Comments on: Stock Photography Sucks

By: Sarah

Sarah — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 23:14:50 +0000

Ok, so I found these postings while hunting up and down for good stock photography of a youth group. I’m in the process of updating our church website (click my name) and I discovered I was itching to add my two cents.
My personal beef with stock photography is that, like AndyM said, it is all very slick and clean copy. It seems fake. When I look at a website or a brochure I can tell immediately from the photos whether it is actual people at their church or real people from their church.
I believe that on a really good church website and in brochures and the like, you need a good, discreet mix of stock and “real” photography. I don’t have a problem with stock photography because it does have its place. When I need a circle of hands, a praying child or the like, I turn to stock photography. But for large images that really become a symbol in people’s minds that THIS is what that church is, I don’t want them picturing some generic setting sun with the three crosses silhouetted against it, I want the soaring bell tower of our own church against a bright blue sky. That has much more meaning.
And I think that’s a big thing. I blink right past stock photography because it looks so fake and generic that it just doesn’t stand out for me. Whereas more authentic photography makes me stop because I simply “notice” it more. One trick I use is finding “real people” on free, user-generated stock websites like stock.xchng and MorgueFile. Then of course there are always Flickr photos that are licensed under the Creative Commons rules of copyright. Those are my best friends.
Sure, if you are already a professional photographer who is making a brochure that will look EXACTLY the same whether you use stock people or not, who cares? Use stock. But if you are trying to show specific examples of what your church is like, you need that authenticity. Otherwise people just aren’t going to look twice.

By: AndyM

AndyM — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:56:40 +0000

Since this thing is going on forever I might as well jump in. When I read the article I was reminded of the fact that alot of people in our church wanted us to get pictures of “actual people” who attended instead of the stock photos we went with. At the time it was an issue of getting good quality. Simple. Now that things have advanced and we have resources/people with photography talent we have started to utilize more homegrown stuff.
What made me write, though, is the very first comment on this post where the gentleman is referring to the fact that stock people “never get divorced, have an embarrassing outburst or situation in the church, cheat on their husbands or wives, have a baby out of wedlock or get recognized at a local bar”. Wow. As a pastor that statement speaks volumes to me about the concerns of our image over actual ministry. I do understand that some of the situations (divorce being one) where people don’t want their picture attached to your church need to be considered, but with alot of the other issues it seems that we are way too concerned with “how we’re going to look to the other Christians” than with being a true church. Undoubtedly every situation is different. There’s no way to paint this with a large brush. The statements (and I’m sure that they weren’t meant the way I have read them) just hit me as a reminder that all the promotion, cool, slick ad copy in the world means nothing is we aren’t ready to face the reality of the world we are supposed to be ministering in.
Maybe we use the fake stuff because we are worried our own people “aren’t clean enough” to use. I’m pointing the finger at myself when I say that this is probably a good time to evaluate quality/ministry and move towards a more realistic image in our communication. If we want to reach people that are hurting then a few bruises might be the right option.
Just my opinion, though.

By: kimk

kimk — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:20:59 +0000

I do design for a church, I found out about stock photos and was hooked. It’s had to get people wanting to be in a photo, and then making sure its lit well etc. But also I’ve found with stock photos people look very american, so its not often i can use people photos for my church stuff because everyone can tell that they are not New Zealanders. But i’ve read some great points in these posts about how the photos age quick if you take them yourself, and stock people don’t age. Thanks.

By: Jordan

Jordan — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 09:50:35 +0000

I would suggest when searching for stock photos if possible search by rating and not by downloads. A lot of stock websites like istock.com are community based and other contributors will rate photos they like. When searching by downloads you will get a good photo but it has been used a ton of times and might not even be your best choice because its a couple of years old. Just my thoughts

By: Jim Miller

Jim Miller — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 08:12:01 +0000

You know a discussion is great when the thread goes on for almost a year!
The best thing about this conversation is that it will help new designers avoid cliches. I hope your negative examples will put a final end to the overused “baby birds” pose. (That’s what I call the shots taken from 17′ up. It makes everyone look like baby birds waiting to be fed.) We used to take our staff photos like that and I was tired of getting a sore neck!
I use a lot of stock photography at my own church, but I’m typically going after objects instead of people. That doesn’t always work, but if you have the option for one over the other, go with objects.

By: Andy Rowell

Andy Rowell — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:58:40 +0000

Kevin and Friends, Two links for you on this subject. At the first, I summarize the second. How to Find Free Legal Photos and Images Alot of great ideas here despite the title about getting good free photos. The Copyright Blues How to make sure your church isn't in the wrong when it comes to copyright

By: liz

liz — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 09:56:41 +0000

you might find a great photographer right in your church. I help with a team of 20 in my church and we do a whole bunch of projects for them (us.

By: Nate

Nate — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:42:44 +0000

I get bugged sometimes when stock photography is used to represent diversity that may not really exist.

By: Nate

Nate — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:40:43 +0000

Several years ago I noticed that an image of a woman I’d seen promoting a Christian college was also featured in our local phone book in an ad for an abortion clinic. Yikes.

By: Stephen Kiers

Stephen Kiers — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:28:13 +0000

If anyone is interested in checking out Design Pics, the Christian Agency I mentioned above click on my name as the link. I was sure I had mentioned them in my last post, but I guess I missed that detail.
They are the stock agency our church goes through and we have been more than happy. $300/year for 100 images. That is way cheaper than anywhere else you could find. (that was our last quote, it may have changed since then a little).