Nope!!! but its not only using tools its how you take the shot....

Yes, it's ok to enhance and filter, so long as you are being truthful in your advertising. You can't crop out a power line for example or "make a property appear to be something it's really not".

I want the photos to look as the home truly looks.... adjust lighting.... make sure the photo is crisp and clear.... 

Enhancing no problem, photo shopping extra rooms and definite no-no!

I shoot what's there, but I always stage the house first and  improve the "lighting" of my photos that come out too dark. But I do not "remove" power lines or hide things through Photo Shop, in fact my listings have disclosures on the MLS in advance. I want serious buyers, not just busy listings. I get mad when agents hide the obvious or say "ocean views" (when you get there you have to stand on the toilet and crane your neck out the bathroom window to peek a boo it through the trees).

John... I think it depends on what you mean by enhance/filter. If it totally changes the reality of the home, it's not. If it's touch-ups, why not?

'Truth in advertising' is my motto.  I have a few examples of violations that I use in pre-license and MCE classes.  

Enhancing the photo is fine in my opinion with the purpose of  properly showcasing a property.  Misleading and/or misrepresentation is not.  

I edit all of my photos before uploading them to MLS.  Sometimes the lighting is too low and sometimes I need to crop the cat out of the corner.  I don't mislead buyers but I want to put the sellers best foot forward.  

It is not OK to make it appear something that it's not.  It is OK to work on contrast and lighting.

As others have said, I see no problem in sharpening the photo or adjusting the lighting so that the photo can be seen. 

John,

NO based on your definition. 

I have a professional photographer who shoots all my listings. The goal is for sharp, clear, distinctive photos..not change the look and feel of the property. I work hard to have my listings show ready but I want buyers to know from the photos this is what they can expect to see!

Enhance, Not problem with that at all.

Digitally augment with with artists vision of potential....that may be a foul.

Misrepresenting the property. Now that is a problem.

Recently (this weekend) found one of my listing on  the DARKSIDE (Z) and they replaced my property description with that of another property. 

So, before I start the "You don't look like your image" spiral to nowhere, I would want to get the bigger picture regarding misrepresentation and those who collaborate in the process. 

An enhanced image.....that is not even in the top 15.

Be aware, a great looking property that is priced 15% below market value has a surprise behind the door. But as professionals, we know that.

Altering features or problems in a listed property is a big NO - the property must be represented accurately i.e. no blocking out damaged roofs, utility lines, etc...  

Maybe, I think there is a line somewhere but hard for me to define up front.  I know what I would and would not do.  I really get ticked off when people use those wide angle lenses that make the two car garage look like a 3 car garage. 

I photoshop all the animals out of my photos so Nicole Doty - Gilbert Real Estate Expert doesn't embarrass me with them John Meussner .

Jack Gerbehy wins the prize for this one! 

Why not? Only in some European countries they have low against photoshop ( have to be disclosed), nothing like that in here. 

Photoshop is a great tool, but if not overused. 

John Meussner marketing of a listing is 'SHOWTIME' and one must do anything to bring people to preview the home!

Of course, one needs to be authentic and real about it, however, people now-a-days buy because of the competition. If they see 20 guests at the open house because of great staging and excellent pictures, the home is likely to be sold - soon! And that's what is our job as a listing agent!

I think it's stupid and wasting time for buyer, buyers agent, and listing agent if they have to personally show the property 

not okay

Years ago Amanda and I flipped homes.  Neither of us had a real estate license, so we used a local Realtor.  

One of the homes we flipped was a foreclosure and had an inground pool in the back yard.  The pool was removed and there was just a mudhole left.  Also, it was winter.  

Our Realtor came out to take pictures and then sent us the link online once he had it up.  

The picture of the back yard was full of photo shopped lush green grass.  

I made him use the real pictures.  

Today we use a professional photographer.  His background is artsy, so we've had to ask him a few times to tone down the colors a bit and give a real representation of the home.  

John Meussner Enhancing to correct exposure, tint or color is okay. Enhancing to remove the high tension power lines in the back yard - no.

One would enhance the quality of the photo's, not the home.

Our Realtor Code of Ethics demands truth in advertising so if a photo is enhanced so much to remove power lines, make the rooms seem twice as big, etc. that is false advertising. To enhance color or sharpen the image or remove a trash can from the front of the house present the house in a better light but are not untruthful.

Enhanced photos that portray the property in it's best light, I believe that is why so many pay big bucks for professional photography.

just checking on which questions have the most answers here at Activerain, this was one which sure got a good response from everyone.

As with everything there is a line.  If it materially changes the picture to a point where a reasonable,person concludes it misrepresents the property, then obviously yes.

Contrast, brightness, sharpness, sky on outdoor photos are all OK in my book. I hate the indoor shots where the outside is enhanced in the glass areas, but I've nothing against that ethically, it's just a personal bias. 

Changing features indoors or out? No. Removing obstructions from a picture vs. having the photographer move to an unobstructed location? No. Making the listing look pristine when the reality the buyer's see on their visit is a mess? No. 

Filters and enhancments to showcase the home in the best way possible are fine vs edits that misrepresent or are misleading would not be ok unless labeled as such.  I have seen virtual staging or artist rendering that when properly labelled are appropriate.

I stopped using a particular photographer who just couldn't resist overdoing it on the filters no matter how much I asked to tone them down to a more natural look.  Why does the tile floor look shiny and bright orange, when it's actually a beige with a matte finish?

Clarity of the photos, yes. Enhancing photos to make the home look more appealing...ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!  Isn't this called misrepresentation? I have seen photos of the home with shrubs planted along the front of the driveway. In "real life" the shrubs no longer exist. Do the people who enhance the photos really think buyers and other agents aren't going to notice? Be real!

If it shows the home to its best, then I'm fine. If it changes the home, then no. 

Photos/videos/written descriptions need to reflect the truth.  It's a total waste of everyones' time when deceptions are discovered. 

Who was it that said, "the truth will set you free"???

Sadly I've been on a few online dates just like that - had to look at their picture a few times just to see a resemblance.

So, Yes, That would bug me if I saw a house like that too.

However, More common (I think ) are the BAD picture problems.

It's obvious when you see good quality pictures and also when someone has taken the time to actually think about they pictures they show.

I just love it when I see pictures of 1/2 a hall way floor or a staight down shot of the gravel driveway, or the open toilet. Especially when the house has a sun room, pool, new kitchen or all wood library . etc..

I agree: Don't fake the pics, but do show the house in a quality way.

You still want to put your best foot forward like you were saying.

Hmmm I wonder if that hallway WAS the best of that house?~ haa~

Wow John this should have been a post... it would have been featured and hundreds of us would have chimed in:)), Endre

Hi John!  Normally I'd be ok, with a little, but we have some agents, one that says he's quite proficient with photoshop, and it goes WAAAAAY too far.  I got a good laugh for ya:

Yes, by all means, but don't take out something that varies from the truth of the picture. Also, when taking pictures, get the lighting straight. I see too many bright white lights from the windows. Almost like heaven is calling!

Raw pictures are deceptive enough without our help. Photo resolution is one thing ... but a close-up of the water in Jack Gerbehy 's shots below is only appropriate if the last photo is included too. The job is to sell the house, not deceive buyers and waste the time of our colleagues ... oops, I meant competitors (God forbid we work together to sell a home right?) ... ;-)

I agree with you John.

John, if doing a photshop adjustment on the photos is not OK then the very many agents that do so, including me,  would be doing something bad.  The truth is I have seldom seen any reral estate photos that don't improve the image of a poor condition house. My opinion is as long as the photo is of the subject property it is Ok.

I once took a buyer to a home they were very angry that they left work early to see this home and pics did not represent property at all. This particular agent lists alot in this neighborhood the buyer refused to see anymore of their listings because of this. 

John, I think like you.  If your photos are not representative of the home on the MLS, then I think it is misleading.  I NEVER take photos of the homes I put on the market and embellish them.  It is a waste of money and time for those coming to buy the home.

In the example in the comments, its wrong. A good photographer can help out the best foot forward.
An honest perpective should be present.

Yesterday, during the weekly Broker Preview meeting for Irvine/North Tustin, an Agent told us about her listing.  She told us to warn our clients the home wouldn't look as nice as the photographs, so prepare them accordingly.  She also said if the Seller was home, please ask her to leave you alone while your clients view the property, and the house is probably overpriced, and even if you don't know anything about Woodbridge, please tell the Seller you know everything there is to know about Woodbridge, and Irvine.  At least she was honest.  We were all laughing while she was presenting her listing ... it was plain the Seller was unreasonable, and controlling, and I could feel all the Agents in that room were glad it wasn't their listing.

I am with the majority here.  I have shown property that turned out to be a totally let down after being in the actual house.  They even photoshopped the a/c unit from the roof.  NO, PLEASE DON'T!

If the intent is to mislead or deceive - never.  Just as seller answers to disclosure issues should be clear.

Every photograph should be edited to show the best image. However, the photographs need to be realistic and not misleading.

Why not?  I would like to see what you mean by enhancing?  

Enhancing is fine, and minor adjustments in lighting but the photos need to represent the house correctly.

A common gripe I hear from buyers is that the wide angle shots make rooms look much larger than they are, and they are disappointed when viewing the home in person.

John, have taken buyers to many listings that looked much different than photos in MLS.  Some had furniture, then moved out, and never cleaned! 

I rather have buyers pleasantly surprised then disapointed. Less is more. I don't use 25 shots showing every angle of the seller's furniture. Depending on how many rooms I like 4 or 5 professional interior shots. LR, DR, Kitchen, Bedroom. Floor plan is a must and I think even more important than photos. 

I wouldn't alter the property but I must admit I have an exterior shot of a listing that had a white van parked in front of the building that had ugly grafitti on it when photographed (it really annoyed me) so I erased the graffiti on the van parked on the street. Not misleading because it won't be parked there when buyers come and it's not part of property. 

In our neck of the woods winter is very long and gray so it may take weeks for a beautiful day to get nice outside shots. In these cases, I adjust the light and tones of the picture but never physical objects.

I would say up to the point it becomes false advertising.  Love Jack Gerbehy pictures.

It is not alright as nothing makes buyers madder than pictures that do not look like what they are actally seeing

Not sure you should create an image that does not exist!

I do not enhance photos because buyers will be diappointed when they come .

What Ken Jones said

 I don't think that there is anything wrong with doing touchups as long as it does not distort the perception of the property

In our office, our staff photographer will edit out a toy on the floor or cat rips on a sofa.  But he won't refinish floors or green up a brown lawn. 

I agree, if you are editing photos to hide certain aspects, that is wrong. If you're putting makeup on to enhance your features, that's reasonable for a date and for real estate! :)

We use professional grade camera equipment and editing soft ware.  And would never ever misrepresent our listings in any way. 🙀 That's just not ethical. 

I think some minor adjustments are fine...like for lighting. But I really try to do my best to protray the house as it really it. 

yes and no.  I've done things like had my photographer put a mattress on a bed frame.  Make the photo nicer but in no way affected the room in the photo.

My advice to all my buyers is that pictures lie.

that being said, I use a wide angle lens and brighten all pictures.  I dont believe that pictures should be altered to erase anything or to add anything.

Minor touch ups only.  No PhotoShopping out power lines behind the house, etc.

Well it has happened that one drives up to think they are going to see a perfectly clean well mowed yard and find the grass up to ones knees... Not such a good idea but it happens all the time 

I would say it is OK if the photos are not deceptive.

I agree with Jack that a lot of it has to do with how the shot is taken. However, my photographer cautioned me about touch ups...color correction is porobably okay but removing a power pole from the shot, for example, could cause some problems.

I agree with you, John Meussner .  If some editing is required to enhance lighting conditions, that is one thing.... but giving a misleading impression is not right.  

My clients get mad when this happens

Making the photo more appealing by adjusting the color is ok. My photographer takes photos, I'm sure he enhances. Never would I try to display the property differently.

John,
Showing a property in its’ best light is one thing, faking something it's really not, not a good idea.

No photo shopping but enhancing lighting and making the photo crisp is fine.

Good reason to use a professional photographer!

It does sellers or online daters no good to offer a less than accurate representation to potential buyers or suitors.

If an in person meeting offers a big, bitter disappointment and causes the buyer or suitor to compare the photos with the in person product to detect a similarity, the deception has done more harm than good. 

I'm not a fan of it, but if a room photographed dark because you didn't have enough light to offset a window, then yes I'm in agreement with lightening it up.  As to editing everything, it's like putting lipstick on a pig.  At some point you have to either clean the room or get a pro in.

I think it is a little different compared to a dating site John. I use Adobe Photo Shop to lighten up photos I take or crop or parts I do not like. I have even removed a stop sign that looked horrible in a photo.

Touching up a photo is OK, but altering one is a big no no!