One of 'em received some obviously remarkable Photoshop work. But I ain't givin' away the answer just yet.
Type your answer in the Comments area ("A" if you think the photo on the left was retouched, and "B" if you're figuring it was the one on the right) -- and be sure to subscribe to the Comment Feed.
3/21/08 UPDATE: You'll find the answer in Comments.
Stock photography is one of the biggest contributors to mediocrity in our industry.
When those big, fat stock photo books show up at our direct marketing shop, we toss them right in the can. That way, we're never tempted to search through them for "ideas."
People who pull together concepts by rifling through stock photo books take an ass-backwards approach to creative development. We're supposed to start with an idea - then figure out how to properly pull it off. We shouldn't begin with an image that needs an excuse to be used.
Even when stock photography is a viable way to go, it's often better to shoot (pun intended) for original photography. Execution is everything in this business, and I've seen lots of concepts adulterated by stock shots.
But what about the economic case for stock photography? Very often, there isn't one. If the goal is to minimize costs, stock photography is the way to go. And yes, sometimes stock photography is absolutely essential. If I need a shot of Vince Lombardi, obviously I'm not going to shoot the coach, who headed to the stadium in the sky in 1970.
When it's about the bottom line, it often pays to get the shot you need, rather than the shot that's most convenient. Higher quality usually costs less.
Mothers of Invention marketing agency founder and president.
Recent Comments