A photograph on a business website does more than fill a space. It can tell someone what you make, who will turn up and whether you are worth trusting.
The BBC’s report on the Nikon Small World in Motion competition puts the relationship between imagery and evidence under scrutiny. Scientists have questioned the winning microscopy video submitted by Dr Ning Xu. He denies breaking the rules and says AI was used in processing, not to generate the experimental footage or its movement. Nikon said it was reviewing additional technical material and, at the time of the report, did not see a rules violation.
This is an unresolved dispute, not proof that the entry was fabricated. But it raises a question I think every business commissioning creative work should ask: what are we asking people to believe when we show them this image?
Creative expression and evidence do different jobs.
As a design agency owner, I see a clear distinction between an image that expresses an idea and an image that demonstrates a fact.
An abstract campaign visual can create a mood. An illustration can make a complicated service easier to understand. A concept render can help a client picture something that has not been built yet. Those are useful jobs, and AI may be one of the tools used to do them.
A completed-project photograph has a different responsibility. So does a portrait of your team, a product image or a picture of the room someone is about to book. People use those images to judge something real. The creative brief needs to recognise that difference.
For me, the starting point is not whether we can make the image more impressive. It is whether improving it changes the evidence someone thinks they are seeing.
A small business’s strongest material may already exist.
Imagine a local joinery company replacing photographs of its completed work with beautifully generated interiors. The new images might be more polished, but they cannot demonstrate the company’s workmanship. Or imagine a consultancy using a synthetic team photograph: the page may feel busy and established, while giving visitors no useful sense of who they will actually work with.
These are hypothetical examples, but they explain why I would be cautious about treating generated imagery as a straightforward upgrade.
A real workshop, a finished installation, a team member explaining a decision or a close-up of a product can give a business something specific to build its identity around. It does not need to look careless to feel honest. Good photography, thoughtful art direction and careful editing can make that material work much harder.
I would rather help a business present its own character confidently than give it an impressive visual identity that could belong to almost anyone.
Context belongs in the design, not just in a disclaimer.
If a website shows a concept, a mock-up or an illustrative image, make its role clear where it appears. A useful caption can be enough: proposed design, illustrative visual or work in progress. The wording should explain what the visitor is looking at.
Placement matters too. Put a concept render in a gallery of completed projects without explanation and the page may imply that the work already exists. Put the same render in a clearly labelled proposal and it can be entirely appropriate.
This is a design and development decision as much as a copywriting one. The image, heading, caption and surrounding content need to tell the same story. On mobile, that context must survive the crop and remain close to the visual rather than disappearing several screens below it.
How should an SME decide where to use AI imagery?
I would make that decision image by image, based on its purpose. Here are four checks I would put into a creative brief:
- What does this image need to establish? Decide whether it is expressing an idea, explaining a proposal or showing something that genuinely exists.
- Could someone mistake it for evidence? Consider whether a visitor would read it as a real customer, a completed job, your premises or an accurate product representation.
- What needs to remain accurate? Agree the boundaries for editing. Product finishes, project details and features people are choosing between deserve particular care.
- Can we explain where it came from? Keep the source files, permissions and an appropriate record of how the final asset was produced. Make any necessary context visible to the customer.
For an owner-managed business with a limited budget, this can also help prioritise spending. Commission real photography for the things customers need to assess. Use illustration, licensed imagery or clearly framed concepts where the job is to explain or create atmosphere.
The brief should protect what makes you credible.
I do not think a blanket argument for or against AI gets us very far. The more useful conversation is about the responsibility of each piece of creative work.
At Treefrog, the perspective I bring to branding and website projects is that the visual choices should support the business we are presenting. That means understanding the offer, the audience and what people need to see before deciding to get in touch.
In yesterday’s piece on Huel’s advertising ban, I looked at the gap between an intended message and the impression it creates. Imagery deserves the same attention. A picture can make a promise even when the accompanying copy never says it outright.
Before replacing a real image with a more polished alternative, ask what you might be losing. Sometimes the less spectacular photograph is the one that gives a customer a reason to believe you.
If you are reviewing your brand, planning a website or deciding what creative material to invest in, see how I can help or get in touch.