FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


bwaaahahaha- how to get a picture of what doesn't exist





S3nd K3ys
Take a look at the Democratic Party's own website expressing their support for the troops and their families.

http://www.democrats.org/a/communities/veterans_and_military_families/

Touching, until you find out that in order to get a fitting group picture they had to buy it.

http://www.fotosearch.com/DGV648/1992030/



I guess a more realistic picture of Cindy Sheehan just wouldn't have presented the right image.
ArthurBenevicci
Wow...that's pretty screwed up. I'm really disappointed Confused
hofodomo01
This is why the GOP will always be not quite as much but nonetheless better than the 'Crats.

Still pretty funny though...
S3nd K3ys
hofodomo01 wrote:
This is why the GOP will always be not quite as much but nonetheless better than the 'Crats.

Still pretty funny though...


It's kind of sad when you think about it, but you're absolutely correct.
Bondings
It's not just a group of people, it's a group of people with disabilities!

It's just a standard picture that the webmaster/design team bought and is using for the website background/layout. Custom pictures would be even more expensive. If the picture would have been in an article or image gallery, then I would definately have agreed. But this isn't the case here.
xalophus
Isn't that what stock photographs are for ? Shocked

Next thing you know, someone will be complaining about the use of standard images of the generic American flag on their site!

Oh, by the way, what's this!?






S3nd K3ys wrote:
hofodomo01 wrote:
This is why the GOP will always be not quite as much but nonetheless better than the 'Crats.

Still pretty funny though...


It's kind of sad when you think about it, but you're absolutely correct.

If that's how your "logic" goes, I sure hope you don't try to base your mandate on logic.
dac_nip
that's just cruel. its all about money. a materialist world!
a.Bird
This is a very hard hitting issue, I think we should set up a formal debate.
mschnell
a.Bird wrote:
This is a very hard hitting issue, I think we should set up a formal debate.


Yah, I agree! What a debate we're having over weather or not parties should buy pictures for their websites and the implications of doing so! Maybe those are turning out to be the big issues this year. Gotta try to get some heat off all their boys getting forced to drop out of the party. It's been a rough year.
darvit
Ah, the irony!

But this is just reality, I guess. People would go to do all sorts of things in order to boost public opinion.. For this case, it's for their website's aesthetic and "emotional" appeal.

And anyway, if these websites weren't around, stock photographers would be jobless.

A great find, by the way! Very Happy
Blaster
Bondings wrote:
It's not just a group of people, it's a group of people with disabilities!

It's just a standard picture that the webmaster/design team bought and is using for the website background/layout. Custom pictures would be even more expensive. If the picture would have been in an article or image gallery, then I would definately have agreed. But this isn't the case here.


I have to agree with you bondings. It is just a group of people. Does it way that it is a picture of military famlies? no it doesn't so it isn't that bad. If it did then it would be really good.
HoboPelican
darvit wrote:
...
And anyway, if these websites weren't around, stock photographers would be jobless.



Actually, stock photo agencys have been around as long as I can remember, and Im talking WAY before the web was in existence. Magazines, advertisers, pamphlet designers and others have used these sources for decades. This is not something new. I guess this is what qualifies as an issue this year.
scotty
It doesn't seem silly to me. When a fashion label wants to promote their product they don't look for someone in the street who has bought it to take a photo, they get a model!

Although "Rent a Crowd" comes to mind... Razz
a.Bird
darvit wrote:
But this is just reality, I guess. People would go to do all sorts of things in order to boost public opinion.. For this case, it's for their website's aesthetic and "emotional" appeal.

Exactly, it's called commercialism, and it's the world we are all living in right now.
schudder
Exactely.

There are very very very few companies and political organisations that actually go out in the streets to find supporters to take a picture of them.

I think you can safely say at least 90% of such pictures are either models who simply don't care what they're posing for or quite simply stock pictures like this one.

Nothing scandalous about it... In fact, in a lot of places, a lot of companies and parties are quite open about using stock pictures.
Blaster
schudder wrote:
Exactely.

There are very very very few companies and political organisations that actually go out in the streets to find supporters to take a picture of them.

I think you can safely say at least 90% of such pictures are either models who simply don't care what they're posing for or quite simply stock pictures like this one.

Nothing scandalous about it... In fact, in a lot of places, a lot of companies and parties are quite open about using stock pictures.

Its a lot easier and cheaper thats why. Why go thourgh a lot of work and money when you can just go out and buy some. Its a lot easier then actually doing the work. Same with web design. Most will just pay for it to be done.
Josso
Haha yeah I can see that it doesn't say "Troops and their families" as a caption or something but the way it's presented implies it in places... quite funny Laughing
hofodomo01
Hey, even outside of simple money making, it's still all about the money....my gas prices dropped a whole dollar recently...house elections same time period...make a connection?
eLto
America in a nutshell. Bush is a raging maniac, and we all know it. well, the rest of the world knows it, seeing as you americans keep voting for him, even after he did 9/11. Not trying to take on that discussion again, but you gotta admit, it makes sense.
Rico
Stop whining and be grateful you live in the first world.
Bockman
I could even say both websites weren't built by members of the respective parties...

As in all other websites, it was bought from a web design company and THEY used stock photos to build it (yes, it must have been aprooved by someone from the parties, obviously).

A few months ago I had a market research to build a website for my employer, and in all of them (10 or so) we had a clause that was related to buying stock photos to put on the site.

It's common practice to do that on webdesign. Wether it's correct or not is a whole other debate.

Be Well Cool

P.S. - my party ALSO uses stock photos for their website and even on some newsletters they send.. so what?
Josso
Yeah, guess I'm lucky I live in the UK Laughing
hofodomo01
Let those parliment dudes duke it out with each other, eh?
albusa
no bro!, i dont paying a cent
Related topics
IE 7 to take a cue from Firefox
Tutorials
S|ex At Undermaturity
Any thing suit for beginners better than FrontPage
Surprising Rock
favourites picture
Serial killers and sick societies
Gradient Fill Cell
A good, if scary photo
Repaired.......................
File "doesn't exist"
Do you think creationism should be regarded as science?
Can the church make up its mind?
IF YOU ARE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEND A DAY .............
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.