The average person is probably not aware that the vast majority of images they see are stock photos. Adverts, magazines, news articles, and more all rely on stock images to convey their message clearly.
Some people might believe that commissioned photographs are superior; after all, they depict authentic situations, don’t they? What many people don’t realise, however, is that to illustrate a concept as accurately as possible, you need to find very specific types of images – images that would simply be unfeasible to source in any other way.
How do stock photos and commissioned photos compare?
Both stock photography and commissioned photography have pros and cons. Some people feel stock photos are inferior to commissioned photos, while others eschew hired photographers in favour of exploring stock image libraries to find the perfect picture.
In a nutshell, they are often shot and produced identically. The difference is in the way they are sold.
Stock photos
Using stock photos comes with the risk of someone else already using your preferred image. This is always possible, but through a little research, it’s quite simple to find out if this will be a problem. Some people complain stock photos lack originality and authenticity, while others can’t seem to find stock images with the right aesthetic for their needs.
True, some stock images aren’t suited to everyone’s tastes. But the vast majority are taken by highly skilled professionals whose passion for photography is every bit as genuine as a fashion or news photographer, for example. A stock photographer must be an expert in their chosen field, whether it’s food photography or concept photography.
When it comes to originality, the belief that stock photography is impersonal and generic is a misconception. Once you have chosen an image, you also have the option of adjusting it to fit your needs. And if you know where to look, it’s easy to find a collection of high quality, creative imagery.
Another great attraction of stock photos is the price. By comparison, commissioning photos from a hired photographer can be very costly, with no guarantee of superior quality.
Commissioned photos
There are many problems to contend with when businesses choose to go with specially commissioned images instead of stock photography. The obvious ones are increased cost, and the time spent trying to procure or create original photos.
Confining yourself to commissioned photos means you need to organise sets or locations to suit your needs, as well as models and props when necessary. When you’re working with advertisements or commercial projects, stock photography is the obvious choice. Spending the time and money hiring a photographer just isn’t worth it.
Stock photos and commissioned photos can be of excellent quality but if you want efficiency, stock photography is the obvious choice.
Different uses for stock photos
Individuals, companies, and organisations all make use of photographs at some point. Some situations in which stock photos are in use include:
- Advertising
- To illustrate articles in magazines or newspapers
- Websites
- Books and textbooks (covers and illustrations)
In each case, whether to use stock images or commissioned photos is a personal or brand choice, and every advantage and disadvantage is worth considering.
Advertising
Businesses and organisations use adverts to draw attention to their product or cause and generate support or interest. It’s quite obvious from watching TV and seeing printed ads that the theme of an advertisement often isn’t always related to the product or service on offer.
Stock photos are excellent for printed promotions and ads, as they do away with the need for prolonged shoots requiring days of planning. Exploring stock photo libraries can also spark new ideas for promotional material.
Magazines, newspapers, and websites
There are a few types of photos used in print media. Those that illustrate a story or an idea, and those that depict a news event, such as strikes, public events, and conflict. The first types are commercial photos while the second are editorial photos and they have a few differences:
- Editorial photography may show logos or brand names, while commercial stock photographs may not.
- A photographer doesn’t need to get a model or property release signed to sell an editorial photo. In commercial stock photography, any recognisable person must sign a release before the photo gets sold or licensed.
Stock agencies have online portfolios filled with hundreds of editorial photos for publications to illustrate news articles. Commercial stock photos are mostly used by entities with the goal of financial profit in mind.
People use photos on their websites to promote their product or service or to enhance the appearance of their site while sticking to their chosen aesthetic. Stock photo libraries are chock-full of complementary images in just about every style possible—minimalist, black and white, brightly coloured, and so on.
Books and textbooks
Many book covers are stock photos (sometimes digitally altered), and there’s no denying that those images play a huge role in how people perceive a publication. They say not to judge a book by its cover, but the truth is that people rely on appearances to tell them what might interest them and what might not.
While an author might have a very specific image in mind, trying to capture that image in a single shoot with a hired photographer can be extremely difficult. Using stock photos makes it possible to explore different ideas thoroughly, without having to set up multiple photoshoots at different locations and at different times.
Stock doesn’t mean boring
There seems to be a misconception that stock photos are generic images with no authenticity or individuality. This couldn’t be further from the truth. When an individual or organisation is looking for affordable, creative photos, stock photography is an excellent choice. With an abundance of choice, licensing options, and additional service options, checking out stock photo options first is a great place to start.