You often hear and see claims that photos on websites have a positive impact on user behavior and the uniqueness of web design. But very few people stop to think—what if that’s not true? What if the image was used by the webmaster, but the site doesn’t actually see any noticeable benefits? Believe it or not, that can happen. And it’s not necessarily about where exactly on the page the images are placed.
At the same time, you’ll come across websites across the web that contain more text than images. And these projects are among the most popular and well-known. Why is that? There are a few explanations. First, the topic or type of site may not require large images. Second, the company’s web designers may not realize that this element could drastically boost brand awareness and conversion.
But once the idea of including photography in web design arises, sooner or later comes the realization that some of the webmaster’s decisions were flawed. We’ll look at the most common mistakes—cases where photos might actually harm the project.
The Power of Photography
Through numerous studies in the field of media and online business, BrightLocal concluded that nearly 70% of users respond more positively to search results that include images (websites with photos or graphics). Of course, these are just numbers—and the internet audience is diverse, with different preferences. But if we look at general trends, what really matters is how an image on a site affects a person’s perception. And some advertising agencies use this factor very effectively. But sometimes, photos are actually unnecessary.
The International Fund for Animal Welfare, IFAW, is a striking example of the power of imagery. You’ll see emotional images of wild and domestic animals, sad-eyed dogs and cats that could even be friends. And even someone who’s not particularly into charity will feel something—emotions that are strong and deep. Only after that does the person start reading the text and exploring the project.
Similar foundations like “Gift of Life” and “Child Protection” use fewer images—and those they do use are mostly portraits of the children themselves. And the reason is simple: the project’s meaning doesn’t lie in the photos.
Or take the site of Magic Leap, a company creating virtual 3D effects and advancing AR technology. Their site must be both seen and heard. Photos are everywhere, in various forms—filters, collages, and more. And the emotions they evoke are overwhelming.
Another example of effective image use is the ad agency XXS Amsterdam. It’s nothing extravagant—but it has charm and simplicity. And surprisingly, the positive emotions it evokes are no less than those from the IFAW project.
Strange Images
We’ve already said that photos must be high quality, high resolution, and with uplifting or meaningful subjects. But the truth is—sometimes designers choose images in a rush or flood the user with too many irrelevant photos during their visit. As a result, you may come across confusing visuals that have nothing to do with advertising or the site’s theme. Some designers even try to grab attention using inappropriate imagery—but this often backfires and pushes people away.
There are plenty of bizarre stock photos out there (this link is a separate collection of awkward photo concepts). Why do people still choose them? Because the image feels real. The photo itself looks authentic, but something—some small detail—is off. And that unsettles the viewer. There’s no emotional engagement, just confusion, sharpness, a moment of “Where am I and what is this?”
Image Overuse
Some ad agencies or webmasters create what seem like great websites—but they use images that are already familiar. In other words, reused from elsewhere. Watermarks can usually be removed in Photoshop, but not perfectly—traces will remain upon closer inspection. We’ll get back to that. Another issue is the use of generic stock photos with models. Let’s be honest—if a construction company site features a smiling model in a hard hat, it looks… kind of silly.
David Meerman Scott even wrote an insightful article on this topic: “Who the hell ARE these people?”.
As they say—if there are no good photos, it’s better to go without. A great example is the site of Master Service. Instead of using real photos of people, the authors opted for silhouettes. You can still tell they probably used stock photos as a base, but at least it doesn’t feel as fake.
The project Döcke Extrusion also uses photography on the homepage, in sections, and some articles. But most of these are real. You can tell by the lighting, the environment, and the natural expressions of the people. Even the stock images that do appear are blended in so well that they don’t feel staged or artificial.
Another interesting case is the Torex project. On the one hand, they use a photo; on the other—they only use fragments, mixing it with illustration. Happy people—but they could genuinely be happy in their home, especially if that home is well protected. Still, if you look at an older version of their website, the emotions just aren’t there.
The Songdoibd website also uses unique photographs that you won’t find in stock libraries. The photographers captured interesting, rare life moments with real, everyday people—those you see in your city daily.
The fitness-focused website Pro Trener is also full of photographs, most of which are authentic. Still, if stock photos are well-chosen and relevant, they’re acceptable too—because in fitness, people aim to achieve better bodies. Showing “ideal” bodies can actually inspire users.
Watermarks and Logos
Touching on the issue of watermarks and image attribution, let’s be honest—this is a major issue online. Photos, just like text, get shamelessly copied. For instance, images or screenshots may be taken with a watermark, and then the new author just slaps their own on top. Sometimes the part with the original watermark is cropped out, and a new logo is drawn over the remaining space. This happens a lot. Few websites actually keep the author’s logo or mark photos as “ sourced from… ”. That’s on their conscience—but users notice. With all the surfing people do online, they remember what they’ve seen and where. When they see repeats or stolen content, it absolutely affects their opinion of your site—and not in a good way.
Semantic Relevance
The meaning and narrative of an image must also match the theme of the page or website. For example, the logistics company UPS features a photo of a woman looking out a window. On one hand, she might be waiting for a delivery so long she’s watching the street. On the other hand, there’s a tangled string of fairy lights on the window. Most of us don’t hang lights like that, especially sloppily. Not the best photo choice.
The website MapQuest might not offer any flashy innovations—but the images, though black-and-white, are thematically perfect. The site offers a mobile navigator for global travel, so the photos reflect real-life travel moments—people who’ve seen a lot, walked far, experienced things. And black-and-white gives them that nostalgic, documentary feeling.
But the photos on the website of the Australian Catholic University (ACU) look awkward and artificial. Everyone’s overly cheerful, perfectly dressed and made-up, sitting upright in perfectly staged poses. They’re not researching or studying—they’re modeling. And it’s painfully obvious.
Where to Find Good Photos
So what do you do when you don’t have photos? Ideally, you’d hire a photographer—but not every designer knows one. We’ve previously talked about some free stock photo sites that offer realistic and beautiful images.
Here are a few more:
Picjumbo – a collection of generic images you can safely use in any context. No faces here, and the scenes are very specific. Many are already filtered and look natural.
Death to the Stock Photo – a similar project where even a café shot looks like a guest just stood up and casually took a photo from above.
Superfamous – nature, objects, the world. It’s hard to find such stunning visuals anywhere else. They even include a selection of gradients.
New Old Stock – sometimes vintage photos work better than modern ones. This project features a collection of old archival photos: interiors, streets, events, factories, landscapes.
A Few Final Thoughts
Working with photos in web design is just as complex as working with typography. That’s why we’ve dedicated two full articles to this topic, each from a different perspective.
For your site to earn a good reputation—and for the designer to be valued—you need high-quality content. Especially when it comes to photos. They should be 100% unique, free of cropped-out watermarks or reused logos. Or, at the very least, the original source should be credited—even just a corner caption works. Photos should be authentic and real—both in their plot and in the people shown.
People have become more discerning. In the early days of the web, everyone wanted to try site-building and design. People created anything they could think of, without asking if it was needed. They just wanted to express themselves. Today, it’s different. Quality is everything—and photos are no exception.
And of course, not every topic benefits from lots of imagery. Sometimes less is more. For example, on medical websites, showing dozens of photos of doctors at work might not be a good idea. Stock photos of overly happy, smiling doctors in an office? That’s not what a sick visitor wants to see.