Photography: Original vs. Stock
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Photography: Original vs. Stock”.
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Photography: Original vs. Stock”.
But Michael, people keep telling me that it doesn’t matter. Photos on websites are just eye candy. They don’t effect people’s decisions. I mean, for instance here, why would anyone form a negative opinion of these companies?
http://fairtradephotographer.blogspot.com/2010/03/microstock-why-would-reputable-company.html
Chris, I hope that post is lined with sarcasm, but I can understand the negative attitude. Its fine to use stock images. I just feel that if you are going to use stock, but exclusive rights. Spend a little bit more and get an identity. Don’t trust that your company is the only one to use an image.
As for Photos on websites being eye candy, Perhaps. But then again perhaps images in National Geographic and Sports Illustrated are eye candy too. Its not possible that they could actually tell a story. Could they?
Now THAT is sarcasm.