What is it with certain gun sellers online and taking really bad pictures?

[Yaworski]

I've been wondering that for years. For years I've seen crappy photos with the comment "Sorry about the crappy photo. It's my cell phone. LOL."

If I want a decent photo, I dig out my camera then download them to the computer where I can do some cropping, color adjusting, etc.

Most people were confused by Instamatics and now virtually no one can put their camera into landscape before taking a pic.

 

[hemiram]

I've gotten some great deals on auctions where the pics were just awful, but the guns were in nearly new condition, but dirty. I don't understand why someone doesn't at least wipe it down before taking the pics of it. You're trying to get the most for it, right? One gun, an Astra A100 had terrible pics of it on the GB auction post, and it had "rust" on the muzzle end of the slide. It wasn't rust, it was jeweler's rouge, and the seller must have forgotten he put it on there to "smooth it up", or he bought it to flip and didn't bother looking at the "rust". That gun was in almost new condition, with a small nick on the triggerguard being the only mark on it. It took a bunch of cleaning to get all that rouge out of it.

One of my guns, a 28-2 4", that I bought on GB was posted with some awful pics, a couple were blurry, and the gun was really dirty with lint and what I assumed was cat hair on it. The seller was the original owner, and I even got the 1967 sales receipt with his name on it. He assured me it was "very nice" and it was better than "very nice". He cleaned and lubed it, and I said after I got it that he might want to get a new phone, as those pics were really bad. He said that he sold it because he was 78 years old, and thinning out his collection, and that both his wife and he needed new phones, and his wife liked iPhones.

 

[LVSteve]

I've gotten some great deals on auctions where the pics were just awful, but the guns were in nearly new condition, but dirty. I don't understand why someone doesn't at least wipe it down before taking the pics of it. You're trying to get the most for it, right? One gun, an Astra A100 had terrible pics of it on the GB auction post, and it had "rust" on the muzzle end of the slide. It wasn't rust, it was jeweler's rouge, and the seller must have forgotten he put it on there to "smooth it up", or he bought it to flip and didn't bother looking at the "rust". That gun was in almost new condition, with a small nick on the triggerguard being the only mark on it. It took a bunch of cleaning to get all that rouge out of it.

I bought a Finnish M28 Mosin from an online estate auction that described every old milsurp as a Mauser and had terrible pictures to add to their sins. The stock had a massive repair on it so I warned my FFL that the incoming rifle was somewhat "rustic". When I went to pick it up he said, "Rustic is right. I can see rustic coming out of the muzzle".

Sure enough there was a reddish/brown powdery material visible at the muzzle. Turned out it was old, petrified "sisu" grease from Finnish storage. I must assume the "rustic" put off those in the auction room as well, much to my benefit. The bore is actually very nice.

 

[Narragansett]

I pass over guns that are not good pics, or ask for new ones, if interested. I also ask for a better description, you know like no rust, pitting, scratches, light surface rust or freckles. Also, there is the gun with 20 pics, and no frame shots, recoil shield or top strap pics.
One BIG TIME dealer on GB has banned me from bidding, because I ask too many questions. No doubt, because I have caught his omissions.

That's fine, he needs me more than I need him. Because I have cash, and with that I can buy food. I do not care how long he boils his gun, it will never get soft enough to eat.

 

[LVSteve]

One BIG TIME dealer on GB has banned me from bidding, because I ask too many questions. No doubt, because I have caught his omissions.

That wouldn't be the guy with a fondness for gray blankets, perchance?

 

[smoothshooter]

That’s a real sore point with me too.
There is a muzzleloading forum I frequent, many of whose members are particularly bad at taking pictures. They often will post 4 to 10 different views, but none of them are full-length .
Makes me want to strangle someone for being so ignorant sometimes.

 

[smoothshooter]

I've been wondering that for years. For years I've seen crappy photos with the comment "Sorry about the crappy photo. It's my cell phone. LOL."

If I want a decent photo, I dig out my camera then download them to the computer where I can do some cropping, color adjusting, etc.

Most people were confused by Instamatics and now virtually no one can put their camera into landscape before taking a pic.

Really good pictures can be taken with call phones.

 

[Narragansett]

That wouldn't be the guy with a fondness for gray blankets, perchance?

I cannot comment on on gray blankets. It is Bryant Ridge

 

[Laketime]

I dislike the cell phone pictures that was not taking horizontal.I also won’t look at a gun over a green or bright red felt background.Just me.

 

[Yaworski]

Really good pictures can be taken with call phones.

Yeah, sure.

 

[Laketime]

Yeah, sure.

High definition on cell phone or camera is the same results

 

[NFrameFred]

I'd pass on any gun that is advertised with bad pictures. Request better ones or find another deal. Could be done purposely in order to disguise a defect or damage.

There's always a chance of buying a pig-in-a-poke even with good photos. I've been 'lucky' though I attribute it to being willing to trust my instincts and recognize the very likely difference between what looks like questionable condition because of crummy photos and what is a problem child. At least three different times I've purchased on line from guys whose photography skills were, at best, lacking or down right pitiful. But looking at the lighting and angles from what I knew of such I took a chance and was rewarded with a piece for a good price that drew no bids because of crappy pix.

Conversely, I picked up one that looked terrible in the ad because the guy went out of his way to shoot detailed pictures of a nickel gun in the worst possible harsh lighting conditions that magnified and highlighted every seeming 'scratch' or 'blemish' to grotesque proportions. Again, past experience with such prompted me to take a chance and it was one of those examples of a used gun that one had to look at from mere inches away under bright light at just the right angle to see all these "faults". From more than a foot away under normal lighting conditions it could have passed for a new one. I benefited from the fact that in his diligence to be totally transparent he went overboard and crippled the image (unfairly, in my estimation after the fact) of the piece he was trying to sell.

I've shied away from many because of the photos, but was rewarded with a little experience and taking a chance more than once. I might get burned the next time . . . . but ya gotta stay in your comfort zone . . . . .

 

[Echo40]

It's funny, but since I posted this thread, one of the firearms I was shopping for online has had every last listed example sold, save for the one with really bad pics, despite the fact that it was among the cheapest in price, and was an earlier, more desirable model.
So it really serves to illustrate my point that taking quick, lazy, careless, poor quality pictures of anything you're trying to sell is counterproductive.

Honestly, had the seller bothered to clean, lubricate, and take multiple clear photos of the firearm, then I have no doubt that it would have sold by now like all the others did, probably even faster since it's an older model.

On a side note, I'd like to take this opportunity to point something else out in response to those who argued that back in the day folks used to sell firearms in the paper all the time without any photographs. First of all, I'm perfectly aware of this, as I was alive prior to the existence of the internet and used to browse through such listings in the local paper all the time. However, back then most sales were finalized in person where the buyer could see/examine what they were shopping for, and there's the kicker.

For example, my LGS has a website, and unfortunately the pics they take aren't very good either — not nearly as bad as some online, but not great either — they tend to be taken from a distance under the dim florescent lighting of the store, so you can't see much detail.
However, they're at least adequate, and it's of little consequence regardless because the shop is located a short distance away from me on a road which I frequently go down anyway, so stopping by to examine guns personally effectively renders their less than satisfactory pics a non-issue.

So under circumstances in which a firearm is being sold locally via an FFL that anyone can visit and see the gun for themselves, poor pics aren't as big a deal. I'm specifically complaining about online listings in which an FFL Holder is attempting to sell their firearms nationwide, yet takes poor pictures which fail to adequately reflect the overall physical condition of their wares.

 

[hemiram]

Really good pictures can be taken with call phones.

I had a phone about 7 years ago that took just amazingly bad pics. It was fine at first, but after an update of the firmware, the camera was just trashed. I ended up buying a new phone, just for the camera improvement. The new phone wasn't nearly as good as the old one was, for making phone calls anyway. The Samsung I have now is touchy about where I am in my apartment on calls, but in the car/at work, it's great and has zero issues.

 

[Oldsalt66]

High definition on cell phone or camera is the same results

With proper lighting and composition, very good, to excellent, results can be obtained with HD cellphone cameras.

 

[KalamazooKid]

I’m all in with wishing people would take and post great pictures!

I’ve been the beneficiary of some buys on the big auction site of guns with absolutely terrible pics - to the point where no one would bid and guns have turned out to be in excellent condition.