Speak Up Archive: Royalty-free ain’t that Bad

When clients don’t have big budgets or no photography already done, one must resort to Royalty-Free photograhs. Five or six years ago it was a daunting task to find a decent shot, unless you were looking for the timeless handshake, that you could use for your projects.

Luckily for us, the trend has shifted and Royalty-Free photographs are better than ever, and yes, there are more handshakes than ever too. Stock houses seem to be more selective in the photographs they carry and broadened the range of styles you can get.

A big step forward too, is the ease of downloading pictures from the web. Places like Getty Images and Veer have really stepped up their user interfaces and given meaning to the word Usability, while Corbis is still ignoring any of these principles and makes it a nightmare to use their web site.

Where once Photodisc was one of the only options, today there are many more stock houses with different styles. fStop caters to designers carrying photos taken by designers, a bit trendy, but good when you need an unusual shot. Veer is one the best places with unique photography and as a bonus you can also buy typefaces from their web site. Creatas and Punchstock are worth mentioning but share many of the same photographs.

It’s about time we can get good pictures at Royalty-Free prices.

Well, in your post about low-cost designers, you emphatically stated:

I stated it once, and I'll say it again, I think it hurts the design profession. Does it fill a need in the market? Definitely. Do I like it? No.

Then, in this post, you praise the fact that photographers now have to sell their wares at rock bottom rates and rejoice over the fact that you can now get 'good' pictures at 'Royalty-Free' prices.

My personal belief is that there is a time and place for both visual design and photography 'on the cheap' and that neither is necessarily bad, but you seem to side with the graphic designers, and not the photographers on the exact same issue.

On Oct.07.2002 at 11:04 AM

Damn! I guess you are right. I didn't even think about it like that.

Although you can look at it as a "cheap" product that is getting better? no? maybe?

>you seem to side with the graphic designers, and not the photographers on the exact same issue.

Do photographers care about cheap logos?

Oh boy, that line is probably gonna get me in trouble, but that's what this place is for.

On Oct.07.2002 at 11:09 AM

Er...I meant that they are the same on the broader issue of a particular group of creatives in their respective industry working for much less than the norm. If you feel that designers pumping out cheap logos hurts the graphic design industry, then you should agree than photographers pumping out cheap stock photography hurts the photography industry...and it's a bit unfair to lambast cheap logo creators but praise cheap stock photography. (and I'm using the term 'cheap' synonymously with 'much less expensive')

On Oct.07.2002 at 11:50 AM

>If you feel that designers pumping out cheap logos hurts the graphic design industry, then you should agree than photographers pumping out cheap stock photography hurts the photography industry...

I guess so.

On Oct.07.2002 at 11:53 AM

But... and I don't know about this, do photographers look at Royalty-Free as a nuisance, like we do cheap logos? is it a lucrative path for photographers? I'm asking 'cause I don't know.

On Oct.07.2002 at 12:15 PM

Hmm...let's separate things here: does royalty-free stock photography's proliferation hurt photographers? probably, as less designers commission custom photos for their pieces. Is it nice that, when the client insists and there are no other options, there is some decent royalty-free work out there? Yep.

Now on a broader point, maybe as designers we need to challenge ourselves more when a client insists on only 'free' photography. Maybe it's a type solution or other graphic treatment, but it is our job to solve the 'problem' presented.

I've been stuck on the raw end of this before with a client who wouldn't give us time to shoot custom photos and another client that refused to pay for ANY photography but insisted we use it. Nothing hurts like picking a stock photo, then seeing the exact same shot in an ad for a different company the next week... let's say I've learned!

On Oct.07.2002 at 12:23 PM

"But... and I don't know about this, do photographers look at Royalty-Free as a nuisance, like we do cheap logos? is it a lucrative path for photographers? I'm asking 'cause I don't know. "

Why wouldn't photographers dislike cheap stock pics just like you dislike cheap logo design? Stock photography shoehorns a generalized shot into a custom situation, without taking into account the specifics of a design's purpose or audience. Isn't that similar to the logo-matic, using stock logo elements without (much) consideration for the client's specific situation or needs?

On Oct.07.2002 at 12:48 PM

do photographers look at Royalty-Free as a nuisance, like we do cheap logos?

It depends on what you see as being the nuisance. If you feel that designers low-balling their prices is a nuisance in that it lowers the perceived value of graphic design overall, then yes, photographers look at stock photography the same way. Stock Photography is now almost the 'norm' as fewer and fewer clients and graphic designers even consider custom photography as a real option.

On Oct.07.2002 at 12:49 PM

>fewer clients and graphic designers even consider custom photography as a real option.

It's real option.

And it's also real that there is less money to spend, and less time to do custom photography.

On Oct.07.2002 at 02:19 PM

Absolutetly. But that's really no different than saying that there is less time and money to do custom logo creation.

Like I said, I'm not saying one side is correct and the other isn't...just that both topics/practices are very much related and one needs to be careful about judging one and not the other.

On Oct.07.2002 at 03:42 PM

I don't know if this is related, but on a certain level, I personally enjoy working with crappy photography yet still coming up with a winning solution. I guess the "designer" in me wants full credit for the success of the layout, versus the "art director" in me knowing that you can't beat good photography and understated design.

On Oct.08.2002 at 12:33 PM

This debate can also be applied to type design. Computers have taken ALL creative people's worth down a notch. There's a "designer" out there as we speak, using bootleg fonts and royalty-free photography, creating amateurish design in bootleg copies of Illustrator and Quark. And there are plenty of clients who won't know the difference.

On Oct.08.2002 at 12:39 PM

On a eerily related note in regards to designers and their relationship with illustrators and photographers, etc. ... the Graphic Artists Guild's 2002 Convention and Conference is using the theme of collaboration with it's tag line — "A Celebration of Interdependence." (More information is available on their Web site.)

A quick glance at the schedule doesn't show anything revealing, but if any Speak Up readers attend, I would love to read feedback — especially some secrets to successful collaboration are shared.

On Oct.08.2002 at 02:18 PM

>A Celebration of Interdependence.

With no speakers to support said topic. No workshop or lecture is about that, except the dancing, probably a designer will end up dancing with a photographer.

For this session: "A Visual Workout; Creative Exercises to Pump You Up" I think the original speakers were these guys .

On Oct.08.2002 at 02:29 PM