!

Sounds like the seller could have "sellers remorse" after viewing the digitally altered pictures! They may decide to clean up the house! Maybe they never knew about the "possibilities" their home really had!! :)

I hire a pro and believe in great photos but one can go too far to where it is unethical. If it is winter, making the grass spring green is OK in my book but not taking out electric poles, etc. What is there, is there. I just cannot get as good of lighting and an angle as the pro photographers can.

There are some folks who buy a house sight unseen. This would be the buyer who ends up suing the seller for misrepresentation. And if it takes that for this practice to stop then so be it.

Greg, that is amazing. I would love to explain that to the Board.

Have a great week.

Lisa aka @allstarmom3

It should be fine to show an enhanced picture (and noted as enhanced)... but then have the real deal as a side by side for comparison...

and I agree the agent should be fined on ethics when they don't... it does no one any good to show a beautiful listing only to have a fixer when you show up with your buyer ... makes us all look bad.. plus the buyer may not have the funds to do the work and won't buy the property anyways...

but I have found the local associations don't want to loose membership and don't do anything about it.. or as in my area... we have a very broad MLS system, but not all players play by the same rules.. so where I can get fined someone from another board that is allowed to be with us on Carets...

As the operator of a virtual tour company, I get questions related to this all the time.  I think its important to differentiate between "digitally enhanced" and "digitally altered", with the former being an acceptable practice and the latter being "iffy" at best.. 

"Digitally enhanced"images are the norm for real estate photography and in my opinion are essential for this main reason: Digital camera sensors cannot capture the same light range as the human eye (this is why we often see properly exposed interiors and blown out highlights in windows, etc.)  In order to balance this, its necessary to digitally enhance images to correct for brightness, sharpness, etc., in order to make the image look closer to how it would if you were there in person.  An example of what I'm talking about can be seen here: http://www.home2market.com/20659 

"Digitally altered" images consist of images that have physically changed to add or remove objects to/from the image, or changed so much that they no longer accurately represent the original.  I strongly advise our photographers against this, with the exception of removal of temporary objects that were accidentally included in a shot, like a dog walking through the shot, children's toy left out, etc.  I think that with the advent of HDR, some real estate photographers risk crossing the line from "digitally enhanced" to "digitally altered" - cause for concern? 

The money should have been used on a certified prelisting inspection

Amazing isn't it, that people don't think you'll notice the difference when they get you through the door! Its just like lying on a dating service and sending a picture that is not you, or maybe one that is 15 years old! When the prospective "customer" sees the actual product, it can be a shock to them, and they'll be angry to have been misled!

Its one thing to stage a home, with decor, but a 70s green wall is a 70s green wall, and the only way to change that is to paint over it physically... no digital enhancement will make it any better. Agents who do this, is only giving themselves a bad name.

Greg, I agree with you, but on the flip side don't we suggest how things can look, what can be done, etc at times when we are with clients?

It is a virtual age... maybe this is the way listings will be in the future... NOT realistic... but is it a view of the way things might be?

You know...even with the disclaimer I'm not sure that's quite ethical.

We're in a location where ocean views are a big seller (and add a lot of value).  I am consistently amazed at how some us 10X zooms to misrepresent the views.  I don't think it serves anyone.  That being said, using photoshop or an editing tool to remove shadows etc. is not only ethical, but helping your client put their best foot forward...

I agree with the comment above (way above) regarding placing the comment in public remarks...Otherwise it seems like a pretty clear violation of COE...

There are boundaries here and several issues.  If I take a picture of a home and digitally remove a car or object that has sense been moved is this wrong?  If I enhance the blueness of the sky or a sunset in the background this might be OK (or maybe not if the sky never looks like that).  If I ad furniture in a picture I think I have to disclose this, but I think it still might be OK.

I think repairing damage and putting in a new floor is not ethical.

No one here has had their headshots digitally enhanced?  One could argue the same in that instance as well.  I don't think its a problem, if it is clearly disclosed that said photographs of the house are to show what could be done with the house.  How many of you have had clients that can't get past the color of the existing carpet, wall paper or bathroom tiles...even though its an incredible house and the changes would be miniscule to correct?  These photos can be used to help visualize possibilities for the creatively impared.  On the other hand if the agent states or makes it appear that  that is the true appearance of the house that the purchaser is purchasing, then you have misrepresentation.  But I am not a lawyer.

Wow, what happened in #200's response?  Bunch of gobbledy-gook!

When I'm working with buyers and we go to see a home that looks NOTHING like its pictures on the MLS, we both get so angry and feel so misled and deceived.  This kind of virtual staging has no place in selling real estate.  I agree with previous posters who suggested leaving a brochure at the property of the possibilities, or even before/after photos on the MLS.

Wow, what happened in #200's response?  Bunch of gobbledy-gook!

When I'm working with buyers and we go to see a home that looks NOTHING like its pictures on the MLS, we both get so angry and feel so misled and deceived.  This kind of virtual staging has no place in selling real estate.  I agree with previous posters who suggested leaving a brochure at the property of the possibilities, or even before/after photos on the MLS.

Real pictures are disclosing the truth. I personally hate to see MLS pictures that are dark or some how cut of and not showing the real thing. We as agent must be made responsible for that.

I also like to say that we agents/professionals must be responsible for disclosing the real thing. Yesterday I was showing a Fanny Mae repossession to a client "Buyer" as we went down in to the so called finished basement, we were surprised to see that the entire basement walls as well as floor were fully covered with black Mold.

My question is who in hell will be responsible if my client and/or I get sick from the Mold in that house?

Also like to know if the agent isn't responsible to warn and disclose this in the MLS as well as be part of the showing instructions?

I agree with Timo in the previous post.  That REALLY pisses me off when I go into a house full of mold and there's no warning.  I know the warning will prevent showings, but there's a responsibility her to disclose risks to buyers and their agents.

That is so not right, Greg.  It's like if I simply did photos of repairs that could happen to the house before we repaired it, and the selling agent listed it like that.  Yuck!

Keep up cleaning up the misrepresentations!

Just think if they had spent the time and money on cleaning the property that they spent on "recreating" it virtually. 

That would have made a "real" difference.

Hi Greg~  I can't believe this wasn't featured!  Look at all of these comments!  Looks like you struck a nerve!

Greg, I remember the door uproar and that was minor compared to this. It's one thing if they did 'before and after' photos so you had some idea of the present condition before walking into a house where you might think it's vacant and they put furniture in there but in fact they have virtually remodeled the house! Not a good idea IMHO.

Stagers have a hard enough time gettng Realtors to take staging seriously - "virtual staging" only makes it MORE difficult!  You sure stuck a nerve on this one! 

I think your title is all wrong, it should be labeled Digitally Altered at that point. Enhancing is getting the lighting and color right or maybe removing road kill in the street from the picture. In my opinion, it is okay if you used a cheap camera that did not capture the colors and outdoor lighting properly to enahnce the said items. Digitally altering, where you change the property entirely, could be considered false advertising and like the 200 comments here say... it is very wrong.

For the amusement of everyone here, any chance we can see before and after shots?

I won't offer the agents name, telephone number or copy of the listing. That, initself, is unecessary. The point is to discuss the problem, not pin up the Realtor who did this. She's making a fool of herself everyday on her own.

Virtual Staging.. seems like a complete waste of time to me. Physical staging is the way to go with real furniture and then professional photos to show it off.

I have shot all different types of homes and from that I can safely say that the best looking ones are professionally staged which does take a long time for the stagers to set up and does cost a bit of money but at the same time they also sell faster too.

One of the things I usually encourage are twilight photoshoots. Photographers will always charge more for them because they are a bit more challenging to shoot at times because of lighting. But when the home has great built in lighting or a very nice ambient set up, in my opinion it is the best way to show off a home.

A lot of people don't realize it but the majority of working individuals are only home between the hours of 6pm-7am mon-fri and then on the weekends. Showing them what they will be coming home to every night and getting them excited about doing that is the best way to get the sale.

Hey Greg, I read where an out of state buyer purchased a home sight-unseen based on the photos posted by the listing agent (the same one he used himself) and when he pulled up to the home he was more than surprised to find the home to not look as pleasant as the photos he saw. 

There were several above ground cables and telephone wires, etc. that were photoshopped out.  There was yellow, not green, grass.  There was even cracks in the side of the home's structure that had been 'filled' in on the realtor's (the lower class, uh case, was intentional) photos as well.

The buyer sued the agent, and the judge slapped a BIG ol' fine on the agent.  He deserved it of course.

Thanks for bringing this subject to light.

Greg. Being an agent and a photgrapher -- Your storey takes the cake! I've heard of some pretty strange things in my

career . But putting in a disclaimer "Digitally enhanced photos -  Isn't it amazing what decorating can do!"

I'm afraid you have to file a complaint on this one.  I'm sure the ethics comittee will have a feild day with this guy!

It's like bulldozing the existing structure and putting up a brand new house! -- Ha you could do that for all your fixer -uppers **** disclaimer ****  not exactly as shown.

So I tuned in to see the actual vs the digitally staged. Did you take an actual kitchen shot to share with us against the listing photo of the kitchen?

This is going to become a big issue. I think MLS rules are going to see a changes to reflect this upcoming "trend/change."

I don't know about where you are but here in Louisiana, we are not allowed to alter pictures this way. We can adjust exposure and lighting but not virtually stage pictures.

As a Professional Home Stager I am outraged by this dishonest trend. This is the kind of practice that gives Home Staging a bad name!!!!!!!!!

I do not believe in decieving any potential buyer , which is what this aweful practice is!

When I have used "Virtual-Staging" it is when a customer via long distatance sends me detailed photos and I hold a telephone consultation suggesting improvements that they will make Themselves IN REAL LIFE!!!!!

As far as digitally enhansing a photo...I am OK with photographers that will bracket and layer exposures to create more balanced lighting (ie: daylight from large window is making the room appear too dark), however I personally bring lighting with me and NEVER re-touch my photos in ANY WAY.

Chris

Stay tuned fans. My next listing will be digitally enhanced. But you'll have to wear 3-D glasses to view it online.

I thought of it first. But those Avatar guys stole my idea.

Wow-this was really interesting to read the comments. As a Home Stager, I have never been fully behind the concept of Virtual Staging (although I know others are), because it only fulfills one aspect of staging, creating appealing online photos. Virtual staging does nothing to create an emotional response (a good one) in person, highlight the rooms best features, etc.

I feel this home should have never been Virtually Staged unless the issues with the home were resolved such as cleaning and deferred maintenance.

I've had many situations where I have to tell the client that I am unable to stage their home unless they address the stained carpet, dingy walls, etc.. Staging is an amazing marketing tool, but it can't overcome a home that is dirty and in ill repair. The client won't receive their ROI.

It's the same thing when a client says they are going to put a carpet over a large stain on the floor. NO! Fix it!!! Staging isn't deception, it's enhancement. As soon as a buyer feels you are hiding something, or see minor flaws here and there, they begin to look further.

I think Virtual Staging could be helpful in vacant model homes, but creates an air of deception for a property that is in "as is" condition.

I'm on the fence on this one.  Digitally enhanced photos, in my opinion, are fine (as long as they're disclosed to the public, as well as to the Realtors) to a point.

Adding furniture, so someone might be able to view how the room might be used, would be acceptable, as far as I'm concerned... however, making repairs & replacements (replacing missing flooring, damaged casements, removing cracked windows, removing high-tension wires) would not be acceptable.

It's a fine line.

I have a question for all you guys who think it is OK to virtually insert furniture ... do you have a way to verify the scale?  Furniture gives scale to a room and is one (of many) reasons to stage a home.

If I'm a consumer and I  see a photo of a dining room table with 6  chairs around it, I then have an understanding that a "standard" dining room table w/6 chairs is going to fit.  But if you shrunk it --- to make it fit --- and I'm buying a house for my family to sit down together and have dinner -- I can see how this may be a problem. The same with almost any piece of furniture ... a 3-cushion sofa vs. a 2-cushion sofa, etc. etc. 

And your disclosure "discloses" the photos were altered ... but unless it has specific liability language in it, it likely will not shield you from the liability of someone who viewed your altered photos and made a purchase decision based upon them.

I think it is seriously dangerous to alter photos and opens you and your broker up to enormous risk. I think it is a slippery slope of rationale best avoided as a goodly amount of people perceive it as fraud.

IF (for whatever reason) you still think this is a good idea, I would seriously suggest these types of photos be kept distinct and separate from any property photos uploaded into the Photo Gallery section of the MLS.  Compile them into a separate PDF and upload them as marketing materials viewers can download from the MLS.  Print them out and leave them as a package in the home ... but I genuinely believe if they are inter-mingled with property photos ... this is a lawsuit waiting to happen. 

misprepresentation at its finest!  You are lucky that they mentioned the photos were altered, nothing makes me more upset than to see a home with "virtual staging".

I would love a link to that home to see what they did. That is so dishonest, realtors should loose his license over things like that, they are misrepresenting the home

Well, it's probably better to be too good than what most of you guys are trying to pass as 'marketing photos', yes, Im talking to YOU- dark, crooked, cell-phone shots that drive potential buyers insane. Saddle up and use a professional, you guys are making this industry look pathetic.

The worthwhile application for the digital photos would be inside the home. Only someone who wants to rehab would buy the property anyway, so what do they think they are accomplishing other than accumulating ill will? But if the real photos were used ontline and real potential buyers brought through the home, the altered photos displayed inside could serve as creative inspiration for potential buyers. CAD renderings showing what areas would look like with walls removed, etc. could be a quite helpful sales tool once inside the home.

I have thought of adding this service to my home staging business, but I'm not sure yet what level of interest is out there.

I agree with you.  MLS Photos should be used to show the true condition of the property.  If the listing agent wants to show potential purchasers what the home may look like 'after' improvements and renovations, they could leave a portfolio with the enhanced and staged photos at the property.

Are they kidding? A "Photoshopped" set of photos.

First, I (and no doubt the buyers) would (insert unhappy camper word here) and then I would see this as a HUGE red flag on all of this agents listings. One question I would have is this...Is this agent just an "agent" or an actual REALTOR which I am guessing they are if they are in the MLS.

Soemone should ask the Board if the "disclaimer" should be made visible to the public he is trying to reach.

    Blatant misrepresentation!   What a way to deceive and disappoint a potential buyer when viewing the house.

Kathy Booth, Setting the Stage 

Greg ~ I'm glad I read this one.  I have never heard of virtual staging.  I'm not sure if that has hit the Denver market.  Great comments, BTW.

A special thanks to the consumers for being so active on this public post. A Washington Times writer called me today.. about this post. We'll see if he has a spin on the subject too.

Wow, That is one of the reasons I am not in favor of virtual staging....   Supposedly they are just adding furniture and decor to the rooms but that is still going to be a shock to the buyer when they get there and it is not the same.

  Some people are trying to promote it as saving the seller money instead of hiring a professional Home Stager..  I think it is a misrepresentation, especially what you are talking about, that is just pure lazy of the sellers if they can't even clean it.  They should of used the money spent on the virtual pictures to have it cleaned thoroughly!

Brenda Hughes

http:evansvillehomestaging.com

Computer Aided Graphics have become mainstream now for many years, especially in theatrical applications for entertainment purposes.

However, marketing and selling residential or commercial property should not use ANY form of computer aided design/graphics which departs from authentically representing the property, as-is. The virtual staging practically reverts our industry to that practiced by used car agencies whereby they rolled the odometers back 50,000 miles and slapped on a quick and dirty paint job!!

Obviously, the majority of responses here draw the same conclusion I'm putting forward and our colleagues at NAR ought to revisit the national Code of Ethics to ensure this kind of misrepresentation is never sanctioned again.

As a practicing realtor and professional photographer, it's incumbant upon me to present the consumer with product they are looking to buy that communicates nothing less than the highest integrity. My business will not sustain itself on anything less.

So, in the "write your congressman" analogy; Tell NAR to close this "loop-hole", now!

Lynn

P.S. Tom Branch.... VERY NICE SHOTS!!!

Maybe I could get my Virtual Avitar do a walk though; then virtual contract/purchase; so it will have a place to live!

Mark 

What a lot of issues in this thread!  From a buyer or buyer's agent perspective, our first exposure to a property to decide whether to invest our time -- a very valuable commodity -- is the presentation through the photos.  If they do not show an accurate representation of the property, then you are doing only a little less than stealing from your potential clients. 

Editing a photo to correct bad photography or conditions to more accurately show or highlight a feature of the property seems like a positive thing.  I cannot imagine why an agent would have to revisit a home to get another picture of a room just because the flash didn't fire and they missed it.

What do people think about re-shooting the photos after a homeowner has moved out and the home is empty.  Should that be mandatory?  If not, then what's the difference in leaving the old photos up and virtual staging?

If the idea of digitally altering the truth isn't bizarre enough and most deceptive and unethical, I might find it rather humerous, but only after reading all the comments. I love the comments about adding a lake or doing the Avitar walk through, or the extra bedroom and swimming pool. But, in all seriousness, the MLS should show the property as is. If the agent wants to add a creative edge to the listing and the marketing, include a before and after flyer/brochure for the taking or asking.

Mira # 237.. since I was one of the ones talking about the furniture, I'll offer my opinion. Re: What is the difference btwn leaving the old photos in a listing now empty, and virtual staging? ... the scale. The old furniture was "real" and was configured into that room the way it is depicted.. not sure about the virtual furniture -- someone who does this will have to tell us how they verify/validate the scale is correct when they are inserting virtual furniture.  People use (existing) furniture to judge the size of the room and estimate their use of the space so sclae is very, very, important.

Me? ours IS correct.. the math is the same algorythm as when the floor plan is drawn, as when the little furniture icons are drawn --- and then the files are synced ... plus at this point we've done over 50 move-ins so have "practical experience" of what we drew in.. it fit in real life.   Mandatory reshooting when the furniture is removed? Hmmm I think it should be the agents call ... if they use a professional photographer they've just had to double their expense to deliver the same level of "quality" photos if you make them reshoot.   Whether furniture in a room or an empty room benefits showcasing the property the best -- I'm guessing (again) thats the agent's call. Some people feel spooky walking into empty echoing rooms and others feel like they can see "their" stuff in the space better --- its one of those "tastes great / less filling" type of discussions that will vary agent to agent and property to property.

Greg - How disappointed do you think a buyer would be when they showed up to see the home.

I would be so embarassed to show that ugly house to a client, if he think it looks like the 'altered' pictures.  That is blatant misprepresentation!

Congrats on the Kenneth Harney interview.  Yeah, throw that rotten watermelon at the listing agent.  Shame on him or her for getting people all excited for yet another dump!  I cannot imagine what would happen here if one were to try to pull that %$#^. 

Wow - thanks for the eye opener, Greg.  I can only imagine NAR might clamp down on virtual staging if it boarders on deception.

Thanks for the feedback guys.... and they NEED to Keith!

I've repeated this phrase too many times in my career: "Hey dude, how about some basic honesty here?" The response is usually silence.

That is a really different concept. I have not seen anyone do this yet in our area.

Excellent Michael. That, initself, is permitted on our MLS & as I understand it is perfectly legit. I still don't like it, but it's permitted.

Excellent Michael. That, initself, is permitted on our MLS & as I understand it is perfectly legit. I still don't like it, but it's permitted.

Yes the beauty of a digital age is in full affect!!!

Much agreed Greg!  I feel the only thing that is even remotely acceptable when digitally altering photos would be to add furniture.  I know some agents feel this is still over the line, but sometimes an owner may have add very nice furnishings when photos were taken, but has since moved out leaving a vacant home.  Just my two cents!

I'm with Donna - I guess great Austin minds think alike.  I wouldn't mind seeing a "what if" set of photos if the real and honest photos were included.  There are a times a buyer (whether be an occupant or an investor needs a little inspiration to see the end result).  There could have been a better way for this agent to handle this... but he/she did state in comments the photos were virtual photos - disclosure... I'd say.

We just walked through a vacant empty house with large pictures on the wall of what it looked like furnished. Smart. 

But you can't put lipstick on a pig, nor should you. 

Greg, Oh how I would love to see the "before" and "after". Or in this case, the doctored photos and the real ones.

The concept sounds great.  But I would pair up the photos with one as it is now and the other as it could be.  That's just giving people the vision that most people don't have.

I think the problem is that all of the pics were altered and it wasn't clear what the actual condition of the house was...  But some buyers lack imagination... 

Combo might be better...

The Code of Ethics talks about deceptive advertising and that is what this is.  Awful.

Congrats, two featurees in a row.

Lane Bailey - Exactly my point! Thanks for stopping by, friend.

So much depends on how this is used.  I put floor plans in a listing that was unfurnished. But I didn't create paint that wasn't there or Calfornia closets that don't exist. There is a fine line and some "real pictures" have to be included.  I have had people criticize me  for making it look "too good."  I say "too bad."  My job is to bring in bodies.  More bodies= more eyballs=more offers. That's my job...but it doesn't include being "deceptive." I DO make sure I photograph the home in its best light.

So much depends on how this is used.  I put floor plans in a listing that was unfurnished. But I didn't create paint that wasn't there or Calfornia closets that don't exist. There is a fine line and some "real pictures" have to be included.  I have had people criticize me  for making it look "too good."  I say "too bad."  My job is to bring in bodies.  More bodies= more eyballs=more offers. That's my job...but it doesn't include being "deceptive." I DO make sure I photograph the home in its best light.

So much depends on how this is used.  I put floor plans in a listing that was unfurnished. But I didn't create paint that wasn't there or Calfornia closets that don't exist. There is a fine line and some "real pictures" have to be included.  I have had people criticize me  for making it look "too good."  I say "too bad."  My job is to bring in bodies.  More bodies= more eyballs=more offers. That's my job...but it doesn't include being "deceptive." I DO make sure I photograph the home in its best light.

I feel virtual staging could be very useful, especially when used with a house that is less than desirable.  But I would use the actual photos for the MLS listing and have the virtually-staged photos at the house.  Once people get past the reality, THEN they can see what the house could be.

Greg,

I would have thought his to border-line fraud. An the board allows this?

As a great man named Paul once said, "all things are allowed, but not all things are beneficial!" These fads will only hurt those who use them. Your buyers are still capable of buying something else... and most likely will never forget the agent's name who perpetrated this.... and probably tell 100 others about them. Especially now... that it's going nationwide. Yea AR.

Greg,  Great Post!  I made an appointment recently for a vacant foreclosure and the photographs were beautiful.  No furnishings, just great looking photographs.  The agent told me...."I take great photographs and the property does need some work."   My clients and I went to see the property, and "Whew!"  was he right.  It was disgustingly dirty....downright filthy...and beat up very badly as well.  Nothing could be used in that home without either replacing it or ....well.....replacing it. 

When will our industry learn that deception is just not appreciated...

Greg, I love this!  It's amazing that the market has spawned a new profession - virtual stagers!

I can't quite prove it, but in our office we were looking at a house photo that seemed to have the powerlines behind it removed.

If it wasn't altered the photographer must have found the one exact angle that hid the towers from view.

Hi Greg, you are professional for not sharing the actual listing. I agree that digitially enhancing photos will make the property look completely different and not represent it in in true light.

The listing agent should have posted as-is photos to complement the enhanced ones. No doubt about that. However, I have to recognize the creativity in marketing a fixer upper. With the popularity of shows like "Hidden Potential" on HGTV, there  can be no doubt that some buyers will appreciate "artist's concept" type illustrations of less than stellar properties as long as they are aware of what they are actually getting.

That said, I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to list the actual photos as well. You can't sell an after picture without the before. Otherwise, I like Greg and everyone else, would question your motive, peg you as dishonest and most importantly, walk away from further interest.

Lisa H.

I'm comment #272. Unfortunately I only had time to read the first 80 comments.... If I had come across this property I would have been so frustrated. Talk about false advertising and bait and switch.  I understand doing this with maybe one or two photos but EVERY photo? That crosses the line.

Congrats on the ABC interview.

I read an article in Realtor Magazine recently about virtual staging.  The article questioned if virtual staging was ethical or not.  I have to say that using enhancements such as making the grass greener should be ok....or maybe even adding furniture to a vacant house.  HOWEVER, VIRTUAL REMODELING is NOT OK!  There is a lender in town that does 203k rehab loans and they will provide before and after photos that are digitally remodeled and he uses it to show people how it "could" look after the rehab loan, I think that is an appropriate use of this technology.  BUT USING THIS VIRTUAL REMODEL AS PHOTOS FOR A LISTING THAT IS NOT REMODELED IS LYING, UNETHICAL, AND JUST PLAIN WRONG!!!

I agree Greg.  But, its an old gimmick!  Brought over from the food industry no doubt.  i.e. HEY! My hamburger doesn't look like the picture on the menu.  We've all been there and it can be disappointing with food, but frustrating when your trying to find your clients that "perfect" home.

There's a comedy routine in this situation somewhere, but in the meantime, the poor deceived people looking at the pictures of this listing!

whew what a lot of comments and discussion.  Pat yourself on the back and give me my 25 points... thanks.

This is a tough one because I know that buyers do lack imagination.  I think if the agent represented it correctly and let his clients know that the property will not look anything like the photos if they view it, it might work out. 

On the other hand, it might be a big waste of time since most buyers dont believe it unless they see it. 

If you're dealing with an investor, they're used to using their imagination so I'd think this would work fine for them.

It all reminds me of one of the most important things I learned when I first got into this RE biz......DISCLOSE, DISCLOSE, DISCLOSE!

Some people just don't get it....???

#64, Great tip on the 10mm super wide angle lens Tom.

#81, Laurie, I still can't believe you are not with us, it was a pleasure to serve the same city with you.

 Rest in peace good soul.

Well said Edith!

I agree that digitally enhanced photos even if they are labeled as such are wrong.

However, I am wondering what everyone would think of a new build that is not built yet? I have a new build scheduled to be built as soon as I find a buyer. Instead of using a redering or drawing of the floor plan and elevation I have chosen to use pictures of the model home this new build will be based on. I have clearly indicated this in the remarks sections as well as the agent to agent and even in some of the pictures. The last thing I want is a call for a showing on a home that hasn't been built yet. I have strict instructions for any showing calls on this type of MLS listing. I'd appreciate everyones thoughts on this practice. (Please be constructive and nice if you don't agree).

Here is an example of an ad I currently have: 5610 Knollwood Dr Columbus Ohio 43232

Totally false advertising!  Almost as bad as some agents using their high school graduation pictures of themselves! False Advertising!  What ever happened to presenting  lower expectations  and delivering more!

I'm with you.  I think digitally enhanced photos DO NOT paint an accurate picture in one's advertising, and are a violation of the code.  I understand taking different angles, or using a wide angle lens, or REALLY staging...but if a pic is altered...it should have to have a huge watermark on the photo disclosing that it's not a real pic.