Stock Photography: A designer’s best friend or worst nightmare?
To use stock or not to use stock, that is not the question. What we need to understand is how to use stock photography responsibly. We need to utilize our creativity to ensure the purchased elements are appropriate and elegantly integrated into our designs. Just because anyone can purchase stock photography doesn’t necessarily mean anyone can use stock photography, or should.
Now, when I speak of stock photography, I am really talking about all stock elements (icons, graphics, flash, videos, etc). Services such as iStockPhoto and FAMFAMFAM have made the use of stock elements ever more popular; making the once expensive and often out-of-reach elements more accessibility. However, now that these elements are more accessibility, we need to realize that the possibility of our close competitors using the exact same visual imagery as ourselves is ever more increasing.
The “contact us” page with the infamous female wearing a headset has become synonymous with tacky and obvious stock usage. Try not to be obvious when using stock and even though this is the largest challenge, try and be as original as possible. FAMFAMFAM has given most of us the ability to add subtle “web 2.0” elements into our visual communication – it has been an amazing resource for those who can’t create these little icons of wonder. However, the secret is out folks – FAMFAMFAM is dead; or at least it should be within the design community. We can spot it a million miles away and everyone is using it differently – to the point where it is confusing. Is that little alarm clock an “alert”, “timer”, “date” or “timely” – who the heck knows? And yes, I have a little FAMFAM within my site and I am currently contemplating how to remove or change it – perhaps performing a little Photoshop magic to better integrate within my site and differentiate it from common use?
We are not all photographers or masters of the icon graphics – stock photography is essential, especially in web design. We have to start looking at our stock usage and even managing it. If we happened to be the first to use an amazing graphic, we need to keep an eye out for the day that graphic becomes over-used. And yes, that is the time to replace your once beloved graphic – even if you were first to use. Needless to say, you shouldn’t be building a brand around stock – that would have to be the worst thing you could do. Never build your brand around something you don’t own or that millions of others have ready access and ability to use. When I first started using FAMFAMFAM a year ago, I thought I struck oil – I won’t stop using those cute little icons, but I will be extremely careful how and where I use them.
Remember, stock is your best friend but it can also be your worst nightmare.
- November 15th, 2006
- 14comments
- I am a proud member of the 9rules network
I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with stock icons (I won’t comment on stock photos since that’s not what this article is really about). In fact, developers adopting a “standard set” of icons to use in the same context anywhere on the web would be a great boon to the user experience. Navigation elements would be instantly recognizable, no matter where you were.
Imagine how confusing it would be if each state colored their stop signs differently!
True that would push us back to mystery meat navigation.
you’re dead on with your assesment that it is the designer that needs to understand how the use of the icon will communicate to a user. however, certain imagery and icons have become so familiar to users that using something else or making changes could likely be disasterous to usability. such items would be the relation between a disk icon as a way to save something. to print a page would become confusing if it was made to look like a copier, etc.
but i do agree. when it comes to brand distinguishment, it is important to make the extra effort to make it “yours”. great article :)
Tim,
HA HA. I actually touched on that very topic of stop signs. You might enjoy my article: Web Standards – an unnatural feeling!
Is this honestly,a mindblowing topic for the Vine?Is it worthy of a response, obviously,, because I,m doing it,but get a life,ie, well ,yeah you know,yeah I mean,you know well ,.icons,and all
welsh,
What is your issue? I didn’t mean to imply this was a “mindblowing” topic — just one I thought deserved some attention. The use of some of these common elements are getting a little out of hand, and I believe it is our responsibility to be aware of this rising issue.
Personally I find the use of spacing and punctuation in this comment “mindblowing” :-)
I didn’t want to get personal — but I completely agree with you Tim
That is an interesting comment to make–I’ve thought about this a lot myself. The Vine isn’t just about things that are universally interesting, but things that apply to niche groups as well–or am I wrong?
It’s been interesting watching the changes in web iconography over the years. Remember that ubiquitous “e-mail” animated GIF?
As the list of things one can do at the click of a button increases, so does the complexity of representing what it does with an icon. The interpretation of “Tags” for example has been all over the map. And then, how about favicons? It’s a challenge to squeeze a brand or concept into 256 pixels.
I don’t know about stock form the perspective of a designer, but I’ve got to say I like it from the perspective of an amateur photographer. It’s a easy way to make at least a little cash on photos that would just be sitting on my hard drive not making any money.
I guess the increasing ubiquity of these stock websites will mean that there will be more and more stock choices for designers - but quantity, of course, doesn’t mean quality. I guess the good designers will be the ones who effectively use the most appropriate stock that they can find.
We have been online for one year, and we have heard a lot of very interesting opinions. We are summarizing them here:
Stock photography. It is a good word.
To use stock or not to use stock - we need to add this one:).
Of course “to use”…
Thanks for the link — a good read.
I agree that it is “to use” stock photography — we just have to make sure we are doing so responsibly.
The problem is, you dont get paid by these micro-stock companies till you make $100- thus most people never actually get paid and in the end it’s the stock company that keeps all the cash…just my two cents.
Ian
http://www.inationalpark.com