As digital cameras have become ubiquitous, and cheap (or free) photo websites plentiful, more people than ever are using images in presentations. Images are not appropriate for every kind of talk, but even when images are appropriate (such as keynote/ballroom style presentations), people are still making the same common mistakes. So here are some things to keep in mind if you use images in your next talk. (Get a larger version of the "slides" image here.)
Case study: a single slide
Let's imagine you are preparing a presentation for a large audience on current issues in Japanese education. One issue facing schools and universities in Japan today is the decreasing number of potential students due to fewer children being born. So our sample slide touches on the low fertility rate in Japan in this context. You could either use a full-bleed image like the one on the left below or a smaller image of a photograph of a school yard in Japan as seen on the slide on the right below. If you chose the slide on the right you could also have a simple line chart fade in as you talk about the declining rate as a long-term trend.
The common mistakes
For our sample here we'll use the photo on the left above as a starting point. How many different ways could we use the same image (at different resolutions) inappropriately or use a different image in a way that is less effective than the one on the left? Here are eleven common mistakes:
(1) Image is too small
You do not have to go full bleed with an image, but this particular image does not work at a such a small size (The slide is 800x600, this image is 183x152.)
(2) Image is placed randomly on slide
The image may be large enough now to be seen easily, but it's put willy-nilly on the slide. Usually this results in the text getting lost in the background (though in this case the text is still legible). Looks accidental.
(3) Image is almost full-screen but not quite
Again, nothing should look accidental. This looks like they were going for the full-bleed background image effect but just missed. Now the software background template can be seen just enough to become a bit of noise
(4) Image is of poor quality (pixelated)
This is all too common. This happens when you take a low-rez jpeg (from a website, for example) and stretch it out. Oh, the humanity!
(5) Image is of poor quality & contains watermark
Even worse is to take a free comp from a photo website and stretch it out. This introduces distracting visual noise (and says you are either cheap, lazy, or both). If you cannot afford images (or do not have a camera, etc.), then it's better to use none at all.
(6) Image is stretched horizontally & distorted
This is all too common. This occurs when people stretch out an image to make it "fit."
(7) Image is stretched vertically & distorted
This becomes a distraction and looks odd. Are young Japanese students really 8-feet tall these days?
(8) Presenter tiles image
Just because the software lets you tile an image, does not mean you should use this feature. Now the background image has too much salience (even if it did not have watermarks).
(9) Clip art is chosen
Avoid off-the-shelf clip art (though your own sketches & drawings can be a refreshing change if used consistently throughout the visuals).
(10) Image is lame & has nothing to do with content
Not sure what two guys shaking hands in front of a globe has to do with the fertility rate in Japan. Yet even if we were talking about "international partnership" the image is still a cliché.
(11) Background image has too much salience (text hard to see)
Sometimes the image is actually a pretty good one but it just needs a bit of editing so that the text will pop out more. The slide on the left below is not horrible but the balance is off and the text does not pop out as much as it could. For the slide on the right below, the image is cropped for better balance, giving more space for the text to breath (and a transparent box is added to help the text pop out a bit more, though there are other ways to do this).
Text & images
Text within images is but one way to use text/data and images harmoniously. As always, much depends on the topic and the context. Images can be very powerful and effective if used with careful intention. The question is not do you have too many? or too few? but rather what's your intention? You can give a good presentation without any images at all, but if you do use images in slides, try to keep these eleven tips in mind.
There are clearly more than eleven ways to use images inappropriately, what are some of the ones that you have observed over the years? Would love to hear your stories.
Update: Here are a few different (though similar) ways to use images in a slide featuring a quote on my personal blog.

For the past twenty years or so many software companies have oversold "quick & easy" design, just as late-night TV informercials today oversell the idea of losing weight without having to workout or change your lifestyle. Why use your brain (or work hard)? — just follow our easy template for success, they say. Now, I am not suggesting that software templates are by their nature bad things. They can be very useful. But a template without knowledge and understanding can also be a dangerous thing. In the world of software apps such as presentation tools, we often rely too much on templates and shortcuts. Instead, we should spend more time in our professional development exploring and understanding deeply the art of design in all its myriad forms before we even turn on the computer. As technology gets more advanced and more complex, much of it actually gets easier to use, yet most of the discussion is still on tips and tricks of using the features of the tool itself. What's needed — now more then ever — is better content creation, better stories, greater creativity, and the ability to think and apply a deeper knowledge of both the art and science of visual design.
Type is a wonderful thing. And while I don't recommend that we all become professional typographers, it is in our interest to deepen our knowledge and understanding of the rich art of typography. Printing with letterpress or movable type in the West goes back to at least the 1400s (the Chinese were doing it even before that with woodblock printing). The history is deep and wide, yet most people only have a cursory understanding of typefaces or fonts. It's possible to learn much about the power of typography with a computer and books—and most importantly—a good instructor. But can we benefit in the here and now by looking to the past and even using tools of the past to get a good grounding in design and type? If you could study type while learning to produce good work with a letterpress, would it make a difference? The video below called 
The tools of today are fantastic. No one is suggesting we abandon them and return to the past. But we need to learn from the past traditions and the proven rules of the art as well. And learning the art with the tools of the past, with all the constraints they impose, can be an enlightening, educational experience. Today, when people say "you have to know how to use the tool" too often they mean the features of the software. Using software features is important too, but these tools are ever-changing, ephemeral ones. What is much slower to change and far more grounded is the actual art itself. Here are a couple of good books to help you learn about type. These are not the only ones, but one of these will get you started.









Before I began working on
In Tokyo I learned that the Presentation Zen deal is even better than I thought: the deal is not 10 free iStockphoto credits ($10 value), it is a deal for downloading 10 free images at the highest resolution (around $130 in value). By the time the book is out (

Twenty-seven years ago today John Lennon's life was taken from him in front of his New York City apartment with his wife Yoko by his side. Like millions of others, I remember to this day exactly where I was when I heard the news (in my case, in the cold, dark parking lot of Mt. Hood Community College following a late night jazz rehearsal on campus). We were all shocked. Stunned. Deeply saddened. John Lennon was only 40. Today we are reminded what a great loss and a tragic waste his death was. And yet, in only 40 years of life, John Lennon made amazing contributions to the human race that people continue to talk about today and will still be talking about for generations to come. To paraphrase a piece of 



It's been almost two years since I wrote
Remember that
Steve's tone, pace, and the words he chooses all come together to make his "voice" conversational and natural. Steve appears comfortable, smiles, and uses humor just the right amount. He's relaxed so the audience is relaxed. Bill appears less comfortable and his speech is more vague and filled with abstractions. Bill also uses more jargon and terms like "...rich capabilities," "rich fonts," "...working together in a rich way," "...use these tools in a rich way," and "...watching something rich like learning about an election." (See the rich
Both Steve and Bill use slides to complement their talks. Steve's visuals are a big part of his talk. The visuals are necessary not decorative. The visuals do not overpower him but they are an important component of the talk not just icing on the cake. Steve uses the slides to help him tell a story and he interacts with them in a natural way, rarely turning his back on the audience (monitors in front show the same onscreen image). Steve uses the huge backlit screen behind him in the same spirit at least that George Lucas uses his screen: to help tell a story. Lucas uses actors, visuals, and effects to convey his message, Steve uses visuals and his own words and natural presence to tell his story. In Bill's case the slides are not only of low aesthetic quality (though this may be a matter of taste) they simply do not really help Bill's narrative very much.
But the biggest difference is not the fact that Steve's slides are simpler with fewer elements and fewer bullet points, the biggest difference is in the way they are used. If you want to appreciate the difference you have to watch both presentations (
























The cable news networks proclivity for displaying daily on-screen clutter extravaganzas do more than just make viewers irritated, the practice--which everyone is surely used to by now--has influenced a generation to believe that visual displays should necessarily have more not less elements crammed in to a small screen. This surely has influenced how people view their own PowerPoint slides (and other multimedia). When possible, put more "stuff" in there--more glitter, more boxes of info, more colors, more, more, more. Is this where "bad PowerPoint" comes from? Do we say to ourselves "Well, if CNN (FOX, MSNBC, etc.) does it I guess more text and lines and boxes, more logos and 3-D graphics in assorted colors must be how it's done. That's how serious presenters with serious tools do it," we say.








