Buyers need to see a minimum of 2 photos. Preferably one of which in daylight.
Most photos don’t match the colour of the snake. It’s not the fault of the seller most times, it’s just poor lighting, usually indoor lighting. That changes the colours.
Currently it is:-
Free plan 1 photo.
Basic plan 1 photo.
Standaard plan 3 photos
Premium 5 photos.
Surely you will not lose income if 2 photos were free plan and basic?
I know it takes more server space but it would inspire more confidence in buyers.
Some sellers are reluctant to send a second photo if asked because the animal may not be at its best at that time.
2 Photos can be compared and a better judgement reached.
Due to the above I believe 2 photos would also stop a lot of complaints about the animal not looking like it was advertised as.
This would also better separate photoshopped pictures from those sellers who don’t intend to deceive but have either odd lighting and poor cameras.
1 of may examples:
My outdoor picture in natural light of the same animal. And that’s what it actually looks like.
Actually it was a better colour than the advertised photo in this occasion, but that is the exception to the rule usually.
Even if the photo upload limit were increased, I think you’d still run into the same issue. If I had the option to post multiple photo’s, I’d still be posting ones from the same series which would be the same lighting set up. A lot of breeders use (and some over-use) PP software to get the end result they feel best represents the animal. If a buyer is interested in an animal that’s listed, shouldn’t it be up to them to ask for additional photo’s in specific lighting?
The first category in the MM rating system is “Item as Described.” That should be the bulk of the criteria on which the seller is judged on their photography. Weight and visual characteristics corresponding with genetics can also be a factor, but for most people, they want the snake to look like it does in the photo when it comes out of the box.
Regardless of photography methods, it is in the seller’s best interest to make sure that the photo is both high quality and realistic. However there are tons of factors here. Did the seller use a light box? Did they adjust white balance? Are they using an actual camera, or a smart phone? Did the buyer view the photos on a 4-year old laptop, or an iPhone 12? Maybe the seller wanted to take a photo of the animal in daylight, but its 20 degrees outside.
Not every seller gets complaints. Also, not understanding photography and/or posting low quality pictures does not indicate an intent to deceive people. Are there sellers looking to fool buyers? Absolutely. But I think the majority of sellers with poor photos either don’t understand how to take good ones or just don’t care.
Rather than enforce a two photo minimum, I think that this is a job that should be left up to market forces. If a seller consistently mis-represents their animals, it will come to the surface. Buyers can note that in their reviews and the seller’s public ratings will reflect that.
Let’s not forget the people who purchase an animal that was represented by a low-quality or over-doctored photo simply because they liked the price, then chose not to leave a review. Unfortunately, that’s happening too.
Generally speaking, I tend to only provide additional photos to buyers who have either put down a deposit or already paid. There are simply too many people out there looking to waste your time.
…and of course there are exceptions. If you are posting high-priced animals that cross into the “investment” category, you may want to go above and beyond to make prospective buyers feel confident.
I can vouch that MorphMarket Support reaches out to people they trust when an ad is flagged as being misrepresented or trait/s mislabeled. We will absolutely ban anyone we believe is being deliberately dishonest.
If someone is willing and able to spend $$$ on an animal, then they should also bear some responsibility for having enough understanding about that animal and asked enough questions to judge if an ad is legitimate.
People that take poor quality pictures are unlikely going to up their photography skills for the extra picture.