Hello everybody. Does anybody know of software that is used only for editing real estate images? I know there is the popular names such as paintshop pro, ulead, photshop, etc...but I'm not interested in taking 3 months to learn those large programs when all I want is to lighten up an image of a house.

So is there any editing software made specifically for the "real estate agent only" to edit our images of our house pictures we take of the outside and inside of the house? For instance, maybe put lights in the house similar to what they did with these pictures below. Or take out clouds from the sky and make the sky bluer or make the sidewalk shiny like the image below.

I'm afraid photoshop will do best for that task or if you want something free try GIMP

lvrealtor, there is no "one click fixes the pic" software out there that can get the results you are looking for, and trust me, the photos displayed here show a lot more skill and care than the average realtor photos display.

If you want to manually "add lights"...well you're not going to get that with a quick edit either.

I use Photoshop 7 and I have years into learning the software. But for quick editing you can do pretty well with Picasa, which is a free download from Google.

neudot, I disagree with you completely. Lights can manually be added with software. Below are two images of a house which lights were added with software. The first picture has not lights and it is the original picture. The second picture below has lights added and the surroundings were also touched up with one click software.

I'm not sure which software they used to alter the image. The realtor refused to tell me. But anybody can see for themselves below that lights were added to the house and the ouside was darkened to appear to be dark outside. Also, the images are exactly the same angle of the camera. The lights were added to the garage where there are no lights on the garage of that house(I am familiar with that house). I know a previous listing agent and that house does not have all those lights on the outside. That house has lights on the front door "only".

And picassa does not add lights. Picassa does the same thing as microsoft's free mspaint which comes free on all windows xp computers.

So if anybody knows what software they used to add the lights below, then please share with the rest of us.

lv, I didn't say it wasn't possible to edit lights into the photo; only that I doubted it could be done with a "one click" feature. If I'm wrong about this, I'd like to know right along with you. Taking both those images into Photoshop, I can see that the second image has also had its lines straightened, as well as adjustments to the lighting. The second image also has a sign in the front yard, which the first image does not. You don't suppose they actually are two different images? The second one, in my opinion, does not look totally "real."

Taking a photo just about dusk with the lights on would be preferable to trying to edit-in the effect, in my opinion.

Plus is it ethical to market a home with doctored up pictures that add features that are not there?? (exterior lights)

the second picture may very well be the same house but it is not the same picture.

The first picture has no sign in the yard, and more of the far right hand lower window shows up in the second picture.

In the first examples you posted, either the "night" shot has a much better editing job done or it was actually shot at dusk with a tripod and slow exposure.

My guess is it actually was taken at dusk. It looks much more natural (and prettier) than the heavily edited second photo. Perky did you notice how similar house 1 and house 2 are? I flipped House 1 horizontally in Photoshop. Aside from some rooflines, those two houses must be in the same housing tract or something, because they're really a lot alike. Maybe a photo editing person took the lights from that one? Just a thought.

That sign looks familiar, too

I did notice the similarities of the houses, but figured that's the same situation as we have here - only instead of cookie cutter stucco mansions, we have cookie cutter cheap chalets. LOL

I think they did something like you said, clones the lights from the first picture.

The one taken at dusk looks moody, romantic, alluring...the other one just looks like there's about to be a cloudburst.

Notice the reflection in the street, too from the lights. That's much more natural and I would think more difficult to create unless you are a very skilled graphic artist. At that point, it would be cheaper to hire a professional photographer to do some night shots for you.

Plus the windows in the "second" home are all closed up. obviously to hide the day time reflections.

Nope, the more I look at it the more fake it looks, and I don't like it. I think it looks cheap and cheesy - like a hand written "For Sale" sign instead of a professionally printed one. LOL

They rotate the first picture

Not only is it not ethical to market a home using photo were features are added, it could also be call fraud. If you want to show what I home looks like with added item, you MUST note it very clearly.

Also, being in the real estate advertising and photography business I will state you can remove clouds and change lighting. However, unless you have alot of experience and good software the result will look poor. The most common mistake is to make the sky to perfect.

No, I think it's a different house. Look at the front windows. 2nd house has two windows, first house has one.

Wow, I finally have a use for those skill builder cartoons - "What's Different" exercises finally pay off...