Most of you are probably aware of how abundant – content-wise – Reddit is. There are a bunch of communities that cover a variety of topics, and chances are you'll be able to find something that floats your boat. So, if you own a company, are a photographer, a fellow meme lover, or someone who simply yearns to cure their blues – consider yourself lucky!

"Ever see a stock photo that just made you stop and say, WTF? Or a stock photo that's so bad that it can't ever possibly be sold? r/Sh*ttyStockPhotos is the place to bring those photos to life" – yes, ladies and gentlemen, get ready for a ride and a half because today we'll be looking at some of the worst yet incredibly hilarious examples of stock photos.

The r/Sh*ttyStockPhotos subreddit was created back in October 2017, and since then, it has managed to gain almost 8K members. Although it's no longer as active as it once was, there are hundreds of posts that will catch your attention and leave you pondering for the night!

So, what's the science behind stock pics? Generally speaking, it's a supply of images that are often licensed for specific usage. For instance, marketing and advertising, blogs and websites, commercial and for-profit projects, and personal projects.

Companies and professionals frequently resort to stock imagery mainly because it saves time and is budget-friendly. The pieces are already edited and ready to be used; plus, many stock photography sources provide a lot of choices, meaning that you will, most likely, find what you need.

However, it's not all that jolly! While stock photos are convenient for many, they do tend to come off as generic and inauthentic. They're overused and there's always a risk of using the same images as your competitors. Hiring a professional photographer that will be able to provide your brand with images that not only suit your motto but also diversify your content is the ideal way out, but it is a costly process that isn't as acceptable for businesses that perhaps have just started out.

Now, to get a more professional outlook on stock imagery, BP reached out to Paul David Smith.

First, we invited our expert to introduce himself to our readers: "My name is Paul David Smith. I'm 39 years old and based in Newquay, Cornwall, UK. I've worked as a professional commercial and advertising photographer for over 20 years, and during this time I have created and sold thousands of stock photos through multiple channels."

BP then asked our expert what the purpose of stock images is, and he replied as follows: "The purpose of stock photography is for journalists and editors to add visual imagery to complement their story and articles. Often, time and budget constraints simply mean they are not able to commission a photographer to go and take photographs specifically for their story, so they rely on a bank of pre-taken images that they can pay a small fee to use."

"Stock photography has been used by media channels for many, many years. However, it really took off when the internet became mainstream, as multiple outlets opened up for photographers to submit their work too and earn a small fee every time it was used."

"Most stock photography hasn't really had all that much effort put into it, which is probably why so many of them are so bad. As a professional photographer, the amount I'll make from a stock image can be very small. To make any kind of money from it, submitting your images to stock websites in bulk, covering a lot of different subjects, is the way to go as there is more chance of someone picking up and using one of my images that way. This requirement to create content in bulk means there is not as much effort going into the production as there would be if you were creating content for a specific client, for example, as a lot of the images will never get used, and hence you'd make no money from them," Paul David Smith said when we pondered why the majority of stock images are so subpar. 

The photographer also added: "I think stock photography websites also attract a lot of beginners to photography who see it as a way of earning some money from the expensive camera gear that they have just bought. Obviously, this is going to lead to some questionable imagery being available as we are all on a learning journey, and people at the start of their journey won't be creating content to the same level as the professionals who have been doing it for 20 years."

Last but certainly not least, we asked our expert if companies should use stock or real images: "Finally, creating a terrible yet funny stock photo can earn you a lot of money! If people keep using it because it is so bad it’s almost funny, well, that is a win for the photographer as they are being paid every time it’s used, no matter why it is being used."

"In an ideal world, media outlets would commission photographers to take images specific to their needs, but the fast pace of media these days simply means that will never happen for every job. Stock photography allows journalists to write content late in the evening and have it live instantly rather than waiting a day for a photographer to go and take photographs for them."

We hope that you've enjoyed this witty ensemble of questionable stock images; let us know which ones are your favorites! Also, don't hesitate to give the subreddit and our expert, Paul David Smith, a follow!