Welcome!

And don't forget to edit your signature & profile.

 

Icon

Statistics

  • Total posts 23318
  • Total topics 4048
  • Total members 5574
  • Our newest member
    ALF5583

TOP POSTERS

Stock Photography - the good and the bad?

Master photography by learning new techniques, discussing photo shots and sharing your tricks in this forum.
   

Stock Photography - the good and the bad?

Postby Jovan » Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:21 pm

Hey everyone,

I don't believe this question has been asked before, and Google searches don't show much life either.

I've been assigned a task to remodel a website, and I want to bring in more photography and peoples faces and activities related to the content. I am not a photographer, and I was considering using a stock photography website. However, I wanted to get an opinion on things like: is stock photography worth the money? Getty Images and Corbis charge $50.00 for the smallest resolution, while not awfully expensive I am wondering if people consider the price tag to be worth the image in general. Can stock photography cheapen a website (do seasoned web designers stay away from it)?

Anything else wildly related you wish to throw my way, I am all ears.
Jovan
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:59 pm
   

   
Stock photography is both good and bad. On the upside, it can add a nice professional feel at a relatively low cost, and without the time and effort involved in doing the photography yourself. On the downside, these photos are available for anyone to use, so it is possible that you will find multiple companies within the same industry using the same photos. Ideally, it would be nice to have custom photography, to ensure that it matches 100% with what you had in mind, and no one else would use the same images, but not everyone is a photographer, and not all companies will pay for the work involved in that. I wouldn't necessarily say that using stock imagery is a bad thing, or can cheapen the website, unless you are popular images that everyone else is using too.

Keep in mind that there are other stock photo sites that charge less than $50 a photo... istockphoto and dreamstime both come to mind (both in the range of $1 to $10 a photo). Price and quality do go hand in hand though.
Benjamin Falk | student : designer : developer
http://www.falkencreative.com | http://www.twitter.com/falkencreative
User avatar
falkencreative
Smashing <li>
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:25 pm
Location: Chico, CA
   

   

Re: Stock Photography - the good and the bad?

Postby timlum » Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:12 am

Hey Jovan,

This is a good question as I have seen large companies use the same stock photography in completely different campaigns. Weather it is good or bad, using stock photography is becoming a common solution. There are Pros & Cons to use it which will depend on your project but I'd pitch to the client and work it into the budget. And if you want original photographs, hiring a photographer is your next option : )
Tim Lum | Creatively ripped @pixelflex
User avatar
timlum
Smashing <frame>
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:24 am
Location: Muskoka, Canada
   


Return to Photography



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest