Background design principals

[Zach Wingo]

<BEGIN RANT>
I personally get really distracted an irritated by 99% of background images I see used in churches. It's easy to look at an image and think it's a great picture but that doesn't mean it should be used for projection backgrounds.

The image should never draw the attention away from the contents. If a person consciously notices the image separately from content then something is usually wrong. In other words, If a person thinks, "That's a awesome background", then it's not doing it's job which is to enhance the content, not distract from it. Think about when you hear a really great singer...you rarely consciously notice the background music because it's designed to enhance and compliment the voice but not take away from it.

Images of nature and people or any distinct object will usually draw away from content which is why the best designers in secular media use abstract background or custom made images. Take a look at Mars Hill (http://marshillchurch.org) in Seattle and see how for each sermon series they have either a custom made image or an abstract background. It also can't be emphasized enough that the font choice makes an enormous difference. I just returned from An Event Apart (http://aneventapart.com) conference for professional web developers/designers and the speaker asked the audience, 'How many think web design is 95% typography?' and about 3/4 raised their hands. Again, look at design sites and you'll see custom fonts tailored to the theme and background.

Most churches would benefit from just using a solid black background instead of the many images I've seen in the past few year.

<END RANT>

[Rich Schmidt]

I used to do custom graphics for every series, but 3-4 years ago I got away from it. They have the Scripture passages we're looking at on a handout, so I don't need to print them again on the screen. Occasionally I'll put a picture or video up there, but that's it.

Anyway, the only backgrounds we use are behind song lyrics, and those are motion backgrounds, hopefully in a mood and tempo that complement the song. They're mostly abstract, though we do have one of waves (from underwater) and some sky/cloud ones.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Thanks, Zach. I completely agree.

We tend to use either a white or black background, or a season-specific color with a fade or gradient (purple for Lent, etc.), with very simple font (Trebuchet, Verdana, etc.). I will sometimes use an image while preaching, but generally without text to accompany unless it somehow explains the image.

We use a bunch of videos though.

[Rich Schmidt]

In my earlier reply, I almost said something about not seeing many other backgrounds, since I don't get to visit other churches very often.... but then I remembered that just last week I was at a district assembly for a day and a half, and the backgrounds they used behind the song lyrics were a bit distracting. They weren't anything outlandish -- usually just a statue of Jesus or something on one side or in a corner. But that was enough to distract the folks I was with. And in one case, the artistic rendering of Jesus was odd enough that it distracted me, too. At least two of the 4-6 backgrounds they used were distracting in some way. I'd totally forgotten about that...

[Zach Wingo]

I want to clarify that I don't want to criticize the people who volunteer their time and are already doing their best. It's just a frustration I have in general regarding church media and it's quality.

[Rich Schmidt]

I want to clarify that I don't want to criticize the people who volunteer their time and are already doing their best. It's just a frustration I have in general regarding church media and it's quality.

Sometimes it's not so much a "quality" issue as a poor design decision. And sometimes it's just a "different" design decision.

To draw an analogy to interior design -- we have some elements in our worship space that aren't my favorite, because they don't match my design preferences... but they're not really bad. They're good quality, done well, professionally designed and installed. I just think they were a poor choice for the room. :)

[Dale Cozby]

I have recently begun to use images on the side of scripture or in place of during sermons that illustrate the bible story. Some great art work out there for just about every parable or story. Sort of like iconography except it is multimedia instead of statues or paintings in the church cost a lot less and can be changed every week. It just sits there during the sermon to be looked at besides looking at me or the cross on the wall.

[Mike Schutz]

<BEGIN RANT>
I personally get really distracted an irritated by 99% of background images I see used in churches. It's easy to look at an image and think it's a great picture but that doesn't mean it should be used for projection backgrounds.

The image should never draw the attention away from the contents. If a person consciously notices the image separately from content then something is usually wrong. In other words, If a person thinks, "That's a awesome background", then it's not doing it's job which is to enhance the content, not distract from it. Think about when you hear a really great singer...you rarely consciously notice the background music because it's designed to enhance and compliment the voice but not take away from it.

Images of nature and people or any distinct object will usually draw away from content which is why the best designers in secular media use abstract background or custom made images. Take a look at Mars Hill (http://marshillchurch.org) in Seattle and see how for each sermon series they have either a custom made image or an abstract background. It also can't be emphasized enough that the font choice makes an enormous difference. I just returned from An Event Apart (http://aneventapart.com) conference for professional web developers/designers and the speaker asked the audience, 'How many think web design is 95% typography?' and about 3/4 raised their hands. Again, look at design sites and you'll see custom fonts tailored to the theme and background.

Most churches would benefit from just using a solid black background instead of the many images I've seen in the past few year.

<END RANT>

I respectfully disagree, primarily due to the absolute nature of the second sentence in your second paragraph.
Having a well-chosen concrete image can assist in making the song more meaningful - in much the same manner as putting video images along with narration enhances both.
Let me offer an example. When we sing the Chris Tomlin song "God of this City," we use slides of Philadelphia, of New York, Boston, Baltimore and Washington, DC - all cities close to us, and then slides of our community. While I am sure that there may be some folks who find such images distracting, many people responded that thee images "made the song come alive" for them.
All that being said, I find the moving images behind songs described elsewhere in this thread distracting.
So - I think that what may be distracting for some is enhancing for others.
(Of course, I am not enough of an expert in anything to find the way others do it frustrating.)

[Jim Chabot]

We also use images behind the words, in fact I am taking a break from writing the media, and here this thread pops up! Somehow the blank or colored backgrounds just seem sterile. I try to use an image that will help bring the message of the song being sung, I also ask those who sing specials to let me know something about their songs so that we can have an image or sometimes a series of images to go with their song as well. And it helps me say something other than their name when I introduce them!

One of the things that I have found to be extremely helpful is to use outlined letters with a drop shadow effect. That way the font is white and black, this helps with contrast across an image with varying shades.

I have tried using backgrounds with an image off to the side of the text. But some complained that the text was too small. I should add that those who complained were lets say very long time attenders.

We also select images for prayer time, greeting time, and announcement time. We use a black slide to mute the projector so that we can raise the screen for choir.

[Shea Zellweger]

Having recently completed a graduate level class in the principles of design for visual communication, I have a lot to say about this, but I'll try to keep it brief, as most of what I say will be parroting people who are actually good at this sort of thing:

The usage of powerpoint and images that is generally seen in churches is halfway between two good things. On the one hand, you have the "good thing" that is the use of background imagery. If you think you don't like background imagery, look around your sanctuary. Even the barest of sanctuaries tends to have a cross situated in such a way that it is always within view of the congregation (provided the congregation is looking where they should be). This is one of those very distinct background images which causes the attendant to say "okay, I'm in a church now."
The other "good thing" is the use of visual communication. Often, the best way to tell someone something is to show it to them. Many pastors go to great lengths to describe something in their sermons that they could easily show on screen without having to say a word. It is fully possible to preach an entire sermon without ever saying a word, if you're so inclined and so gifted as to be able to work with visual elements.

where we often end up is a mishmash between these two things, where the image doesn't necessarily communicate the message, but it's not necessarily in the background either. That, I imagine, is the sort of thing that is getting Zach frustrated. If there is text up on the screen, and the pastor is preaching, and there's also an image behind that text, the more ADD among us (myself included) will get so hung up on figuring out what the image has to do with the text and/or message that we will lose portions of that message. The more artistic among us (my wife included) will be so busy analyzing the image itself that they will miss both the text and the message. I think if you're going to use an image, it either needs to be in the background, or it needs to be allowed to be a focal point. In Mike's example of the famous cities, those cities are allowed to become a focal point. The congregation sings "you're the God of this city." Which city? This one- the one that is being shown on the screen right now. I think that's a great use of imagery. At one church I attended, they had some excellent storm imagery for singing "praise you in this storm" that afforded the congregation a tangible point of reference for "this storm." I don't think these kinds of images are damaging. In fact, I think they're infinitely better than a plain white screen. What is damaging is an image that is either unrelated, unappealing, or for lack of a better term "Cheesy," because at least some in the congregation will focus in so much on the confusing image and lose the content of what's going on.

BTW, I highly recommend that anyone interested in this stuff check out http://www.midnightoilproductions.com/ . There are a lot of good resources there, both for still imagery and video clips, and Len and Jason are really gifted teachers. I believe you can book a seminar in your area if you're interested, or if you just want some ideas, their website and books are both great.

[Paul DeBaufer]

My wife is a graphic designer and helps me tremendously in this area. Having spent years and years in college studying she is a wealth of information concerning this subject. Shea is correct in his post above.

I like working with my wife because she has a way of figuring out how to visually communicate what the topic of my sermon is. Oft the title slide will be a full image with the title over it while the scripture/note slides will have the image in a corner so as not to be too distracting (although this is not always her method).

Where we are now I just use white background with black 40 pt. Arial Black font for lyrics and the reverse of this for scripture. But my reason for this is our projector is dying and we cannot afford another and this is the only way we can get enough clarity with images these days.

[Bob Woolley]

I am no graphic designer...but I do enjoy creating and looking at various adverts and always seeking out graphic design and media type web sites. I think a lot depends on how your church presents it's worship service. Many churches use plain or plain moving backgrounds to display their choruses. These churches are usually more representative of the younger generation. I attend one of those churches and they are very into media with tv cameras displaying the service on another screen for the overflow crowd in another area of the church. Very rarely do they play hymns but if they do, it is with a more modern faster beat. Here is some of my designs to advertise events attached below that I created. With the right tools found online, one can make these slides if you plan ahead and give your media person time to think about how to advertise your event.

Also here is a link to my bookmarks online below and I think you will find the links very useful in finding what you want as far as backgrounds and designing backgrounds.

Church Media and Other Helps! (http://www.myhq.com/public/t/y/tychicus62/)

Blessings, Bob

[John Hine]

I agree with Zach. Too often we focus too much on the visual aspect and not the spiritual aspect. I love technology and use it often but there comes a point when enough is enough. How about the pastors who use the iPad for sermon notes and it freezes. Talk about killing the mood of your sermon when you have to make dumb jokes about restarting your machine. No hymnal or leather Bible ever caused problems.

[Chris Patton]

We mainly use black backgrounds these days. It's just simpler. We use very little video, but that's because we don't have the right technology. And I can't stand it when things come off mediocre.

[Houston Thomas]

I agree with the original poster that there are few things worse than images that distract.

As to the use of background images in general - it depends on what you want to communicate. If you want to communicate in a way that inspires, tugs at the imagination, and is abstract - don't use images. If you want to make an abstract concept more concrete - use an image.

But just understand that any form of media is not neutral. In fact, the media that is used actually shapes and forms the message that is communicated.