Has this photo been photoshopped?

[youngsyr]

Hi all, just wondering if the sky in this picture has been photoshopped in - the edges of the rooves look very odd to me?

[Trophy Husband]

Not only that but there are hovering red words and a strange white arrow pointing down. I couldn't live with that outside my gaff. Pity the people that live there. Unless of course you have great neighbours?

[crmcatee]

The downpipe is squint.

[youngsyr]

Trophy Husband said:

Not only that but there are hovering red words and a strange white arrow pointing down. I couldn't live with that outside my gaff. Pity the people that live there. Unless of course you have great neighbours?

Apologies - I added the arrow and wording! Just wanted to know whether the sky had been 'shopped in before I got my hands on it?!

[Feirny]

Looks like it, we were offered a service when selling our house where they "touched" images up and did this to the sky, and also added a lot of saturation for the hedges/greenery which then looked daft.

[p1stonhead]

Id say so. Loads of EAs do it. Sometimes they put the before and after picture on rightmove by mistake

[youngsyr]

p1stonhead said:

Id say so. Loads of EAs do it. Sometimes they put the before and after picture on rightmove by mistake

Thanks! The roof of the shed in the 'shopped photo has the same mysterious grey glow that the rooves in my photo have - clearly an artifact of the original sky that has not been removed.

[Terminator X]

Complain if you don't end up with the as advertised sky

TX.

[youngsyr]

Terminator X said:

Complain if you don't end up with the as advertised sky

TX.

I'm just wondering what the rules were on photoshopping photos in adverts - there must be some written down somewhere, probably in the consumer protection from unfair trading regulations?

[jurbie]

There are no rules which is why so many models get photoshopped to within an inch of their lives with every blemish removed, limbs lengthened/shortened and whatever else changed to create the image of a perfect human being.

They often get it wrong as well.

[Trophy Husband]

youngsyr said:

Terminator X said:

Complain if you don't end up with the as advertised sky

TX.

I'm just wondering what the rules were on photoshopping photos in adverts - there must be some written down somewhere, probably in the consumer protection from unfair trading regulations?

Strikes me you have a little too much time on our hands young sir!

[youngsyr]

jurbie said:

There are no rules which is why so many models get photoshopped to within an inch of their lives with every blemish removed, limbs lengthened/shortened and whatever else changed to create the image of a perfect human being.

They often get it wrong as well.

The difference being that a magazine is not an advert to buy the model, whereas an Estate Agent's advert is an advert to buy what is pictured.

[youngsyr]

Trophy Husband said:

youngsyr said:

Terminator X said:

Complain if you don't end up with the as advertised sky

TX.

I'm just wondering what the rules were on photoshopping photos in adverts - there must be some written down somewhere, probably in the consumer protection from unfair trading regulations?

Strikes me you have a little too much time on our hands young sir!

Probably, but I view it as an hour of my time on the internet is a good trade for days of other people's time.

[Pickled]

jurbie said:

There are no rules which is why so many models get photoshopped to within an inch of their lives with every blemish removed, limbs lengthened/shortened and whatever else changed to create the image of a perfect human being.

They often get it wrong as well.

There was an ad featuring a guy putting luggage into the back of a 911

[blueedge]

youngsyr said:

I'm just wondering what the rules were on photoshopping photos in adverts - there must be some written down somewhere, probably in the consumer protection from unfair trading regulations?

I used to do a lot of property advertising and we'd often be asked by the estate agents to add a blue sky, to the extent that we had a folder of different sky images to use based on the size of the house, angle of the photo etc. We couldn't photoshop anything related to the property itself though - ie no photoshopping out electric or telephone wires, nothing that could be taken as mis selling the property.

Edited to add, the problem is most of the time when the sky is added there isn't consideration given to the fact that the light in the rest of the image would be completely different if it really were a bright sunny day, which makes the photoshopped sky stand out even more.

Edited by blueedge on Wednesday 21st November 16:50

[Kermit power]

youngsyr said:

The difference being that a magazine is not an advert to buy the model, whereas an Estate Agent's advert is an advert to buy what is pictured.

This is true to an extent, of course, but I think so long as the EA has stuck to what blueedge said about not making any changes to the actual property itself, then I don't see it as an issue.

If you were looking at pictures of a house with a blue sky like that in a location that never got such skies naturally, then I think you'd have a case, but any house you're looking at in the UK will of course get nice sunny days, and as a sunny day makes pretty much everyone feel happier, I don't think it's an unreasonable thing for the EA to do, given that they've just got unlucky on the day they actually took the shots.

Equally, I think that whilst the photos shown above of the before and after have gone a little bit too far, it's also fair to remember that the human eye has a wider dynamic range than a camera, so I don't think it's unreasonable for an EA to use a bit of HDR on the back garden. Yes, in this example, it looks rather overdone, but I'm sure the garden wouldn't have looked as dingy to the guy taking the original photo as it has come out on the final shot.

[youngsyr]

Kermit power said:

youngsyr said:

The difference being that a magazine is not an advert to buy the model, whereas an Estate Agent's advert is an advert to buy what is pictured.

This is true to an extent, of course, but I think so long as the EA has stuck to what blueedge said about not making any changes to the actual property itself, then I don't see it as an issue.

If you were looking at pictures of a house with a blue sky like that in a location that never got such skies naturally, then I think you'd have a case, but any house you're looking at in the UK will of course get nice sunny days, and as a sunny day makes pretty much everyone feel happier, I don't think it's an unreasonable thing for the EA to do, given that they've just got unlucky on the day they actually took the shots.

Equally, I think that whilst the photos shown above of the before and after have gone a little bit too far, it's also fair to remember that the human eye has a wider dynamic range than a camera, so I don't think it's unreasonable for an EA to use a bit of HDR on the back garden. Yes, in this example, it looks rather overdone, but I'm sure the garden wouldn't have looked as dingy to the guy taking the original photo as it has come out on the final shot.

That's a good point, nothing about what you're actually buying has changed - the house is untouched.

I do think it should be made clear when a photograph in an advert or magazine has been altered though. It feels deceptive to do it and not admit to it.

[Kermit power]

youngsyr said:

That's a good point, nothing about what you're actually buying has changed - the house is untouched.

I do think it should be made clear when a photograph in an advert or magazine has been altered though. It feels deceptive to do it and not admit to it.

The problem with that is that you'd have to have the disclaimer against every single image published in every single ad, so it rather defeats the object.

Every single photo I take (just as an amateur hobbyist), for example, is altered. At the very least, I'll take the shots in RAW then process them into JPEG and sharpen them up a bit, so where would you draw the line at what constitutes alteration?

[DickyC]

Pickled said:

There was an ad featuring a guy putting luggage into the back of a 911

Expensive luggage, too.

[youngsyr]

Kermit power said:

The problem with that is that you'd have to have the disclaimer against every single image published in every single ad, so it rather defeats the object.

Every single photo I take (just as an amateur hobbyist), for example, is altered. At the very least, I'll take the shots in RAW then process them into JPEG and sharpen them up a bit, so where would you draw the line at what constitutes alteration?

For me, there is a significant difference between photography as a form of art and photographs advertising a product.

With the former, do whatever you like and all power to you.

With the latter, given how grey an area of it is, I would advocate for no alterations at all - what is pictured should be exactly as the pivoting was taken.

Very similar to literature as a form of art/entertainment and a written for sale advert.