I just heard a photographer describe post-production as ‘photo-enhancement’. I hadn’t heard this description before, perhaps I am just behind the times, or perhaps I am not part of the world of photography that the photographer who used it is. I think the second explanation is more likely, because the photographer in question, is focused on drone photography and extensive post-production of images. I am not.

This was a photographer with an incredible skill in recalling technical facts, details and numbers. To an extent that is rarely seen, in my opinion. There were ‘no flys’ on his research ability and memory recall. I bow down to his talent, in this regard. It would be true to say, that our approaches to photography are polar opposites. However, the reason I was listening to him was because he was calling out a UK based company, that was using AI to fake photographs, without being honest about their process. As you would expect from someone so obsessed with factual detail, he had done his homework. He had looked at the technical specifications of the drone used, the weather conditions on the day. He had looked through the companies own archive and found what he thought was the ‘doner’ image. He had used AI detection software, to identify the image as being AI and finally he had replicated the image using his own photographs. With this evidence he approached the company.

He was met with an initial denial and then a confused explanation of unfortunate errors that had taken place, before an admission of guilt, resulting evidently, in the photographer responsible for the image losing his job. This may or may not be true. We have no way of knowing as the images were posted uncredited.

What we do know, is that the images that were called out as being fake, which were on the companies website, extolling the reasons why they were good at meeting a clients needs, were fake. They were dishonest, and this is the issue that seems to concern most photographers today. How can I make work that is believable, when others are making images that do not exist in the real world? The answer to me is simple. It does not require the depth of research our photo investigator used, but it does require a considerable amount of restraint.

The key to my answer is firmly seated in the phrase ‘photo enhancment’. Let’s forget about it. Why does anyone think its a good idea anyway? What needs enhancing? And who is to say that you are enhancing anything? maybe you are making things worse! The agency in question has a website filled with post produced images, that have little if any connection to reality. Like the hamburger photographed on a take-away menu, it promises much, but rarely delivers. Over promising and under delivering is always a problem in my opinion, but promising photographs that are dependent for their success on manipulation, is a risky business model. I’d argue that has always been the case, but in an AI world it is madness, and this is why. The agency is not dealing with high-end clients. It’s based in an area of the UK, which would suggest that most of its business would come from local companies. The kind of company that could easily look to AI to make their own images, cutting the agency out of the equation all together. This is a case of turkeys voting for Christmas, if they are going to continue presenting this kind of work.

If photography is going to be believable and authentic, it should not be enhanced. The creation of a perceived perfection through Photoshop removes authenticity and believability. Therefore, my suggestion is if you do not want your work to be perceived as AI, then don’t ‘enhance’ it! If you are going to use AI to make images, then be honest about it. Make it clear that is what you are doing and if you are good at it all the better. It really isn’t that complicated. Until this is understood, we will have to rely on dedicated researchers to reveal the truth.

Dr.Grant Scott
After fifteen years art directing photography books and magazines such as Elle and Tatler, Scott began to work as a photographer for a number of advertising and editorial clients in 2000. Alongside his photographic career Scott has art directed numerous advertising campaigns, worked as a creative director at Sotheby’s, art directed foto8magazine, founded his own photographic gallery, edited Professional Photographer magazine and launched his own title for photographers and filmmakers Hungry Eye. He founded the United Nations of Photography in 2012, and is now a Senior Lecturer and Subject Co-ordinator: Photography at Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, and a BBC Radio contributor. Scott is the author of Professional Photography: The New Global Landscape Explained(Routledge 2014), The Essential Student Guide to Professional Photography (Routledge 2015), New Ways of Seeing: The Democratic Language of Photography (Routledge 2019), and What Does Photography Mean To You? (Bluecoat Press 2020). His photography has been published in At Home With The Makers of Style(Thames & Hudson 2006) and Crash Happy: A Night at The Bangers(Cafe Royal Books 2012). His film Do Not Bend: The Photographic Life of Bill Jay was premiered in 2018.

© Grant Scott 2026