Ethical optimization: I've just learned the phrase "ethical optimization." Apparently it means "lying with photography." A friend is selling her house. Unhappy with the realtor's...

kennmurrah

I've just learned the phrase "ethical optimization." Apparently it means "lying with photography."
A friend is selling her house. Unhappy with the realtor's pictures (too dark), she asked me to try. I gave her three dozen beautiful images and thought I'd done a good job, making the images looks like reality. That was a mistake. Real estate photographers employ the concept of "ethical optimization." Super wide lenses. House looks huge. A normal fridge appears six feet wide. Everything looks bigger than life.
Next time I can match the effect, I think. But what do you think of the idea? If everyone else is making the houses look better than they are, I'm putting someone at a disadvantage by aiming for realism..
Thoughts?

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

kennmurrah wrote:

I've just learned the phrase "ethical optimiz... (show quote)

Hmmmm. And I bet you think that Quarter Pounder with Cheese you just ordered actually looks like the one shown on the poster?
Truth in advertsing has always been a myth. Always will be.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

MT Shooter wrote:

Hmmmm. And I bet you think that Quarter Pounder with Cheese you just ordered actually looks like the one shown on the poster?
Truth in advertsing has always been a myth. Always will be.

I recommend “beer goggles”.

Nancysc

The potential buyer won't make an offer based on photos, but only after an in-person showing. I wouldn't worry about photos not showing the house in a realistic way; today's buyers shop on line first and are accustomed to seeing hyper-real rooms.

nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL

Nancysc wrote:

The potential buyer won't make an offer based on photos, but only after an in-person showing. I wouldn't worry about photos not showing the house in a realistic way; today's buyers shop on line first and are accustomed to seeing hyper-real rooms.

Correct, the photos are just to get a buyers attention, so they should make the house look as good as possible.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

UHH user mallen does real estate photography and seems to me he said not long ago that those new to real estate photography need to be careful to not mislead.

It's been over a decade since I worked for a real estate company. I sold for awhile + as licensed agent I did a lot of work for the owner and other agents, including photography. Long gone are the "buyer-beware" days with much disclosure now legally required. I would think the "true" photos would be similar to the pricing issues: if you over-price a house, you waste everyone's time (agent, buyer, seller) because of the buyer's expectations.

There have been "buyer's agents" for a long time now too, legally obligated to represent their clients' interests. Of course real estate websites have made experts out of any buyer

edit - a couple of folks posted while I was typing. Nancy may have a point about people used to unreality via web pics, but I'd still be curious about mallen's opinions and other pro's in the field. "Looking good" is far different from deliberately misleading.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Nancysc wrote:

The potential buyer won't make an offer based on photos, but only after an in-person showing. I wouldn't worry about photos not showing the house in a realistic way; today's buyers shop on line first and are accustomed to seeing hyper-real rooms.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Linda From Maine wrote:

UHH user url=http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user-pro... (show quote)

The whole purpose behind photography in advertising is not to actually to make a sale. It is to catch the attention of prospective buyers. Selling comes after that

kennmurrah

MT Shooter wrote:

And I bet you think that Quarter Pounder with Cheese you just ordered actually looks like the one shown on the poster?
Truth in advertsing has always been a myth. Always will be.

I understand. But two thoughts: the burger doesn't cost half a million dollars. And how far can I go and still be "ethical"?

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Rich1939 wrote:

The whole purpose behind photography in advertising is not to actually to make a sale. It is to catch the attention of prospective buyers. Selling comes after that

I worked for a real estate company for nearly eight years "in person," and then several more from afar - and a lot of that part was writing copy for ads. Making a room look the best it can be via wide angle and good lighting, removing some furniture and other personal property, is not the same thing as what I am inferring by OP's use of the word "lying."

kennmurrah

Rich1939 wrote:

The whole purpose behind photography in advertising is not to actually to make a sale. It is to catch the attention of prospective buyers. Selling comes after that

But in a market with lots of houses for sale, insufficient pictures can result in someone just passing over the house because the pictures, accurate or not, may not be "special" enough.

flashgordonbrown Loc: Silverdale, WA

kennmurrah wrote:

But in a market with lots of houses for sale, insufficient pictures can result in someone just passing over the house because the pictures, accurate or not, may not be "special" enough.

Or, on the other hand, they may be too 'special', and cause some potential buyers to not consider it!

erickter Loc: Dallas,TX

As a licensed broker and architect, I typically photograph my own listings. Key is getting the lighting to look natural, and using my wide and super wide lenses selectively. Interior shots can stand a slightly wider view because human periferial vision expands our perception of space and proportion. Stitching shots with a normal lens is another way to increase viewing coverage without massive deception of the true physical space.
Exterior shots will have a least several views taken with a normal lens 45-65mm on FF. But, I have to get across the street to get it all in sometimes. If not, 24, 28 to 35mm TS lens usually do the trick, combined with stitching shots if necessary.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

"Deceitful optimization" is probably more accurate.
Some real state photographers will go even further by editing out anything undesirable, such as cracks, stains, dead shrubs and power lines.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Watched a "pro" sell the condo next door that had been well used for a decade by renters. First she cleaned it and painted the walls. Then went in new carpet. After that it was decorated with rental furniture. The photographer that shot it used good light to display a warm and homelike feeling. In one room, you could see the details of both the room and the garden outside the window. I suspect some careful HDR. The seller got three good offers in 36 hours.

A year earlier, an agent selling a matching unit took her own pictures. There was nothing appealing in the ad or the flyer. It took months to get a buyer.

The better agent and pro photographer ethically optimized the photos to show potential buyers what the place might feel like to live in.