{"id":178188,"date":"2026-10-16T08:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-10-16T08:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mcfade.co.uk\/blog\/?p=178188"},"modified":"2026-10-15T18:17:04","modified_gmt":"2026-10-15T18:17:04","slug":"ai-editing-real-business-photography","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mcfade.co.uk\/blog\/ai-editing-real-business-photography","title":{"rendered":"AI can help edit your business photos. Someone still needs to take them."},"content":{"rendered":"

Part 1 of 3: AI and photography<\/strong><\/p>\n

AI is useful in my editing workflow, while photographing your actual people, workplace or project still means turning up with a camera.<\/p>\n

Quick answer:<\/strong> I think AI puts more pressure on generic stock imagery and some standalone retouching work than on the commissioned photography I do. A business asking for photographs of its own team or a live construction project needs a record of those particular people and places. AI helps me process the photographs afterwards; it doesn’t turn a generated scene into a record of what happened.<\/p>\n

\"Paper-cut<\/picture>
AI-generated editorial illustration of the topic.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Is AI a threat or a godsend to photographers?<\/h2>\n

For me, it’s a bit of both. Which bit you feel most probably depends on what you’re being paid to produce.<\/p>\n

If the brief is simply \u201cgive me a nice picture to fill this space on a website\u201d, I can see why image generation is attractive. The picture might not need to show a particular person, place or product. It just needs to suit the page.<\/p>\n

That’s a different brief from \u201cphotograph our directors\u201d, \u201ccover our event\u201d or \u201cshow how this civil engineering project is progressing\u201d. Those photographs have a specific job to do, and a specific subject that has to be there.<\/p>\n

I wouldn’t pretend the whole profession is protected for ever. Things move quickly, and I may have to revise my view. But that distinction is why I’m finding AI useful rather than spending every working day worrying about it.<\/p>\n

Which photography work looks more exposed?<\/h2>\n

Generic stock photography is the obvious example in my mind. If someone wants an illustration of a business meeting, it may not matter whether those people ever sat around that table.<\/p>\n

I looked at stock-library work years ago and never really pursued it. There was a lot of cataloguing, keywording and administration involved, and the style that seemed popular wasn’t really where I was heading. I was usually looking for an interesting angle or something a bit more distinctive.<\/p>\n

So stock-library sales aren’t an income stream I’m now watching disappear.<\/p>\n

I also think people earning their living from repetitive retouching face pressure. That is skilled work, and some of it used to require a lot of careful manual effort. Tools that shorten those jobs inevitably change the economics. That’s my assessment, though, rather than a prediction of what every retoucher’s business will look like.<\/p>\n

Why do real team photographs still matter?<\/h2>\n

Imagine you’re refreshing your company website. You need photographs of the directors, the team and people doing their work.<\/p>\n

The important part is that they’re your people. Someone who meets them afterwards should recognise them. The workplace should be yours. The images should give a visitor a useful sense of the business they’re considering dealing with.<\/p>\n

A generated office scene can illustrate an idea. It can’t document a meeting it never saw.<\/p>\n

That’s the basis of my corporate and team photography<\/a>: making useful photographs of the people who actually work there, rather than finding something vaguely office-shaped to fill a gap.<\/p>\n

The same applies to personal-brand photography<\/a>. If your business depends on people knowing and recognising you, a varied set of photographs of you doing your thing has a clear purpose. It gives you material for the website, LinkedIn, speaking engagements and the other places you show up.<\/p>\n

What about projects, places and events?<\/h2>\n
\"Paper-cut<\/picture>
AI-generated editorial illustration.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This is the other big part of my work: projects and places.<\/p>\n

A building, a construction site or a piece of civil engineering work changes over time. If the client needs progress photographs, someone needs to visit while that stage exists. If they need an aerial view of the actual site, it needs to be captured there.<\/p>\n

You can generate a convincing-looking construction scene. That doesn’t tell you what had been built on this particular project when the photograph was needed.<\/p>\n

Events have the same practical requirement. The people were there, something happened, and the client wants photographs of it. A generated awards evening isn’t coverage of their awards evening.<\/p>\n

So I tend to think of my work in two broad groups: people, and projects and places. That isn’t a new list of packages. It’s a straightforward explanation of why being there still matters.<\/p>\n

Where does AI actually help me?<\/h2>\n

When I get back from a shoot, there’s still plenty to do.<\/p>\n

Portraits may need a bit of cleanup. A backdrop might have dusty footprints on it. A product might have specks that only become obvious when you look closely. A batch of headshots needs consistent framing, even though the people were all different heights.<\/p>\n

These are the jobs where I’m getting value from AI-assisted tools.<\/p>\n

For example, I’ve got a headshot-cropping tool that finds the eyes and uses them to position a configurable crop across a batch. That helps me get a consistent set without manually lining up every face. I can run another crop shape where a different version is useful.<\/p>\n

I also use tools to help with portrait retouching, backdrop cleanup and product dust. They reduce the fiddly work. I still have to decide what looks right and guide the edit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
What the image needs to do<\/th>\nWhere I see the value<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Illustrate a general idea<\/td>\nGenerated imagery may be an option, depending on the brief.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Introduce your actual team<\/td>\nPhotograph the real people.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Record a project stage or event<\/td>\nAttend and capture what is there.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Tidy an existing commissioned photograph<\/td>\nUse editing tools where they help produce a believable result.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

What should a business ask before choosing its images?<\/h2>\n

Start with the purpose of the picture.<\/p>\n

Does it just need to illustrate an idea, or does it need to show something specific about your business? Will the reader assume it shows your staff, your premises or your work? Is it meant to document a real event or stage of a project?<\/p>\n

Those questions are more useful than a blanket argument about whether AI images are good or bad.<\/p>\n

For my own business, AI has been a help with the processing. The commissioned work still starts with understanding what the client needs, turning up and taking the photographs.<\/p>\n

If you need photographs of your team, workplace or project, tell me what they’re for<\/a>. That’s a good place to start.<\/p>\n

Cheers,
\nAde<\/p>\n

\n

Frequently asked questions<\/h2>\n

Will AI replace commercial photographers?<\/h3>\n

I think generic imagery is more exposed than work that needs to show a particular person, place or moment. That’s my current view, rather than a guarantee about the future. My commissioned work still depends on attending and photographing the real subject.<\/p>\n

Can generated images replace photographs of our team?<\/h3>\n

They can illustrate a general business scene, but they don’t document your actual team. If the purpose is to introduce the people someone will deal with, photographs of those people serve a different need.<\/p>\n

Do you use AI when editing photographs?<\/h3>\n

Yes. I use tools that help with tasks such as portrait cleanup, dusty backgrounds and consistent headshot crops. I still guide the work and decide what makes a believable finished image.<\/p>\n

Does faster editing mean every photograph gets extensive retouching?<\/h3>\n

No. The editing needs to suit the photograph and its use. A tool being available doesn’t mean every possible adjustment is useful or appropriate.<\/p>\n