DIY Photography

Hacking Photography - one Picture at a time

Search

 

Submit A Story

Cleverly composed photograph could get an Australian real estate agent $22K in fines

by 47 Comments

NSW Home 3

Real estate photography might seem straightforward, but the reality is it’s just as challenging as any other genre. After all, it’s about what you should keep in the image and what you should take out.

How far is too far though? That’s what a few would-be home buyers are asking in regards to the photo you see above.

What’s wrong with it, you ask? Technically speaking, nothing. But when compared to the view you actually see when standing in front of the house, what the above image shows appears to be the Photoshop job of the century. But, in reality, it’s nothing more than clever composition and camera placement.

As you can see from the Google Street View image below, there is a giant, not-so-visually-appealing water tower behind the house. A water tower that is not in the slightest bit present in the image shared on the home’s listing.

The façade of the house as seen on Google Street.

The façade of the house as seen on Google Street.

Ray White, the real estate agent currently selling the house claims the image was given to him by the owner of the home, taken for a previous realtor who attempted to sell the home. In a follow-up statement from the Ray White spokesperson, the agency said:

[It appears] from our own investigations that the photos have not been photoshopped and are instead simply taken from an angle from which the house obscures the water tank

This matters because Photoshopping the water tower out of the image could spell huge fines–AU$22,000 worth–for false advertising.

Real Estate Institute of Australia President, Neville Sanders said to News.com.au:

Not only is it illegal in New South Wales, it’s my understanding that this would be against the law throughout the country […] This kind of behaviour falls under the broad umbrella that is the Australian Consumer Law. That states that a product cannot be inappropriately misrepresented in advertising material.

Even if the image isn’t Photoshopped, White could still get in trouble, as Sanders claims it could still be considered a distortion of the public’s expectation of what the house looks like.

An image of the house used by a previous realtor.

An image of the house used by a previous realtor.

The image in question has since been removed from all online postings regarding the sale of the house, but it’s not clear whether or not any fines will be pursued or handed out.

What are your thoughts on the matter? Is this taking it too far, even if it isn’t post-production manipulation? Or is it simply a clever work-around to make the most of an opportunity?

[via News.com.au]

Related posts:

Australian PM’s Chief of Staff Demands Photographer Delete Images of Her Photographer Has $15k In Gear Stolen, Uses EXIF Data To Nail the Thief Photographer under fire after nude photos were shot inside an historic 17th century castle Do photography degrees create career-ready photographers
  • Ray Dennis

    I suspect it could be both, a low angle to get rid of most of the tower, but a composite sky to get rid of the rest. The reflection in the window seems to be an overcast sky. The blotchy wet driveway and wood walls look like it just rained. But even if it falls on the right side of the law, it’s no opportunity, you’ll just cause bitterness when buyers show up and realize what you did.

    • Rick

      Looking at edges of the tree to the left and the way the power line disappears in a photo with otherwise fairly clear resolution I would say it is definitely suspect.

      • JJtoob

        I think it’s an antenna, not a cable.

        • Rick

          I wasn’t referring to the antenna on the left side, I was referring to the wire on the right that connects to the house just above the right window. I can see relatively clearly all the mortar joints and the spaces between the wood boards, so why can’t I see a black wire against a clear sky?

          And yes, I read the claim that it wasn’t photoshopped. I just don’t buy it. The sky has a much finer resolution than the rest of the photo. Zoom in. Look at how coarse the wire and the edge of the gutter are and then look at how wispy the clouds are.

          In that you seem to be putting an inordinate amount of effort into defending this guy kind of leave me wondering what’s your angle?

          • JJtoob

            Not that the sky would be part of the complaint anyway, the sky will definitely not be the same every day, but I really do think it may be compression, I would like to see a higher resolution of that same image to see if that’s true. I just think so far, it is entirely possible to get that image with minor (color correction and such) tweaks to no manipulation at all.

  • Misleading yes. But who buys a house without checking it out first?

    • Their ‘misleading’ is generating traffic , everyone is ‘checking it out’ and most of them are not interested in buying.
      Real estate agents know the rules , cross the line pay the fine.

      • I would argue, that it is fair not to include water tower, because he is trying to sell a house, not house with water tower. Even more – if I would want to buy a house with water tower, I would be rather disappointed, if photo of house would include water tower, but in the end wouldn’t sell it. 😀

  • Scott

    If the water tower was across the street, not behind it, would it be required to be in the photos? You can’t photograph customer expectations, just photograph what you are trying to sell, the house. If your angle highlights the house, good shooting. I’m not obliged to show the neighborhood, if you don’t like it when you get an in-person look, don’t buy it. Buyers should do their research, online and in person, and don’t take what they see online with a grain of salt.

    • It’s still deceptive advertising. When you sell a house, you’re also selling the neighborhood, the local school(s), and a host of other things. The list grows if the person is moving from another city.

      • JJtoob

        In that case, should he include photos of the schools and the host of other things? I agree that the photo could have been more honest, but a simple look at Google Maps and Street View would show you everything about the neighborhood from different angles too. I mean, these aren’t kids trying to buy a house, how gullible do you have to be to make a serious consideration of a product from a single image?

        • You’re stating irrelevancies. The law states that advertising photos must be true-to-life. This photo is not and is clearly photoshopped. Therefore it runs afoul to the law.

          • Kris

            If you read the article, you’d know that the image was not Photoshoped, but taken from an angle that obscured the water tower behind the house.

          • No, they don’t think it was photoshop’d. But if you look at it, you can see spots where it is highly suspect such as the fact the power line drop seems to be invisible where it connects to the house.

            If it isn’t Photoshop’d then they could easily go and recreate the photo.

          • JJtoob

            I would blame the fuzzy power line on file compression. I’m not sure if they tried to straighten the lines, but the roof is still slightly curved, when it’s supposed to be straight.

          • I disagree, the photo has been altered in an editing program.

            It may have been shot at a lower angle to hide the water tower, however by doing this it would have severely distorted the angle of the side walls of the building eg they would be sloping inwards. Someone has taken the images and applied a distortion mask to make the walls look straight eg something like this http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QkG241258FE/maxresdefault.jpg

          • Michael Chastain

            Tilt shift photography to prevent this is common in architectural photography. Also using Photoshop in and of itself to straighten vertical lines I would imagine wouldn’t be illegal, and it’s not misrepresenting the property.

          • JJtoob

            But it is true to life, just maybe not true to a human’s eye ability to see the world, that’s probably the most dishonest this image is guilty of.

          • Photoshop’ing out a giant water tower is not “true-to-life”. I believe in advertising and photo-journalistic ethics. #sorryboutit

        • steve

          Exactly. Is the realtor responsible for everything in the neighborhood ? Is the proximity of the tower mentioned in the description ? Every move includes some risk . Buying without ever seeing more than one image is ridiculous and irresponsible

      • steve

        No, the realtor is only selling the house. The schools, neighborhood, and other things are used by realtors to extol the virtues of buying the house. They will use the surroundings to aid in the sale and omit the surroundings when it is a detriment. The photo is deceptive , only if the tower is not mentioned in the description of the home,since the tower is so prominent a feature . The buyer bears some responsibility as well

    • Joe Blow

      Part of the “research” is viewing photos online. If the photos should be taken with “a grain of salt”, then what value do they have? Prospective buyer want to see the property as they would see it, not as an ant would.

    • Anonymous

      >If the water tower was across the street, not behind it, would it be required to be in the photos?

      Would you feel like it *should’ve* been in the photos when you showed up to view the house, and you’d been deceived by its omission?

  • Johnno

    Looks like the photographer was a meter from the house given the distortions and the fact you cannot see the tiled roof at all, making the house actually look modern flat roof. Even that seems a bit misrepresented.

  • Rob

    Still looks photoshopped. The wire running from the street to the house (top right corner, which you can see clearly in Google street view ) seems to kind of vanish before reaching the house.

    • Jude I⚡caяiot

      Try saving the photo and messing with it. I sharped the area and then darkened it in CS5 – the wire seems to go all the way to the house.

    • JJtoob

      Stuff that thin get messed up in jpegs.

  • Brian Boru

    Fines scmines, I imagine this house has the best water pressure in town! 🙂

  • Freddie Rodrigue

    I am all for the false advertising claims. Fine them – fine with me. Look you are selling the house, the view and the neighborhood. I don’t care what your argument is, you are mis representing the view by doctoring the photo. Composition/angles/exposure is one thing but taking something out and adding things is wrong when you are advertising and journalism.

    • JJtoob

      But this is exactly just composition/angles/exposure, the photo isn’t doctored at all.

  • Anthony

    As mentioned below, a good attorney could argue that the water tower absent image is MORE accurate a representation of the item for sale than the picture WITH the water tower. You see, a photo that shows me a beautiful home, with an incredibly useful water storage system INCLUDED in the price! WOW! What a deal!!! Only to arrive and find out that the photo lied, the water tower is not part of the house!!! How sad! Such false advertising!

    The question really is, WHAT is the image selling. If it is selling the house, and only the house (and what non existent lot it has), then the image is accurate. If it is selling the house, the water tower, and the surrounding homes, then the image is not accurate.

    It’s all a matter of perspective, legally, and photographically.

    • CrymeLord

      You’re not buying just a house. You are also buying the neighborhood it comes in. There is a line between taking a picture that best represents what you are selling and outright deception.

      In the end, all this pic does is make people angry who bothered to drive out to look at it, and it only would really represent outright fraud to someone buying the house sight unseen based entirely on that photo (no one).

      • JJtoob

        You are buying into the neighborhood and not doing research on it? Where is the limit to how much of the neighborhood must be pictured? Who drives out to a place these days before checking it out online on satellite and street view? Even when you buy something a bit more simple like a car, sure you’ll look at the pictures of the thing, but wouldn’t you also read up on reviews of the car in general, or what other features it has that may not have been listed? It’s ridiculous to go from 1 picture to serious consideration unless you are a smart adult.

  • Generally in situations like this I show a “bit” of the offending structure…. enough to “imply” or “hint” that there is another structure nearby, that a view may be partially obstructed, etc. I don’t think it’s necessary to show the entire structure, but I think it’s quite misleading to eliminate it altogether.

    • JJtoob

      That could have been a better strategy without making it seem like the image was meant to be outright misleading.

  • John James

    Australian are idiot

    • JJtoob

      Nothing like a grammatically incorrect insult to drive a point lol.

  • Joe Blow

    Unless your an ant on the front lawn, this photo clearly aims to deceive. Real estate photography should be all about reality (as you would see on the street), not some goofy photography perspective. Pay the fine. Steep but the photog will learn.

  • Kelvin Spacey

    The yard is completely different as well from the Google image. I don’t think it’s an angle issue, I think the water tower was removed from the image. Even at a lower angle, something that huge would show up.

  • dan

    definitively photoshopped

  • Stacy Schauer-Dekoning

    If the shot were for any other purpose than selling the house, I would say well done. However, since it is about the house itself and what it actually looks like, I would say it is misleading. The angle not only obscures the tower, it makes the house appear to have a flat roof instead of pitched. If I were a potential buyer, I would be pissed.

  • VulpineMac

    That is deceptive photography, however. Very specific camera placement and lens choice were needed to hide the water tank. I would instantly demand a very significant reduction in price not only based on the water tank but also the notable change in architectural style of the house by such deception.

  • Ian F. Bell

    Photoshop, look at the lack of a roof. Also there is no easy angle short of lying on your back next the house that us going to produce that lack of roof and tower. That shot is not shot from that angle.

  • This isn’t much different than interior shots taken with wide angle to make the home bigger than it really is.

  • Yeah. I wouldn’t have chosen that angle. I’d have left it in. Just like I would leave in a gaping hole in the wall. You can fix things like missing vent covers and appliances that are not yet installed. You can’t creatively ‘omit’ something like this.

  • Might be misleading, but that doesn’t mean it’s edited/manipulated … looks like a genuine phone taken from very close to the house and at that viewpoint the water tower won’t be visible; plus you can’t see the tower from the windows in the photograph no matter which angle you look out of them.

  • Elize Meijer

    Isn’t that what Google streetview is for ?

Recent Posts