Taking Stock of Stock Photography
by Jeff Taylor
As each year passes, I become more convinced that stock photography is but another nail in the coffin of great advertising. Okay, before I get started, let me clarify by saying I am as guilty as the next guy of “stocking” ads. Like almost every other small agency we utilize stock photos everyday and recognize fully the time and cost savings associated with their use, but let’s stop for a moment and consider the consequences. Gone are the days where ads are developed from scratch and executed around an original idea or image. More often than not, the agency goes straight from concept to design by locating the closest match on the nearest royalty free photo site. In many cases, the original ad concept is built around the stock image itself. Either that, or the image is Photoshop’ed to oblivion so that the end result fractionally represents the original concept. So much emphasis is placed on the execution of the ad that little time (or budget) is left for originality. Instead of creating something worth looking at by art directing the right shot, of the right subject, in the right location, we are left with the closest shot, of the closest subject, in the closest location. While “close” may be acceptable (even good) in many cases, over time it becomes the norm and a subtle shift occurs. A shift that is at the very least saddening to those of us who still enjoy the marriage of art and message. Like a weed in the garden, it grows until the flowers become invisible and the real beauty is gone. In our quest for fast, cheap execution, we seem to have lost our art, or at least our willingness to work for it. Instead we water down the brand and accept cheap imitation; inviting a multitude of untrained, inexperienced designers with access to the same resources who help lower the bar further. In a time when the ad agency executive has become the pariah of business, I can’t help but think much of this is self-inflicted. When we as a whole sacrifice our artistry, is it any wonder that what we do is seen as less of an art.
Categories: Advertising and Marketing
Ricardo Torres
Jeff:
Very insightful blog. I understand the reality of the situation you post. the downside is that as creative people we are allowing the tools drive the artistry instead of it being intrinsic in of itself. As a photographer, I have created my own photoshop’d versions of the truth, but lately, I have been experimenting with trying to emulate what can be done in editing tools. An example is an Ink Series I created that many believed was heavily edited.
The reality of the situation is that (PDN article) many photographers make a significant % of earnings in stock photography. Perhaps we need to go back to basics and stop trying to commoditize the art.
cognetix
Ricardo,
Thank you for the feedback and I appreciate your perspective as a photographer. I centainly uderstand the financial implications for photographers and am not advocating that we should not use the resource. I just have noticed lately the number of custom shoots we have done has deceased significantly over the past 3-5 years. Some of this I attribute to the proliferation of stock, some I attribute to us not being stronger in support of ideas. I agree that stock photos are not only necessary, but vital in today’s market. I just think that stock should be used in support of the idea, not in place of it. In this sense it benefits both creative, photographer and more importantly the client. Thanks for reading!
ForestWander Nature Photography
Your right.
Stock photography tends to make thing too generic.
Taking the time to craft something from scratch may take more time but the authors heart is in it.