Your "images" aren't placed images. You are using images as a fill of a rectangle. A fill is an attribute of a container and therefore is is – like every attribute (stroke, background colour, corner radius, opacity, …) – taken over into a graphic style.
If you place images, a graphic style doesn't adopt the image, because in this case it is not an attribute, but a content.
1 person found this helpful
Yes (and no):
A fill has nothing to do with the object type. You can fill image containers, rectangles, buttons, text frames, composition targets, composition triggers, menu backgrounds, and …, and …, and …)
Placed images need (or already have) an image container. This is the „crossed out“ rectangle tool in the toolbar.
You may nevertheless fill an image container with a background image, which will be visible, if no image is placed into it.
You can create a „normal“ rectangle, which can be filled with an image. But you can’t place an image into such a rectangle. (Filled) Rectangles can be scaled unproportionally, image frames can’t – or better: only, if they (a) don’t contain a placed image or (b) only contain a fill image.
The disadvantages of filling a frame with image:
- You can’t add keywords to fill images, because HTML conventions define fills as a simple „decoration“.
- Regarding graphic styles: A fill is considered to be an attribute, what means, that fills will be transferred to other elements if applying a graphic style.
The advantage of filling a frame with an image:
- The element (a rectangle, a text frame or an image frame without a placed image) can be scaled deliberately, not only proportionally.
Sounds complicated? Just try it and ask, if there are further questions.