Jump to content
Lunafreya

Real estate photos at their fakest

Recommended Posts

Tinkle Splashes

That’s disgraceful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Acidulous Osprey

The issue is the doctored photos.

 

Whoever would benefit from the sale should pay for the cleaning--there are firms specialising in cleaning these sorts of homes.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lunafreya

Yes, there are companies that specialize in cleaning crime scenes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hills mum bec

Who do you actually expect to clean it?

 

I don't think any amount of cleaning will do that property any good. The only think you could do is rip out the carpets and replace & paint the walls. All costs money and if the only money in the estate is the actual house itself then it doesn't get done and is sold as is. Does not excuse the RE Agent for posting photoshopped photos.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
born.a.girl

People interested in 'who would clean this' should have a read of the fascinating 'The Trauma Cleaner' .

 

 

https://www.angusrobertson.com.au/books/the-trauma-cleaner-sarah-krasnostein/p/9781925498523?zsrc=dsa-feed&gclid=CjwKCAiA8K7uBRBBEiwACOm4d_ZkmVF9z26r3f0YsFbgnv3arodS_QLR_ARZBPLBXjUs-vJl6pJFaRoC5sUQAvD_BwE

 

 

This is one remarkable woman, with an amazing story, along with insights into her business.

 

Sure made me feel better about my messy house.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mrs Zee

 

 

I don't think any amount of cleaning will do that property any good. The only think you could do is rip out the carpets and replace & paint the walls. All costs money and if the only money in the estate is the actual house itself then it doesn't get done and is sold as is. Does not excuse the RE Agent for posting photoshopped photos.

 

Yep. Exactly.

 

The RE aren't going to sacrifice any of their commission to pay to have it cleaned. They are happy with the money they'll make anyway because they know it will sell.

 

Obviously there aren't beneficiaries who care enough to clean it.

 

Doctoring the photos is stupid and the RE should be investigated.

 

But stating it should have been cleaned is unrealistic.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hollycoddle

I don't know that they were altered digitally, it looks like they've just pulled up records from a previous sales history where the property was in better nick and gone with those pics.

Edited by Mollycoddle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hollycoddle

 

The RE aren't going to sacrifice any of their commission to pay to have it cleaned. They are happy with the money they'll make anyway because they know it will sell.

 

 

If they're so sure it will sell then why the need to doctor the photos? Probably better to just play up the good points of the place eg. location.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mrs Zee

People interested in 'who would clean this' should have a read of the fascinating 'The Trauma Cleaner' .

 

 

https://www.angusrobertson.com.au/books/the-trauma-cleaner-sarah-krasnostein/p/9781925498523?zsrc=dsa-feed&gclid=CjwKCAiA8K7uBRBBEiwACOm4d_ZkmVF9z26r3f0YsFbgnv3arodS_QLR_ARZBPLBXjUs-vJl6pJFaRoC5sUQAvD_BwE

 

 

This is one remarkable woman, with an amazing story, along with insights into her business.

 

Sure made me feel better about my messy house.

 

I know there are people who clean places like this. My point was who is going to do it in situations like this? Where there were no loved ones and the place will sell regardless of the condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seayork2002

I presume the photos are of earlier shots rather than faked, as long as it is of the same property I am not sure there is a law that says the photo has to be taken specifically at that precise moment

 

Yes I would be annoyed if I wasted time viewing to find the photos different from reality but not sure if it is against a law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
born.a.girl

I know there are people who clean places like this. My point was who is going to do it in situations like this? Where there were no loved ones and the place will sell regardless of the condition.

 

O.k., so you meant who would pay for it to be cleaned. Fair point, and I agree, who knows who the beneficiaries of his will are, and that's presuming he had a will, or even has beneficiaries who can be traced.

 

No one else is going to care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
born.a.girl

I presume the photos are of earlier shots rather than faked, as long as it is of the same property I am not sure there is a law that says the photo has to be taken specifically at that precise moment

 

Yes I would be annoyed if I wasted time viewing to find the photos different from reality but not sure if it is against a law?

 

 

I'd have thought it should be against the law to misrepresent so significantly what you're selling.

 

You can't even sell a packet of biscuits with a bit of cheese on top in the photo on the front without putting 'serving suggestion'.

 

I had a feeling, too, that a law came in somewhere that if a 'significant event' (which were specified) happened at a property then prospective buyers had to be informed. Had a feeling it was a result of a murder in Sydney, where a bloke murdered his parents and a sibling. New owners found out later. Can't remember the rest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lunafreya

Lin family, I think it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seayork2002

I'd have thought it should be against the law to misrepresent so significantly what you're selling.

 

You can't even sell a packet of biscuits with a bit of cheese on top in the photo on the front without putting 'serving suggestion'.

 

I had a feeling, too, that a law came in somewhere that if a 'significant event' (which were specified) happened at a property then prospective buyers had to be informed. Had a feeling it was a result of a murder in Sydney, where a bloke murdered his parents and a sibling. New owners found out later. Can't remember the rest.

 

Yeah it should come in, in the UK when we sold out house it was legally required if we had any issues with the neighbours we had to disclose, we didn't but it stuck in my head.

 

Not to this scale but I know of lots of real estate photos that are taken a few years before not hiding anything major that I know of but I notice small differences

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Acidulous Osprey

Sometimes it helps to read the linked article before making wrong statements,

 

'A forensic analysis of the pictures revealed at least one of them, of the master bedroom, had been altered digitally.'

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seayork2002

Lin family, I think it was.

 

Not that one there was another not too far from that one from memory (I have been told about it but I was overseas at the time)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seayork2002

Sometimes it helps to read the linked article before making wrong statements,

 

'A forensic analysis of the pictures revealed at least one of them, of the master bedroom, had been altered digitally.'

 

If we were in court, being arrested or in a education setting I would agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
born.a.girl

Yeah it should come in, in the UK when we sold out house it was legally required if we had any issues with the neighbours we had to disclose, we didn't but it stuck in my head.

 

Not to this scale but I know of lots of real estate photos that are taken a few years before not hiding anything major that I know of but I notice small differences

 

 

Yeah, I'm not sure a body shaped hole in the carpet quite qualifies as a 'small difference', though.

 

Wide angle lenses are bad enough. Doorways that look like you could get an elephant through them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hills mum bec

I presume the photos are of earlier shots rather than faked, as long as it is of the same property I am not sure there is a law that says the photo has to be taken specifically at that precise moment

 

Yes I would be annoyed if I wasted time viewing to find the photos different from reality but not sure if it is against a law?

 

I work in Real Estate. Most property photos are edited to a certain degree. You might make the sky look bluer or the grass greener, might photo shop out a reflection in a mirror or window. You are not allowed to alter a photo so that the property looks different than what can reasonably achieved with a bit of a clean. You can't photoshop out permanent structures such as power lines, fences or clotheslines but you can photoshop out removable furniture, a car in the driveway, for sale sign or just general clutter.

 

https://www.realestatebusiness.com.au/marketing/10367-the-do-s-and-don-ts-of-real-estate-photo-retouching

 

I'm not sure if it is different state by state but in SA you do need to disclose to potential purchasers if there has been a violent death on the property (including suicide) but not if the death is from natural causes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Acidulous Osprey

If we were in court, being arrested or in a education setting I would agree

 

Because speculating wildly and telling us the laws in Britain are so useful?

 

You do you.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
born.a.girl

Thirty years ago I bought a house that was sold as a block of land, it was so derelict. It had an attic that you accessed from some narrow stairs near the back door - the back door that a five year old could have got through even when locked.

 

I didn't sleep too well those first few nights.

 

Funnily enough it didn't ever occur to me to wonder if the bloke had died in the house, and he was 98, and a deceased estate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seayork2002

Yeah, I'm not sure a body shaped hole in the carpet quite qualifies as a 'small difference', though.

 

Wide angle lenses are bad enough. Doorways that look like you could get an elephant through them.

 

sorry I was meaning that as 2 different things (sort of connected in my head though)

 

Because speculating wildly and telling us the laws in Britain are so useful?

 

You do you.

 

I never said the laws there are useful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alias grace

I'd have thought it should be against the law to misrepresent so significantly what you're selling.

 

You can't even sell a packet of biscuits with a bit of cheese on top in the photo on the front without putting 'serving suggestion'.

 

I had a feeling, too, that a law came in somewhere that if a 'significant event' (which were specified) happened at a property then prospective buyers had to be informed. Had a feeling it was a result of a murder in Sydney, where a bloke murdered his parents and a sibling. New owners found out later. Can't remember the rest.

 

Yes, it would be misleading or deceptive conduct under consumer law I would think. Although, I doubt any consumer would suffer any loss as they would see the state of the house upon undertaking a viewing.

 

I think that the specific case you are referring to is Sef Gonzales. IIRC, the estate of the Gonzales family did not disclose the fact that the home had been a murder site and the new buyers were subsequently able to void the sale on the basis that it should have been disclosed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...