I think the products you are showing are not photographs.
In the example of the little donation bank, the photograph is an (essential) element, not the design itself. The photographic placement through graphic design and art direction is only made possible by the physical properties of the cylinder that is able to take graphics through a production process. If this donation bank where made of glass, the photographic treatment might not be possible… as such, again, an element of the design, and perhaps a key driver, but not the design itself.
In the example of the bird repeat pattern, the design is in the pattern, the sketch is an execution, and a critical element, but not the design itself.
In the case of my personal opinion, which is what I’m offering, I can make it black and white
Also, I must point out, this is no disrespect to photography. Actually the opposite, it is its own thing! I think it is a bit of an arrogance that we think so many things are design. By ever expanding the boundaries of design, we are weakening the meaning of the word.
Architects were smart when they introduced the specialization of planning, urban planning, and structural engineering, keeping architecture for themselves. I think many of the things we call design at the current moment will be called something else in a decade, but industrial and graphic design will remain design, because there is really no other word for them. In the case of graphic and industrial work it isn’t a metaphor it is actually what it is.
There can also be a separation between design as a verb, and design as a noun. You can be designing anything. To design something is a pretty broad term. What design IS as an end statement, a noun, is actually much narrower in my view. While many people can be designing at a moment or two, much fewer are designers by my definition… my definition might not be the most accepted, but it is the one I go by…