Just Robyn Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 two different homeschool publications. HEM and Abeka So who had the picture first? Also, HEM is often so unschooly and Abeka is so - not, right? Not that that should mean they have different types of photos on their materials, just seems weird that they're sharing with each other - or it's somehow public domain?? I realize this isn't really important, but if anyone can clear this up for me, I'm interested. About the thread title - dh and I just thought that picture makes the girl look like a little villain. We had a laugh about it when HEM came in the mail. Then when I saw the picture is making the rounds I thought it was even funnier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LisaKinVA Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 It's probably a stock photo... meaning it's available to purchase publicly. Each company purchased specific rights to use it on a specific publication (a non-exclusive usuage) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katilac Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Yep, I'd guess they just made the same unfortunate choice in stock photos. That little girl is cute, but yeah, she looks like she's thinking someone into the cornfield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Robyn Posted July 10, 2011 Author Share Posted July 10, 2011 It's probably a stock photo... meaning it's available to purchase publicly. Each company purchased specific rights to use it on a specific publication (a non-exclusive usuage) Oh, that makes sense, but it's a little disappointing. I like to think all the photos used on homeschooling magazines are of homeschoolers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abbeyej Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Here you go! http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/royalty-free/42-26371988/girl-having-tea-party-outdoors (It *is* pretty funny that she ended up in two home schooling products though!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiobrain Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Oh, that makes sense, but it's a little disappointing. I like to think all the photos used on homeschooling magazines are of homeschoolers. I submitted some photos to HEM in 2007, thinking there was a chance any of them could get on the cover. Seriously, they were great. Anyway, they said... oh no, we wish we were able to get enough high quality photos for our covers, but we use a photo service... seriously? Mine were excellent, totally homeschooly and way better than many of their covers. I would have been much cheaper as well. ;) Maybe they have a contract with a stock photo company? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangermom Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Maybe they have a contract with a stock photo company? Yeah, they must. Last year I ran into the photo my charter school uses on its front page in a library magazine. It happens all the time, on book covers too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudoMom Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Here you go!http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/royalty-free/42-26371988/girl-having-tea-party-outdoors (It *is* pretty funny that she ended up in two home schooling products though!) Yeah...everybody knows we don't let our kids outside ;)! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Yep, I'd guess they just made the same unfortunate choice in stock photos. That little girl is cute, but yeah, she looks like she's thinking someone into the cornfield. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abbeyej Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 You can also google "everywhere girl" to see just how far a stock image can go... :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belacqua Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Yep, I'd guess they just made the same unfortunate choice in stock photos. That little girl is cute, but yeah, she looks like she's thinking someone into the cornfield. Heh. She kind of does look like she's hosting the Tea Party of DOOM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Using a stock photo on the cover doesn't really make me think much of a magazine's professional quality. But... she is amusingly sinister looking. And at least it looked better than that mishmash Abeka cover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dulcimeramy Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Yep, I'd guess they just made the same unfortunate choice in stock photos. That little girl is cute, but yeah, she looks like she's thinking someone into the cornfield. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dobela Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 A small version of that picture is $100, the large $250. No wonder magazines can't make much money. If thye have to pay for most pictures, or even half, in an issue it wouldd cost a small fortune for pictures alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5knights3maidens Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Ohhhh....I don't want to be mean but....Should this go with the post about clowns, human faces, etc... That picture turns me off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Heh. She kind of does look like she's hosting the Tea Party of DOOM. Like Alice in Wonderland gone mad. :lol: Poor girl, she's adorable otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NanceXToo Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Huh. That's sort of...disappointing lol. I always kind of assumed they would be actual homeschooled kids with pictures taken by parents or magazine staff or something. Who knew they'd "buy stock pictures" to put on the cover of homeschooling magazines?! Somehow that seems kind of stupid to me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funmamacita Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 She *is* a little Children of the Corn expression-wise! I've worked for a number of magazines, and you would be surprised how difficult it is to make casual photos (like the ones parents or magazine staffers might take) work even inside a magazine, much less on the cover. It seems like an obvious solution to use submitted photos, but small issues (like poor lighting, color problems, background "noise," etc.) are 1,000 times more obvious on a cover than in a regular photo. Buying stock photos is a lot cheaper than setting up a photo shoot, which can cost upwards of $1,500. Of course, the benefit is that you know your photo won't end up on 20 other magazine covers. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angela in ohio Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 I always assumed they were homeschoolers, too. So many other magazines (TOS, etc.) have custom photos on the cover, so it can't be THAT hard. But the sharing pictures between HEM and A Beka isn't weird to me. HEM is FULL of ads for packaged curriculum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dominion Heather Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 It probably has far more to do with the resolution of the photos. For a cover, the jpeg of the file would need to be between 2-3MB. So it is not enough for the photo to be "good", it would have to also be of very high resolution as well as a very large photo, taken with a professional quality camera. By the time you factor in the work time needed to make a shot publishable by lightening the background, getting rid of odd shadows, and any other work needed; it is FAR less expensive to use a stock photo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tammyw Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) You know, I never noticed anything sinister-looking in this picture. Unfortunately there is always a risk, when using stock photography, that a picture will show up elsewhere. Exclusive rights are very expensive. I doubt very much that a small homeschool magazine would ever have the funds to buy an exclusive-rights image though. And because I love the magazine so much, it doesn't bother me. I don't buy for the cover image, but for the amazing content inside. My exciting news - the July/August cover of HEM WILL have a picture of a homeschooled boy, taken by a homeschooling mom (me!) Needless to say I've been checking my mailbox DAILY, anxiously awaiting its arrival!! Edited July 10, 2011 by tammyw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.