This is probably off topic and will irritate designers around the world. But personally I disable all custom fonts. I have two. Helvatica equivalent and a monospace. Sizing is limited to 8-14 depending on screen resolution
Another reason to block Google Fonts is that it's (yet another) source of tracking data for them, not sure if you can self-host those though. Personally from the sites I've looked at with and without Google Fonts, it's not much of a loss.
I agree why give google everything?
You could try http://brick.im/fonts/
brick fonts is at least a choice..
I have used it and it seems fine..I have yet to expand use of brick fonts but on some sites I see no issues..
nice choice of fonts as well
WHOLLY! Thank you very much. I'll be going through and every one of those. Though judging from the popularity of this thread, probably likely other startups will have the same images as me :)
Hey, yeah its a super good list. As others have pointed out, it really depends on what you wanna do with the picture.
A few of my favorites are Stocksy and Cavan.
On the more user generated side you have eyeem and 500px.
And on the high high end you have getty.
Check out Haystack.im and let me know if its helpful.
Thanks. I'll check it out. I just want to avoid those cheesy, unprofessional stock images - just looks tacky and the people in those images look way too fake when we show our website.
If you let us know a bit more about what you are looking for (two people in a coffee shop ; shark attack ; Williamsburg hipster on a penny farthing) and a budget I can put a gallery together for you....
I never realized I could favorite a comment on HN. Thanks!
For anyone wondering how:
Next to the username of the comment you want to save it will show how long ago the comment was left (ex: "40 minutes ago"). Click on that time and then there is a link at the top where you can click favorite.
Be careful if the photo includes a person’s face prominently. If it does, the person in the photo has likeness rights in the photo[0] which the photographer cannot assign to you without a signed model release form from the subject of the photo. Most Flickr photographers are amateurs who don’t have model release forms for their photos.
Plenty of lawsuits have occurred around the use of Flickr photos without model release forms (there is also a major sub-plot in the Kevin Smith movie “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” that revolves around likeness rights).
Creative Commons is not enough when there are prominent faces in the photo.
Seconding this recommendation. A former hobby of mine was photographically cataloging museum exhibits and uploading them to flickr cc-licensed. I've pulled tons of cc photos from flickr for picture books and other projects. It's a fantastic resource, and only costs you attribution.
Note that depending how you find an image, the price may be wildly different. I searched on iStock and found an image for 30 bucks. Then when I later went to purchase it, my google search led me to a page where it was listed for $400. I was eventually able to find it on the $30 page again.
For what it's worth, I did most of my searching in incognito windows to try to avoid this type of problem. It sure didn't work this time!
What do you mean by "high end"? http://www.gettyimages.com/prestige is about as high-end as it gets in stock photography, but you'll also be paying handsomely for it.
I have same question but for not processed images. You can find high quality but highly shopped images on sites like unsplash or low quality not processed images on flickr creative commons search.
But it's very hard to find hight quality images without film effects or other filters.
As a few other folks have pointed out it really depends on what you mean by 'high-end'. The stock photo world is divided in a few different segments: free, microstock, midstock, and premium (as well as commerical and editorial).
Starting at the cheaper/low end you have 'free' imagery (some flavor of Creative Commons Zero [cc0] license) that lots of sites listed here offer. The one caution with free (as I think someone else mentioned below) is that the licenses aren't always clear (what you can and can't use it for) and in some cases the attribution / provenance of the image is wrong / unclear. Meaning that what you think you are ok to use, may have actually been appropriated from someone else; and you are potentially infringing on copyright. I haven't spent enough time on the different free sites to see what their policies are regarding provenance, so your mileage may vary.
Then you have the microstock stock imagery - images that are in the $1-$5/range. Companies in that realm include folks like Shutterstock, 123RF, Dreamstime, and a slew of others. Shutterstock's public filings says that their per image license is something like $2.25 (or it was when I looked maybe a year or two ago). These images are often the ones that people refer to as 'stock' in that they look like stock. Not all of course, but I am sure you know what I am talking about.
Then you have the realm of 'midstock', which is somewhere between (you guessed it) the low end and the highend. There are a lot of players in here, but iStock (from Getty) is probably one of the biggest ones; as well as Adobe's offering (from when they bought a library called Fotolia). This area of the industry is increasingly being carved out as prices either go down down down, or the more unique and premium imagery hold their own.
At the high end of the stock world you have what is called the 'premium' stock photography folks - this includes Offset (from Shutterstock), Getty Images, and the new Premium offering from Adobe. Those are the three big players at the top end of the spectrum, and then you have a lot of smaller studios that sell directly to end consumers and also place their imagery with the big three. So in some cases you can find the same imagery across a lot of different providers.
My background is a photographer and I have images with a bunch of these more premium folks and looking at my royalty statements the average sale is more in the $110 range/image. Or ~50x the low-end of the market. So it really depends on how much $$ you are looking to spend and whether the quality of the image (beauty in the eye of the beholder and all that) is important to you.
The other site (full disclosure, I am one of the founders) to check out is https://haystack.im that aggregates from a couple dozen different stock agencies all in one place (including several listed here like Stocksy, EyeEm, 500px, Cavan, Maskot, ImageSource, and a science-focused site called SciencePhotoLibrary). You can pick one/several agencies to search at any given time and then we boot you off to them for the final license. So we are more like a premium stock photo search engine than a distributor of the stock itself. Think Kayak not Delta.
Hopefully that makes sense. Hit me if you have any stock industry/photography questions. I am at: andrew@haystack.im
I always start with the free sites, but usually end up using a paid option especially for images that include people. High quality free landscape type photos seem more common.
https://stocksnap.io/
http://www.free-images.cc/
https://unsplash.com/
https://www.pexels.com/
http://librestock.com/
http://skuawk.com/
http://www.sitebuilderreport.com/stock-up
http://finda.photo/
http://foodshot.co/
http://growthtext.com/free-stock-photos/
https://www.stockified.com/
https://www.negativespace.co/
https://everypixel.com/
http://startupstockphotos.com/
https://foodiesfeed.com/
https://picjumbo.com/
https://www.stockio.com/
hope this helps ツ