Used media Photos - DIY or use templates?

[lupercal]

This relates to books, vintage magazines, CD's, DVD's -  anything for which there can be  many copies for sale, where condition can be a big factor. These sorts of items have always comprised the majority of my listings. Sometimes it's something very rare and obscure and it will be the only copy in Australia, but more often there will be several or even a dozen or more.

I've so far always taken my own photos. I notice though that a lot of sellers, just use ebay stock photos. I've figured that taking the time to present photos of the specific item makes sense. If I were a buyer I'd want to see what I was buying (assuming it isn't brand new), but looking through sold listings, I'm not seeing that sellers who do what I'm doing seem to wind up getting higher prices. Yes, this can be down to reasons other than the photos. But everything being even, which way would you go?

Photographing items in itself isn't that big a deal for me, but getting a good shot - particularly of CD's, which are getting to be a big part of my stock lately - can be frustrating. If it's overcast there's lots of blue light, and the colours look wrong. Often you can't get an angle where  the darn camera (or, phone, whatever) isn't reflected in the jewel case. At most angles the angled light on the reflective plastic will pick up every imperfection and make it look awful, and so on.  Life would probably be easier if I just let ebay plonk a stock image up.

But I do want to show people the item they're bidding on. Apart from it just feeling like the right thing to do, it would seem to reduce the probability of 'not as described'; complaints.

If you're a seller and have had to make the same choice, which way did you go? If you were a buyer, would you be convinced by a stock photo which always presents the (used)  item as perfect, or would you want to see original photos.

Cheers

[kopenhagen5]

Personally I think a stock photo for a new item is acceptable.

However the eBay system will often not accept a stock photo, especially if it has been accessed from the net.

If I was buying a used item I would want to see what it looks like.

With a stock photo I feel like I am not seeing the item at all.

Also in searches, if I see a good photo that looks like a home seller (used), I feel like I might get a good price from such a seller rather than listings showing new items.

[casbit33]

I like the photo of the actual item, I think you open yourself up for negs if you use a stock photo of new items and your items are used.

I think a lot of stock photos are used which is ok if the item is new and looks exactly like the photo.

Perhaps just do the photos your self for used items and stock photos for new.

I do all my own photos - good and bad, but at least they are mine.

[davewil1964]

I scan front and back covers of all my books.

More than half the time eBay don't have a stock pic available anyway, for those that are in their catalogue, and they explicitly state it won't be displayed for a used book anyway.

As an aside, I'm currently going through my listings to edit for the new categories and a few are coming up with the ISBN blank. These were books that were in the catalogue and in culling the catalogue entry, eBay are culling my ISBNs. Not putting 'Does Not Apply' in, just leaving the field blank. Which would presumably mean they would fall into unsold when the next relist is due.

So that's some extra work to look forward to.

[jane-de-cluttering]

Yes I think actual photos should be used. And as a buyer I would always choose the item thus advertised, all other things being equal.

As a seller, the only time I haven’t is in respect of a dress where it was impossible to show the cut without an actual model wearing it.  But I was careful to say this was a stock photo, and to supplement it with ones of the actual item.

However in respect of books I find that other major websites (eg AbeBooks) routinely use a single stock photo (or nothing), and the buyer must rely on the verbal description.  And as you’d know, book-sellers have a very precise jargon that they use.  This seems to be par for the course in book-world.

[whoisbiggles]

New or Used - I always use photos i've taken of the item - in the hope this will minimise dramas later. 

[lupercal]

---

@jane-de-cluttering wrote:

Yes I think actual photos should be used. And as a buyer I would always choose the item thus advertised, all other things being equal.

As a seller, the only time I haven’t is in respect of a dress where it was impossible to show the cut without an actual model wearing it.  But I was careful to say this was a stock photo, and to supplement it with ones of the actual item.

However in respect of books I find that other major websites (eg AbeBooks) routinely use a single stock photo (or nothing), and the buyer must rely on the verbal description.  And as you’d know, book-sellers have a very precise jargon that they use.  This seems to be par for the course in book-world.

---

Yes, my background is bookselling - was my first fulltime job - other stuff has crept up to become dominant lately. So I know all the bookseller grades and jargon. But to be honest this mostly only makes sense to other people who are at least familiar with the industry in some way. I include things like 'inscription on ffep' or 'bumping near foot' or 'spine roll' but it's really only an extra for people who understand it. I assume the average customer doesn't understand this unless I either explain every term, or include a glossary, or simply use vaguer non-bookseller terms which defeat the purpose of providing a shorthand.  Which is why I incluide photos of the actual item as well. It also doesn't help that I have to either adopt ebay's grading system, or explain that  bookseller gardes have nothing to do with ebay's. A book in 'good' condition in bookseller grades is at the second lowest rating out of five accepted levels (and that's assuming you don't use interstitial grades like 'F-' or 'F+'   )

Anyway thanks to everyone who responded to this thread

[lm-entertainment]

with the buyer-dominated nature of selling on ebay ruling when it comes to "item not as described" claims - i think it's foolish not to have photos of the actual item you are selling. you're opening up yourself to a world of hurt. a lot of people won't care about it, but it'll be the one or two that do that can be financially costly. 

that being said, i always use self-taken photos on my listings as well as include the stock photo (but not as the primary photo). i guess it depends on the individual buyers preference. as a buyer, if a person is selling multiple quantity items, i find self-taken photos to be a little pointless, unless it is to simply show the actual item and how it does differ from the stock photo of the item; knowing full-well you're probably not getting the exact item in the self-taken photos because the seller may have 10s, 100s, 1000s, etc. 

in a nutshell, my personal preference when selling is to always take photos of the actual item i'm selling. for protective reasons and simply to be more transparent so that the buyer knows what to expect they're going to receive.