I wasn't talking about quality of the picture. I was talking about the competence of the person taking the picture.

And, my comments on the FSBO were that people are going to take their own pics which will never be as good as a professional photog who does it for a living. I didn't make it an agent/vs no agent thing. Not sure why you read into my comment things that weren't there.

Anonymous wrote:As an agent, I have to agree with the lazy listing agent and also add one more: cheap.

It doesn't cost much to get professional pictures done. I've seen lazy listing agents take cell phone pictures from their car and you can see part of their face in the rear view mirror. These morons should lose their license for stupidity alone. It really aggravates because it makes the rest of us look bad.

Also, another reason is the house might have a tenant. Many times tenants won't want their "things" to be photographed and put on the internet for the world to see.

Re: FSBO - exactly right. Because owners aren't usually also photographers, and they're going the cheap route in selling their house on all aspects. Most people think they can do it themselves and then they end up with a couple stupid pictures with their dog or cat in them, or their dirty underwear on the floor. Once I saw someone's sex toy in a picture. Hilarious.

Have you seen the quality of photos from smartphones these days? They rival most compact cameras. I'm a semi-professional photographer and I've taken photos with my iPhone that people are amazed at, when they find out it was via an iPhone their jaws drop. You can easily take excellent photos with a smartphones these days.

As for your remarks about FSBO: Obviously, you don't like FSBO because you're an agent. I get it since I'm in the industry. But, there is nothing wrong with FSBO and I know several people who listed their properties and sold them very well. It's not hard to buy/sell a property without an agent these days. I do agree there are plenty of people who don't know how to compose a proper photo, but there are plenty of people who do.

Anonymous wrote: Why not just spruce it up as best as you can, take some pictures, and at least then you'll get people who know what they're getting into, as opposed to people who will feel like their time was wasted.

If something is an as-is sale and there are no pictures of the interior posted, it is your own fault if you are disappointed when you visit. The clue phone is ringing: If you aren't up for a full remodel, this is not the house for you.

As an agent, I have to agree with the lazy listing agent and also add one more: cheap.

It doesn't cost much to get professional pictures done. I've seen lazy listing agents take cell phone pictures from their car and you can see part of their face in the rear view mirror. These morons should lose their license for stupidity alone. It really aggravates because it makes the rest of us look bad.

Also, another reason is the house might have a tenant. Many times tenants won't want their "things" to be photographed and put on the internet for the world to see.

Re: FSBO - exactly right. Because owners aren't usually also photographers, and they're going the cheap route in selling their house on all aspects. Most people think they can do it themselves and then they end up with a couple stupid pictures with their dog or cat in them, or their dirty underwear on the floor. Once I saw someone's sex toy in a picture. Hilarious.

Anonymous wrote:Lazy listing agent.

I agree. Hate it when the listing agents are lazy.

Ooohkay. I guess this was my fault for making the question too obvious. That the interior might be unattractive was sort of a given. Nevertheless, people are still trying to sell the house. Eventually, someone is going to step inside it. Why not just spruce it up as best as you can, take some pictures, and at least then you'll get people who know what they're getting into, as opposed to people who will feel like their time was wasted.

When you see interior photos of a building and none of the exterior, it means the exterior is not pleasing to the eye.

Same goes for when you only see exterior photos.

i've noticed the ones that are really a fsbo have fewer photos and poorer quality.

Lazy listing agent.

Send your agent to preview it for you first.

OP here: I didn't think about the tear-down thing. That is interesting. I'm looking in fairly modest neighborhoods that aren't so "hot" that people would want to make that kind of investment, I think. I think it may just be a way to hide big flaws. But it makes me not even want to bother looking in person.

I think the strategy is to get you in the door in hopes that you can see past the ugly.

Right, it's called the "Hide the Ball" strategy and it doesn't work, ever. But it won't stop "clever" agents from trying to "trick" you into buying an overpriced POS.

Because it's utterly hideous inside and many buyers would be totally turned off by the pictures and wouldn't even bother coming to look. I think the strategy is to get you in the door in hopes that you can see past the ugly.

I've noticed that houses sold as is or in really bad shape that will probably be purchased by a builder as a tear down have only 1 or 2 photos of the exterior and the lot and none of the inside.

I understand why there may be no interior pictures on a house being listed as a short sale. But for a regular transaction, why would an agent choose to have just a couple of pictures of the outside of the house and nothing more? Is that some kind of selling strategy that I don't understand? It seems to me like having a good number of nice pictures could ensure that you have more serious buyers coming to you.

And in that vein, boy, some pictures are terrible! Definitely not all of them, some listings make a really good effort to show off the features and layout of a house. But quite a few just seem to be taken with someone's cut-rate cell phone and I wonder why the real estate agent isn't making even a small effort to show the house to its best advantage.