42 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
42 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Overused, cliche stock images... Please, stop it!

by Dejan_bg
33 replies
Hi, Warriors.


I'd like to discuss with you about this trend that's flooding the internet since...well, almost since the beginning of the internet. It's the use of cliche, stock photography.


After the content (words), visual elements (photos) are the most important part of your website. They're used to influence connection with your audience and generate an emotional response from your potential customers. What kind of emotional response create in me an image of generic, plastic-looking "corporate team" with fake smiles? Well, first it makes me puke because it looks so cheesy and unnatural. Second, it irritates me because I've seen that exact image on 1352542 websites before. Third, I won't even check what's written on your website because it looks boring, outdated, generic.

So, should we stop using stock images? Of course not. But please, try to be more creative. For your own good. Pay someone to make you an illustration instead of generic stock photo, for example. If you have to choose image, choose one that's not been used on every other website before. Crop them, use some creative effect so they don't look so generic.

The point is... try to stand out from the crowd! You'll be rewarded, trust me. I'm not only talking about higher CTR, easier branding etc. You can't build your personal or company brand if you're not creative. You have to be creative in order to stand out among millions.

What tells me about your company the fact that when I visit your customer support page and see airbrushed, plastic looking model in some call center smiling like she won lottery or found out she's HIV negative. Especially, the fact that I saw that image million times before. Ok, it's scientifically proven that people like pretty faces and that's normal but I'm not talking only for myself when I say that those fake smiles look creepy and unnatural.


Let's take MailChimp for example. I like the design of their website and I like that monkey Instead of that monkey they could put some random, good looking dude in business suit who's smiling for no obvious reason but they didn't. Why? Because monkey is cool and those dudes aren't anymore? People like monkeys? I don't know but I do know it works. If that was one of those generic websites I wouldn't even check their product but that illustration grabs people's attention. Of course, if someone's product is crap then even the best looking website or sales copy won't help him but you get my point.


Let's try to make internet a better place. Let's try to be creative and push boundaries. Let's not settle for mediocre things in life.



I'd like to hear your opinions about this, whether you agree or disagree with me
#cliche #images #overused #stock #stop
  • Profile picture of the author MattVit
    I have never seen or remembered a stock image twice. The only exception to that are images like money or email envelopes, but even still this is rare.

    Do you honestly expect people, particularly Internet Marketers, to heed this advice? I think most people here on this forum can barely justify buying stock images, let alone getting totally unique images.

    This has got to be a joke. 'Pay someone' to make an illustration? Seriously? This can get extremely costly when making large quantities of sites, which many here do, which don't have large returns. People here want to invest $10 to $100 on a website, inclusive of domain registration, and that's all. Adding another few hundred for custom images/illustrations is extremely pointless and reckless.


    Sure, if you are a web designer working on the main business website for a company, you'll want unique, non-stock images as much as possible. Relevant images. But for adsense, CPA or affiliate websites, this is unreasonable.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4738870].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mr_banks
      There's a reason that 1,352,542 have stock photography on their site. (I'm sure the number is far greater) It's because it works. You said it yourself, it is scientifically proven that people like to look at good looking people.

      If you put a picture of a good looking person that matches the demographic of the user it works even better.

      Make the person smiling and it works even better.

      I agree from a purely design standpoint stock photography sucks. But it's not there for aesthetic reasons. If used properly, it is there for psychological reasons. The same reason that major brands pay celebrities millions to endorse their brand. When we, as humans, see a person we are attracted to or a celebrity, it arrests our attention, our everyday life filters are let down momentarily. The idea is that in that moment we, as marketers, can get our message across.

      Funny that you should mention Mail Chimp. Studies about why we are so enthralled with celebrities reveals that it is not a trait unique to humans. When studying chimps, it has been observed that lower members of the group will stare at higher ranking members and the alpha male for hours. Kinda like us staring at the TV watching Entertainment tonight.

      Just like a celebrity will arrest peoples attention so will sex. Sex sells. We all know it. An attractive smiling person is a form of sex. The first attraction that we usually have with another person is eye contact and a smile. Then we start thinking about...you guessed it...sex. A stock photo of a pretty smiling young woman looking you in the eye is a very subtle form of selling sex as a trade for peoples attention.

      With that being said, just because there is a legitimate reason to use stock photography on a website does not mean that people do it well. I agree that there is a lot of crap out there. Often times options are limited.

      A designer could:

      A). Hire a photographer and a model, set up a time and a day, spend most, if not all day at the shoot, pay to have to picture retouched and end up with the same results that you would get from iStock photo. Only for thousands of dollars.

      or

      B). Spend a few hours finding just the right pic on a stock photo site and buy the royalty rights for $20 - $40.

      Where I agree with you is that most designer choose option C. Grab the first crappy stock photo that they can find a put it on the site.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4739105].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dejan_bg
        Originally Posted by mr_banks View Post

        There's a reason that 1,352,542 have stock photography on their site. (I'm sure the number is far greater) It's because it works. You said it yourself, it is scientifically proven that people like to look at good looking people.

        If you put a picture of a good looking person that matches the demographic of the user it works even better.

        Make the person smiling and it works even better.

        I agree from a purely design standpoint stock photography sucks. But it's not there for aesthetic reasons. If used properly, it is there for psychological reasons. The same reason that major brands pay celebrities millions to endorse their brand. When we, as humans, see a person we are attracted to or a celebrity, it arrests our attention, our everyday life filters are let down momentarily. The idea is that in that moment we, as marketers, can get our message across.

        Funny that you should mention Mail Chimp. Studies about why we are so enthralled with celebrities reveals that it is not a trait unique to humans. When studying chimps, it has been observed that lower members of the group will stare at higher ranking members and the alpha male for hours. Kinda like us staring at the TV watching Entertainment tonight.

        Just like a celebrity will arrest peoples attention so will sex. Sex sells. We all know it. An attractive smiling person is a form of sex. The first attraction that we usually have with another person is eye contact and a smile. Then we start thinking about...you guessed it...sex. A stock photo of a pretty smiling young woman looking you in the eye is a very subtle form of selling sex as a trade for peoples attention.

        With that being said, just because there is a legitimate reason to use stock photography on a website does not mean that people do it well. I agree that there is a lot of crap out there. Often times options are limited.

        A designer could:

        A). Hire a photographer and a model, set up a time and a day, spend most, if not all day at the shoot, pay to have to picture retouched and end up with the same results that you would get from iStock photo. Only for thousands of dollars.

        or

        B). Spend a few hours finding just the right pic on a stock photo site and buy the royalty rights for $20 - $40.

        Where I agree with you is that most designer choose option C. Grab the first crappy stock photo that they can find a put it on the site.


        I agree with almost everything you wrote. Like I said, I'm not against the use of stock photography. I'm against misuse of stock photos because lots of people are just too lazy to find images that fit the concept. And if you use the same generic photo that was already used on many places before then you'll fail to make a connection with target customer of the website. The potential customer will find it hard to identify with them and therefore is less likely to trust you or your company.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4739286].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jasonl70
    I'm siding with the OP on this one.. a lot of the stock image use is really poorly implemented. I use to think that I was jaded (ie, the guy who knows the magicians trick), but I've recently heard a totaly non-techie, non web-developer, complain about his companies website ("fake ass pictures to make it look bigger than it really is") - so more people see through this than many would prefer...

    I also think the use of cartoons is good You can find people who will do them for you at decent prices if you look around. google is your friend - and so is a local college with art students!
    Signature

    -Jason

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4738972].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Vinchenz
    Banned
    If the quality of the image is neat and sharp, I would stick with free images.
    The only purpose that the image serves is to help reinforce the point
    of your message. Can't say paying for custom images is going to
    make that much of a difference for any marketers or justify the expense.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4739000].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Vulk
    So am I supposed to pay 100$ for a stock image I'll use once? No thank you.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4739065].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mr_banks
      Originally Posted by Vulk View Post

      So am I supposed to pay 100$ for a stock image I'll use once? No thank you.
      I just pass the cost on to the client
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4739123].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dejan_bg
      Originally Posted by Vulk View Post

      So am I supposed to pay 100$ for a stock image I'll use once? No thank you.
      No, you missed the point. I was saying that it only takes creativity in order to stand out from the crowd. Creativity is free and we all possess it to some extent. Some more than the others.

      And like I said, I'm not totally against the use of stock photography. I also use it. I'm just saying that we should invest a bit more time in choosing the appropriate images and don't misuse it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4739159].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Duckyshucky
    It's funny that you should mention cheesy stock photography. There was a study done recently that showed that in reality people don't pay too much attention to them and some are actually a bit annoyed by it, like in your case.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4739171].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dejan_bg
      Originally Posted by Duckyshucky View Post

      It's funny that you should mention cheesy stock photography. There was a study done recently that showed that in reality people don't pay too much attention to them and some are actually a bit annoyed by it, like in your case.

      Stock photos obviously do work. Otherwise people wouldn't use them. But I'm sure that more appropriate choice of images would work even better. The reason why I opened this thread is because when talking with lots of people I noticed they also get annoyed by those generic images and find it hard to identify with those people because they saw the same image in an ad for salad and then they see the same girl in customer support of software company.

      I'm not saying I'm right but it's my opinion that people are more likely to identify with real people instead of those on cliche stock photos. I'm also talking only for myself when I say that I'd rather visit the restaurant on which website is pic of real, FAT chef instead of some hot guy with chef hat. But hey, that's just me
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4739453].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ryan David
    There are a lot of good stock images, but the ones with real people tend to look pretty cheesy. Basically any image that comes with XsitePro is really cheesy.

    2 businessmen shaking hands or some lady with a headset on are probably the worst.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4739370].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alan Petersen
      They can also get you in a pickle... like the vegan magazine that was busted using stock images of meat for a non-meat recipe.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/sc...h/19vegan.html
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4739434].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dejan_bg
      Originally Posted by Ryan David View Post

      There are a lot of good stock images, but the ones with real people tend to look pretty cheesy. Basically any image that comes with XsitePro is really cheesy.

      2 businessmen shaking hands or some lady with a headset on are probably the worst.
      Exactly
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4739479].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mr_banks
      Originally Posted by Ryan David View Post

      There are a lot of good stock images, but the ones with real people tend to look pretty cheesy. Basically any image that comes with XsitePro is really cheesy.

      2 businessmen shaking hands or some lady with a headset on are probably the worst.
      I'm designing a site right now that has a woman with a headset smiling and looking right at you. LOL!

      However, it is also for an IT company that does remote support so she fits the bill. The major demographic is middle aged men that run their own companies. She should grab their attention.

      I spent a lot of time finding just the right pic. I wanted her to be attractive but not too pretty, like a model, and she had to not look cheesy with a fake smile. After looking through seriously about a thousand or more stock photos I found one that fits that description and the rest of the design.

      I think this is what Dejan_bg is talking about. Stock photography has it's place...Please take the time to find a good image.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4739861].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author E. Brian Rose
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4739514].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alan Petersen
      Yes!

      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4739542].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dejan_bg
        Originally Posted by Alan Petersen View Post

        Yes!







        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4739685].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
          Originally Posted by Dejan_bg View Post

          If you have to choose image, choose one that's not been used on every other website before.
          And how, exactly, do you recommend people try to figure out how often a stock image has been used?

          Originally Posted by Dejan_bg View Post

          No, you missed the point. I was saying that it only takes creativity in order to stand out from the crowd. Creativity is free and we all possess it to some extent. Some more than the others.
          I'm all for creativity, but creativity is subjective and a matter of taste. What you're really asking is for others to be creative according to your standards. Ain't gonna happen, you're wasting your time.
          Signature

          Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4739864].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dejan_bg
            Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

            And how, exactly, do you recommend people try to figure out how often a stock image has been used?
            They don't have to figure out anything. They just need to invest 10 mins of their time to find some more appropriate images and not to grab the first ones they stumble upon because lots of others did the same. It doesn't take hundreds of dollars for unique images. It only takes a bit of time and a bit different approach


            Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

            I'm all for creativity, but creativity is subjective and a matter of taste. What you're really asking is for others to be creative according to your standards. Ain't gonna happen, you're wasting your time.
            Not really. I would only like to see people using their creativity because I truly believe that all people are creative. And I also believe that in order to stand out from the crowd you have to use creativity or work harder then the rest. Either way is good as long as you don't settle for mediocrity.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4740072].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
              Originally Posted by Dejan_bg View Post


              I'm all for creativity, but creativity is subjective and a matter of taste. What you're really asking is for others to be creative according to your standards. Ain't gonna happen, you're wasting your time.
              Not really. I would only like to see people using their creativity because I truly believe that all people are creative. And I also believe that in order to stand out from the crowd you have to use creativity or work harder then the rest. Either way is good as long as you don't settle for mediocrity.
              They are using their creativity, just not in a way you approve of. They are making a web page or whatever, in a way they think looks good according their own tastes. That is creative. So again, you're really saying they're not creative enough for your standards. Trying to bend the world to your tastes generally doesn't work out too well . . . for anyone.

              By the way, I agree with you in principle on creativity and standing out from the crowd, I just think you're wasting your time trying to tell others how to use stock images.
              Signature

              Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4740736].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
            Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

            And how, exactly, do you recommend people try to figure out how often a stock image has been used?
            Type a basic description of the image into the search engine on istockphoto, and if it's in the first page of search results, everyone is using it.
            Signature
            "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4740354].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
              Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

              Type a basic description of the image into the search engine on istockphoto, and if it's in the first page of search results, everyone is using it.
              Istock is only one image source. Should they go to all the different image sources and check each one? A picture on page 10 of one site may be on page one of another. And don't forget all the public domain image sources. How much time searching and cataloging all the image sites should they spend?

              Moreover, the images that show up on the first page today might be different from the ones from last month. Next month there may be brand new images on the front page that no one is using, but because they're on the front page we shouldn't use them? Let's be serious, there is no practical way to check how often an image has been used.
              Signature

              Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4740765].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Alan Petersen
                Even if you select a non-cheesy looking stock image it can appear everywhere. That's what happened with "everywhere girl"...

                Everywhere Girl, the stock-photo celebrity | Adweek

                I was actually spending way too much time glossing over stock images to use on my sites and in reality my time is spent better elsewhere than worrying too much about stock images.

                And hiring my own photographers/models is out of the question so I'll continue to use them, sorry OP.
                Signature
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4740847].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
                Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

                Should they go to all the different image sources and check each one?
                Nope. Just iStockPhoto. If the picture you are going to use of a guy with a phone is on page 1 of the search results for "guy with phone," everyone is using it and you should use something else.

                This is because idiots get stock photos of a guy with a phone by typing "guy with phone" at iStockPhoto and grabbing something off the first page.

                The same is not true of all the other image sites, so being on page one of the search there isn't as meaningful.

                Don't overcomplicate it. After all, it is stock photography, and lots of people will be using it. If you're that worried, hire a photographer.
                Signature
                "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4740885].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
                  Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                  Nope. Just iStockPhoto. If the picture you are going to use of a guy with a phone is on page 1 of the search results for "guy with phone," everyone is using it and you should use something else.

                  This is because idiots get stock photos of a guy with a phone by typing "guy with phone" at iStockPhoto and grabbing something off the first page.

                  The same is not true of all the other image sites, so being on page one of the search there isn't as meaningful.

                  Don't overcomplicate it. After all, it is stock photography, and lots of people will be using it. If you're that worried, hire a photographer.
                  I know more people that use BigStock than Istock. Plenty use Dreamstime as well, but nevermind all that . . . what is on page one today may not be the same as what's on page one last month or next month. If you want exclusivity make your own or hire it done, otherwise it isn't worth worrying about.

                  Does anyone outside of IM care if two sites use the same model or image? I don't think so. Think a customer is going to say, I've seen that picture before so I'm not buying their product? I don't think so. Anyone that's been in IM for long knows stock photos are part of the business.

                  I'm not overcomplicating anything, and I'm not worried about it, the OP is. I'm saying it doesn't matter outside of someone's esthetical sensibilities, which again, is trying to convince other's to conform to your standards. Stock images have been in use for more years than any of us have been around (since the Civil War) and it doesn't seem to have put anyone out of business. It may even help. Someone could recognize a face and not know where they saw it, but the recognition makes the site it's used on seem more familiar. It could make that site seem more trustworthy to some.
                  Signature

                  Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4740939].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author fluffythewondercat
                    The word "creativity" is so used and abused by the OP in this thread I'm thinking it ought to take out a protection order and require the OP to stay 150 yards away at all times.

                    Look. People are going to use images that work. Here's an example. A friend of mine was director of marketing for a large products company. I asked him how he chose stock photos. He said he used photos of people under stress. You've probably seen them on iStockphoto. He said he uses those because after extensive testing, they converted better than smiling happy pictures.

                    And that's what it's all about.

                    fLufF
                    --
                    Signature
                    Fiverr is looking for freelance writers for its blog. Details here.
                    Love microjobs? Work when you want and get paid in cash the same day!
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4750368].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dejan_bg
      Originally Posted by E. Brian Rose View Post

      I too see a lot of those business team photos being used again and again on websites, but I am not demanding that people stop using them, like the OP.
      I'm not demanding anything It's more an advice that nobody is obliged to accept. I'm talking about this from the standpoint of customer, not seller. Misuse of cliche stock photos won't turn me into a customer and I know I'm not the only one. However, if wast majority of people doesn't care about that then it would be stupid to stop using pic of same girl with headset on every customer support page of every website on the internet If it works then people should use it. I'm here to discuss if some more unique approach would work better.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4739613].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Aaron Doud
    I can add some insite to this idea. I really think whenever you can that you should use non-stock photos. At the company I work for we have one of those classic call us buttons with a lady on the phone. Instead of a stock image we took a picture of our real recpetionist to use. It feels real and since we are a physical business people notice when they come in that she is the same person as on the photo. It builds trust when the pic isn't just a stock image people have seen loads of times.

    This is especially important if you are in a niche where the same photos are over used and it is highly competitive like the IM niche.

    And this is especially true if you are offline marketing and building websites for lawyers and such. I find that I don't trust a lawyer if he has stock photos on his site. Something to think about.
    Signature
    Aaron Doud - Sales & Success
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4739581].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dejan_bg
      Originally Posted by lordauric View Post

      I can add some insite to this idea. I really think whenever you can that you should use non-stock photos. At the company I work for we have one of those classic call us buttons with a lady on the phone. Instead of a stock image we took a picture of our real recpetionist to use. It feels real and since we are a physical business people notice when they come in that she is the same person as on the photo. It builds trust when the pic isn't just a stock image people have seen loads of times.

      This is especially important if you are in a niche where the same photos are over used and it is highly competitive like the IM niche.

      And this is especially true if you are offline marketing and building websites for lawyers and such. I find that I don't trust a lawyer if he has stock photos on his site. Something to think about.

      Nicely said



      Let's take these two images for example. On the first one we have real people. Maybe they're not the most handsome people on the planet but they're real.






      and now check out these photos




      I mean, just check out the guy on the second picture. He's laughing with the salad. It looks like someone put some drugs into his salad. I don't know about others but I'd like to see real people and not some airbrushed dudes with fake smiles. Actually, they don't have to be real. Just a bit more natural. And you can find those photos. They're not expensive. Most of them are free. It only takes time. Don't just grab the first image you stumble upon. But hey, that's just my opinion
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4739991].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jasonl70
    like I said - consumers might be seeing through this.

    In the scenario I mentioned regarding the company website, it made the person immediately think his company was being ran by someone in their basement (he's a gov't contractor, and it turns out none of the employess have ever been to their companies office -so his feelings regarding this are probably right).

    In this case, in an effort to not look "small", their efforts are actualy having the opposite effect.

    re: customer support models with a headset. I replaced the fake stock photo with a real photo of a sales rep (for a car dealer's website), and the nimber of chat prospects that converted to leads (ie, gave the rep their phone #) did in fact go up.

    Don't get me wrong - I still use stock images, but selectively (a topic related image when posting an article to a blog, for instance).
    Signature

    -Jason

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4740144].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dejan_bg
      Originally Posted by jasonl70 View Post


      re: customer support models with a headset. I replaced the fake stock photo with a real photo of a sales rep (for a car dealer's website), and the nimber of chat prospects that converted to leads (ie, gave the rep their phone #) did in fact go up.
      That's it. Real world example

      Originally Posted by jasonl70 View Post

      Don't get me wrong - I still use stock images, but selectively (a topic related image when posting an article to a blog, for instance).
      Picking an appropriate, related image gives the reader an idea of what to expect from the post so there's nothing wrong with using stock images in blog post. They're also useful for breaking up long blocks of text and helping you illustrate the point.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4740284].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Roaddog

    And how, exactly, do you recommend people try to figure out how often a stock image has been used?
    You can use tineye...this happy fella returns 48 results.

    Which I am sure is more, but tineye is getting better at tracing images.

    It's also a good way to trace your copyrighted images.

    There is a FF addon...
    Signature
    KimW a Fellow Warrior Who Really Needs Help
    Ken Strong Cancer Donation | Keep Ken Strong WSO





    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4740571].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author FreeMeal
    I've started creating my own illustrations for my blog, but I'm a graphic designer by trade (and illustrator for a hobby) so it's a bit easier for me. I can knock them out quite quickly if I know what it is i want.

    I was thinking about offering a service on fiverr "let me design you a blog post image" but I wasn't sure there would be the market.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4740689].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author angmoore
    I can't draw - even my stick figures look anorexic That said, I spend a ton of time on looking for quality images that fit the message. I'm very picky about what images I use.
    Signature

    Angie Moore

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4740755].message }}

Trending Topics