Post by Stockphoto SellerThe quote below presents an entirely arbitrary and somewhat
capricious opinion. Playing with semantics rather than looking at the
actual use of a photo in or on a product.
Post by Stockphoto SellerIn general, one does not buy a mousepad or a mug enhanced with an
image for the image alone any more than a book or magazine with images
solely for their visual content. In editorial products--books,
magazines, CD's, etc.--the images are every bit as integral (or not),
on average, to the value of the product as for products using images
as design elements to enhance sales. In fact, the visual information
in photos may be irreplaceable in many editorial uses, making the
product grossly inferior or useless without the images. One can still
drink from a cup without a photo, but one cannot learn what an okapi
looks like except from first-hand viewing or an image of some sort.
Try selling a childrens book without drawn illustrations or
photographs. Try selling an introductory biology textbook without
micrographs and photographs.
You've got it the wrong way round Carl. A mousemat doesn't need a
photo, a mug doesn't need a photo. Therefore the photo is the main
reason for the product existing. The photos are not the main reason
for a textbook, and one single photo is never the reason for a textbook.
'Images' is the keyword. A textbook uses many images. No single image
is what the product depends on.
I think jigsaws, calendars are a grey area. You don't really buy a
jigsaw for the image, you buy it for the puzzle. But RF and L vendors
alike consider jigsaws to be mostly the image, in their value.
Calendars - well, there are 12 pix. Maybe more. You buy for the dates,
not the pix. But again, the trade generally sees the calendar as being
composed of its images, as a product.
In the past - even when I used RF material 35 years ago in newspapers
- most RF was unsuitable for any normal use. It consisted, then, of
cheesy Schafline bromides of housewives serving meals, of furniture,
living rooms, washing machines, cars, stuff like that. Just
advertising block rubbish. There was no editorial RF, partly because
editorial always used normal screening for photos, while ads used
Schafline, which has great impact and clarity but looks artificial.
There was syndicated editorial, which was not so far different. You
got a column of set type (really cheap papers could cut and paste the
proof as a bromide!) and regular photo prints, which had to go on the
clichegraph like any other repro. You paid so many hundreds a year,
and got your cookery column, gardening column, motoring piece etc
every week by syndication from an agency. No need for a real live
journo or photographer. Once you had it, you could re-use any time you
liked.
Today the problem is you can get almost ANYTHING in RF form and RF
distribution is more prominent and the permitted uses are wider, and
the price is lower. You just couldn't get the old RF stuff unless you
subscribed, and had big budgets. Event the first RF CD collections
were not cheap, per CD, only per image - and often you would need to
buy an entire CD just to get a single shot. Now you can buy single
images for cents.
David