What journalists really think about your pictures
And why sending the right ones can be key to a successful pitch
I don’t think anyone is going to dispute that it’s important to send pictures with a pitch, wherever possible.
This is something which comes up time and time again, whenever I ask editors what they want to see in pitches. A great set of pictures helps editors visualise how the story will look on the page - which is often key to getting a “yes” to your pitch.
But… there are pictures and there are pictures.
The type of image you send tells journalists a lot more than you might think about both the nature of the story and how straightforward it is going to be to research and write.
Bad pictures can signal to us that the story is going to be harder work than it needs to be - which could put us off saying “yes” to a borderline story.
As always, there are no single set of rules in journalism and there will always be exceptions to this. But from my experience of both receiving PR pitches and pitching stories to editors as a freelance journalist, here’s what I really think when I see this type of picture with a pitch:
The tiny low-res image
All too often, I’ll get emailed an image which looks great on my phone, only to open it up on my desktop and discover it’s a teeny-tiny 77kb low resolution file.
My heart sinks when this happens because it inevitably means two things:
I will have to go back to the sender and ask for higher resolution images (1MB+ is standard for publication) - which takes time I don’t usually have to spare.
The sender probably doesn’t understand what hi-res means, so getting hold of bigger files is likely to be a tricky and lengthy process.
If I haven’t already committed to the story, this can be off-putting - especially when working for publications which don’t have a picture budget so rely on submitted photos.
By all means send over low-res pictures when you initially pitch, so the files aren’t too big to email. But if you do, make clear you’ve got hi-res versions available too. Even better, send a (non-expiring!) link so they are easy to download when needed.
The professional photoshoot
If you’re pitching an expert or case study and have professionally-shot pictures available, this can often help the pitch get over the line.
As budgets get cut at news publications, journalists are increasingly being expected to source pictures ourselves direct from interviewees - but picture editors often still ideally want these to be of the same high standard as when the publication sent out professional photographers… So having publication-standard photos helps solve this headache.
But - and a big but - is that professional photographers retain the copyright of any images they take, unless you have bought a licence which specifically allows them to be republished in media coverage.
This is an issue I come up against a lot because often the people who have been photographed don’t know exactly what their copyright allows. Wedding and baby portrait photos, for example, are often licensed for private reuse, but would incur extra fees if the image was published by a commercial publication like a newspaper.
It means the first thing I think when I see pictures like this is: “Great - but will we have to pay to use these?” It can often be complicated (and time-consuming) to find out.
If you’re sending professionally-shot photos, make sure you are clear who owns the copyright and whether you have permission to give these to the publication to reproduce. Making this clear upfront saves unnecessary drama later.
The I-took-this-on-my-phone photos
The joy of modern smartphones is that anyone can take a decent, hi-res photograph and email it with incredible ease. The bane of my life as a journalist is that these pictures are almost exclusively taken in vertical “portrait” mode.
Most of us instinctively take portrait pictures these days. It’s naturally how we use our phones and it’s also the format that works best for social media.
But almost every online publication wants horizontal “landscape” images. These fit much better on the page - and also work well for the picture spaces available in many print editions too.
When I get a set of pictures through that are all vertical, it’s always another heart-sinking “this is going to need another email exchange” moment.
And surprisingly often, it turns out that the interviewee doesn’t have a single usable landscape photo - which can cause another headache, or sometimes even for them to be dropped from the article.
I once read that if you want to be featured as the first expert or product in an article, make sure the image you submit is landscape as then it will be the one chosen for the top of the page. I think there’s a lot of sense in this.
Sending a mix of portrait and landscape images makes like easy for picture editors to find something that fits the space - and, as we all know, making journalists’ lives easy is key to getting a “yes” to your pitch.
The filtered/selfie/posed snap
Social media is so full of very posed, heavily-filtered photos and selfies, that we have become used to seeing this kind of picture as normal.
But taken out of social media and put into the context of a news publication - especially a print one - these images just look weird. They also undermine the integrity of the subject, as they give the impression that they are hiding something and/or will not show what they really look like.
In a world where traditional news outlets are trying to mark themselves out as authentic and trustworthy purveyors of information, this kind of image just doesn’t work.
I’ve had case studies send over this sort of thing and I’ve had to gently suggest we need to see their real face for readers to be able to relate to them. Receiving this kind of picture inevitably means having this difficult conversation and is another one of those “this story is going to be extra work” moments, that you really want to avoid creating for journalists when you’re pitching a story.
If you’re working with case studies, it’s worth making clear than any photos they provide need to be:
Of their face, looking forward.
Without sunglasses or anything covering their face (except for religious reasons)
Ideally taken by someone else, not at a “selfie” angle
Unfiltered or edited (and definitely no animal ear filters or similar…)
The branded corporate shot
This one is simple: journalism is not advertorial. Editors are allergic to anything that looks too much like a plug - and this includes heavily branded images.
If the only pictures you have of your client/product/business leader are against a branded backdrop and/or with them wearing heavily branded clothing, these are very unlikely to be used - and make journalists think: “This person doesn’t understand how news works.”
Pictures with plain backdrops and neutral backgrounds (like green leaves, a brick wall or a cityscape out the window) are always well-received. Avoid logos wherever possible.
So what do journalists want?
My dream pitch:
Comes with a few low-res images attached so I can instantly see what the interviewees/products look like and visualise how that will work on the page.
With a link to a set of hi-res images I can easily download and send on to editors (without it expiring!).
Those pictures don’t need to be professionally shot - but if they are, I want to be 100% sure who owned the copyright and who is giving permission for them to be reused.
Smartphone pictures are often great: they’re high-quality, hi-res and easy to send. But it’s wonderful if there are a few landscape options to keep my online editors happy.
I am always looking for a mix of pictures which present the interviewees nicely and tell the story. So for a health case study, for example, it’s great to have a few headshots and full-length photos of them looking nice, plus some pictures which illustrate what’s happened - like some photos of them in hospital or when their condition was at its worst.
Get pictures right - and make things easy for the journalist - and it can make the all-important difference between a journalist saying they’re interested in theory, and them actually getting around to running the story…
Inspired to get pitching? Read these Get Featured guides first for more tips on perfecting your pitch:
Did you miss my Media Pitching in 2026 webinar?
If you didn’t get a chance to buy a ticket for my webinar Media Pitching in 2026: What You Need to Know and would like to watch it back, the good news is: you still can!
The recording is available for the ticket price of £25 or £20 for paid subscribers. If you’re interested in accessing it, please email me with WEBINAR in the subject line and I’ll be in touch.