We are photographic artists, providing our treasured, massaged, carefully manicured images to another creative arena. As artists, we love the work we've done, and want the viewing public to adore it for all of its natural splendor.
So we upload it to a stock site, and expect it to be featured in a travel brochure, or as a centerpiece of a TV commercial.
Our clients, however, are artists in their own right. They see images as raw material to enhance and fill out their own artistic vision. Your carefully crafted image might be wholly unrecognizable in its next generation form, but without it, the graphics designer would not have had the raw material with which to create their own art.
For example, on the left is a photo of Ithaca Falls, in Ithaca, NY.
I, personally, think that this is a beautiful photo of early spring, life just returning to the trees; an image of cold, raw beauty.
On the right, is the graphics designer's creation. Only elements of the original image were used, the color changed, graphics and labels added - and this is background to the web site's menu.
Is one better than the other?
Do I care what they have done to my image?
Does it matter? I don't think so.
The image was used for exactly the purpose for which a stock image was intended - as raw material for the graphics designer,
Each is valid.
Each is art.
Each is wonderful.
Until next time!
