Comments on: The Case Against Photo Illustrations

By: erik markov

erik markov — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:19:43 +0000

I think the whole issue is we need to define what a photo illustration is. From these two columns, it seems as tho everyone is only defining it as something that has been photoshopped. My PS skills aren't fabulous when it comes to doing photo illustrations. I do most of mine in the studio, and its always an assignment involving something that wouldn't normally happen in real life, so you can't really capture it as an image in the world. Whether its something involving food, or people, or an idea; I'm trying to illustrate a concept that can be vague. And I shoot everything for my paper; news, sports, features. But I have a clear line between illustrations and everything else. And frankly, I enjoy doing the occasional illustration for the paper, I get a chance to be creative in a different way.

By: ian campbell

ian campbell — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:51:29 +0000

As long as designers have more value than either photographers or writers, the illustration will reign.
Of course, there are also those nice photo agencies who pushed design by merging two or more photographers work, taking the copyright for themselves, and paying pennies for the product.
Is it any wonder so many photographers are hanging up the shutters?

By: carmen

carmen — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:12:22 +0000

I honestly think it doesn't matter. If there's a problem with trust now, there's no reason to think people will trust the labeling. It will just make them wonder what's been hidden or changed and why -- leading to even more conspiracy theories than there already are, unfortuantely.