7.09.2015

Stock Photography = Lost Imagination.



The use of boring, generic stock photography by allegedly "creative" advertising people is nothing more than looking in someone else's rear view mirror and grabbing stuff they've used, chewed up and then spit out. It's creative cowardice. It's creative compromise. It's "B" team creativity. It's sure not that world class performance you were promising clients when you signed them on...

When we need a cool picture of corn soup drizzled with olive oil my clients don't rush to the web and spend hours looking for something that's "good enough" for a client to grudgingly approve. We turn on the creative juices together and shoot the damn thing EXACTLY the way our clients envision the subject. That way they never, ever have to worry about their biggest competitors using exactly the same image in THEIR advertising or editorial content. Plus the client gets the thrill, privilege and honor of actually being part of an ongoing creative process instead of doing the ad agency equivalent of selling used Kleenex at a discount.....

Just something to think about next time your account executive demands that everything come from royalty free stock. The cure? Say "no." Tell em you signed up to BE creative, not to be an intern/researcher/kiss ass. If they argue the point then gather up your stuff and head for the door. You need a better place to work.


5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Stock photography is to advertising art as jigsaw puzzles are to painting.

David Zivic said...

God topic Tuck. My favorite news site uses stock photos all the time. Sometimes the person is now 20 years older than the photo and often the place isn't the real place, just a similar place. Co-incidently I made Gazpacho drizzled with olive oil tonight. Different color cold soup, white bowl, consumed on a table cloth, not black slate tiles, but very similar in concept. I often take photos of my dinners and email them to friends who cook. They are always taken with available light and your least favorite new camera, the Sony A7r ! ! !

Kirk Tuck said...

David, optically the A7r is a tremendous camera --- easily on par for most with the Nikon D810. The only caveat is the need for ear muffs. I'm seriously looking at the A7r-2 as an additional resource, the video is supposed to be much better than the Nikon's....

Anonymous said...

Right on the money, once again!!!

David Zivic said...

I remember your and others review of the A7r Progressing through Photography I used a Nikon F3 most of that time and still have it. I shoot one roll of B & W a year. Wildlife shots with it always alerted the animal, especially deer that something mechanical was nearby. So I got used to it. And the A7r is an issue with street shots of people. It often results in a confrontation or meeting someone new. I also have a Sony A6000 with a pancake lens and that is now my "go to" street camera. Let's be clear, I am an amateur who really enjoys taking pictures. I thought I was done buying cameras with the D700, Now I am done with the A7r. S not needing 42 mp or 4g video I am out of the space race. EXCEPT yesterday a friend let me fondle his new Fuji. Of course, I would need all new lenses, all new filters, cable release, extra batteries, etc. You know the drill better than I.