I’ve posted the following reply over at Problogger.net after seeing a recent series of posts making the blog rounds for a list of places where people can get free photos. For obvious reasons, I’m not going to bother reposting the list.
“… From the sites that I’ve seen from these lists, 85% or more of the images on the free sites are just plain bad pictures. Bad lighting, bad composition, flat, boring, and plain old Forgetable was the impression most of these photos left me with. Based on that, I wonder how business blogs and websites would spend so much time, energy, and resources building a professional web presence, and then be so attracted to decorating their site with bad photos – just because they’re free. It’s like asking if anyone would take Darren and Problogger seriously if it was decked out with cheesy neon icon bells & whistles, and adds with big dancing rainbows and bird chirping sounds. The long and short is that image counts, and unprofessional and thouroughly forgettable photos make a business site look the same; unprofessional and forgettable. Agree or disagree?”
I can understand why personal bloggers would love this type of resource. In fact, some of my all time favorite photos are freely provided by the US Government (NASA). But for the majority of businesses, I see this attraction to free photos as a bit of an absurd contradiction. I know, bottom line dollars can be tight, but isn’t the essence of professional in as much “appearance” as it is “skilled trade”?
I think that any professional business site or business blog that uses bad cheap or free photos as a cost consideration, rather developing and branding a truly reputable corporate image is making huge mistake. There’s a saying in the photography world that your portfolio is only as strong as your weakest image. The same holds true for a business web site – it looks as bad as the worst image. But then again, just as with web designers, lawyers, doctors, and politicians, you get what you pay for. I tell my clients that the benefit of using my images over many of the cheaper or free pictures / snapshots on the web, is that my photos will deliver people’s eyeballs, and their attention. And if my photo is responsible for a person spending more time on your site, then there is added value in that, correct?
Disclaimers: I know there are some good photos available on these sites. But the time spent searching through piles of rubish must be considered against going straight to a source that provides overall higher quality images. That is, if you think time is worth money?
Finally, I know there is a huge segment of the web populace that can’t afford to access higher cost photos, but still want pictures. And I sit on the other side of the fence. I want to be able to share my photos with as many people as possible, but I also want to retain some sense of value for my own work. So I ask, what is a reasonable value? As I mention in my copyright page, I am working on trying to come up with something that works for personal bloggers, business blogs, and websites; to be announced soon.
PS. People have called my own work boring, cliche, trite, and plenty of other adjectives. I don’t take offense at all to those labels. If people want to lump my work in at the same level of these other photos, that’s fine. I understand everyone has different tastes, interests, and expectations, and I’m not trying to change or convince anyone of anything.
Follow-ups:
– I also posted a reply on the topic over at Presentation Zen
And in a totally on-point example, the folks over at
BusinessWeek Online’s Blogspotting posted a really cheesy bad photo of a river in Brazil, apparently thinking it “spruces up” their site. I don’t think so. Looks incredibly cheap, especially by Business Week standards. I made the following comment over there, so let’s see if it clears the moderation.
I dunno… Looks like a cheap photo to me. I wouldn’t say it “spruces up” this page at all. In fact, I’d say it does the opposite. Kinda makes the whole page look, uh…cheap. Sorta brings the whole look & feel of the page (&site?) much less professional than the standards I usually see put forth by Business Week. But Corporate Image I suppose is like cheap photos and lawyers. – You certainly get what you pay for.
Just My Humble (and admittedly) Biased Opinion….
