I find the people have mixed feelings about the use of stock graphics in design. Im not just talking about backgrounds or icons, but vectors, photos, and other more detailed items. Some people tend to look down their nose at designers who use a lot of stock graphics.
Personally, I don’t think there is anything wrong with it. I tend to use a lot of stock graphics in my work, but thats just me.
I want to know what you guys think about the use of stock graphics in web and print design.
As an illustrator, I create my own images for my projects. If I need to use a photo, I have no problems with it as long as I use it sparingly, and is related to the content.
I think it depends. If you don’t have mad illustration skills and a design would look better with a great illustration, a stock image is an economic and efficient way of making it happen.
I don’t have any problem with stock graphics – the problem I always run into is finding stock graphics that are worth being put into my designs.
Stock graphics are an invaluable resource. I have many clients whose budgets and deadlines or the nature of the project simply don’t allow for doing a custom photo shoot or creating custom illustrations.
It’d be nice to be able to use original imagery in every piece of design work, but it’s totally impractical. Being able to use stock makes a lot of projects possible that otherwise wouldn’t be.
Hi Danny
First of all I want to thank you for your Podcast – I really like when you keep it short to 3-4 minutes with a single subject. I work real well.
Regarding the usage of stock images and illustrations, then you really don’t have a choice when working as a freelancer. You have to be as effective as you can and with sites like iStockphoto available, I don’t see any reason not to use it (just don’t overuse it and try to pick something original).
Martin Leblanc
Though I am not a professional, originality is important to me. Mostly, I use the graphics for inspiration. Not only that, but, with everything else I do, worry over copyrights is one thing I don’t have to concern myself over.
I have absolutely no problem with it, and don’t feel it detracts at all from my status as a designer.
You bring up a great point in the podcast when you mention that the finished design often looks nothing like “stock”—-stock photos free up my time to focus on other things, like photo manipulation, flash animation, coding, etc.
I think stock photos are great, people don’t want to spend a lot of money if any on a photographer. With stock photos from about £1 you can purchase a photo that would of cost a fortune. They are brilliant and can make a website or poster look very professional. I do tend to see stock photos all the time now though in local advertising and magazines and even adverts for banks and estate agents.
My personal rules and taboos are:
I do not believe in using stock in actual for sale to be branded logos for any size businesses who are purchasing the logo from you. That defies the point of branding and corporate identity.
If vector stock is used in a standalone design for a not for profit educational purpose it must be at least 75% changed and not comprise 75% of the entire work. It should be there to add some flare and if removed the work is still recognizable.
For poster art or web design I don’t think stock is an issue, even if you used it to add flare to an article you wrote, so long as the license of the stock is adhered to and you are not misleading information with it.
Now if you are an artist (not a designer) and you have more than 5-10% of your site plain stock art then well we have a problem.
its fine with me. if its good..im gonna use it.