Thank you to everyone who came out and filled the room with curiosity, questions, and a real sense of community. And a sincere thank you to our panelists for showing up so openly, sharing not just what’s working, but what’s complicated, changing, and sometimes uncertain.
The conversation moved fast, as it always does when you get this many perspectives in one place. What follows are some notes from the night and take-aways that felt useful:
Getting work: how buyers are finding photographers
Where they look
- Editorial publications: New York Times Magazine, New Yorker, Vanity Fair
- Instagram: producers actively scroll at night and save work to folders
- Word of mouth within production departments (weekly internal check-ins)
- Rep submissions via email
- Workbook and other portfolio platforms
- LinkedIn for finding specific creatives at agencies
Email outreach: how often is too often?
Consensus: roughly once a quarter, or at minimum twice a year for individual photographers. From reps, once a month is generally welcomed. Emails should be short and visually compelling. Timing matters enormously. One panelist noted an art director discovered a photographer the exact day they needed that style.
Making an impression
- Personal touches are remembered. One photographer brought homemade peanut butter to a cold meeting and was never forgotten
- Show personal work alongside commercial work
- Offer a test shoot, even a half day, to get in front of the right people
- Be a resource, not just a salesperson. Share relevant industry news or insights in outreach
- Don't send the same-looking work repeatedly. Show range and unexpected angles
Repped vs. non-repped talent
Having representation matters significantly at large holding companies like Omnicom. Getting a new vendor into procurement systems can take 5+ weeks, while established reps are already in the system. For photographers without a rep, working with a producer already in the system is a viable workaround. Reps also give buyers access to multiple artists through one relationship.
Industry trends: What clients are asking for
Authenticity over polish
Clients across categories (especially pharma) want photography that feels real: natural light, candid moments, models who don't look like models, and fly-on-the-wall framing. Brands want photographers who are genuinely connected to the culture they're shooting. A skateboarding brand wants someone who skates. A ranch brand wants someone who knows cowboys. The story carries further online when the photographer has lived experience with the subject.
Stills and motion
The old "church and state" separation between broadcast and photography is largely gone. Most jobs now have both a photography need and a motion need attached. Photographers who can work flexibly across stills and motion, or collaborate closely with motion teams, are better positioned for ongoing work.
Unexpected pairings get results
Creative directors are actively pairing photographers with categories outside their specialty. A sports photographer shooting fashion. A skateboarder shooting Western lifestyle. These unexpected combinations produce fresh results that stand out and generate more interest than conventional category matches.
Volume culture is real, but quality still wins
Clients want enormous deliverable lists: every aspect ratio, behind the scenes, cut-downs, socials, everything. However, panelists noted that after a 2-day shoot with thousands of frames, clients typically end up using four to six images. The volume ask is driven by client psychology around investment value, not actual use. Panelists personally prefer a small number of really beautiful, intentional shots.
Budgets and licensing
Overall budget direction
Budgets are generally tighter, particularly early in the year. Some panelists have seen significant decreases. However, it was noted that budgets aren't necessarily gone but they are being distributed differently. Instead of one large annual shoot, brands are doing smaller quarterly shoots to keep content fresh throughout the year.
Pharma-specific pressures
An example was where a campaign budget went from $650K to $75K. At pharma rates, 10 talent with global exclusivity for five years can cost $60K–$80K alone, making full shoots financially impossible at reduced budgets. This is actively pushing pharma toward AI and stock solutions.
How to negotiate and advocate for fair rates
- Negotiate usage: question full buyouts and work for hire. Ask: how long will this be in market? What channels? Counter with usage-based pricing.
- Offer to reduce scope creatively: fewer locations, fewer talent, fewer days. Solve the problem rather than just saying no.
- Know your floor. If a budget truly can't support the work with proper staffing, walk away. A bad shoot hurts relationships more than declining it would.
- Don't race to the bottom. Coming in suspiciously low is a red flag to buyers, not an advantage.
- The highest bid with the best treatment can often wins. It's not always about the lowest number.
AI in production: real experiences and where things stand
What's actually happening right now
- AI is being used heavily in pre-production for comping, storyboarding, mood boards, and selling in ideas to clients, this is now standard.
- AI backgrounds are being used with real talent shot on green screen/sweeps, with mixed results.
- Fully synthetic productions (AI characters, AI backgrounds, AI environments) are happening too, one panelist is currently in the middle of one.
- AI is replacing some CGI and 3D work.
- Post-production tools like Topaz and Firefly are widely used for cleanup and enhancement. Nano Banana was referenced as an acceptable tool by some clients.
The fully AI production experience
One panelist described producing a fully synthetic spot with AI characters, AI wardrobe, AI backgrounds. The process involves "AI casting" (reviewing still frames of synthetic characters), "AI wardrobe review," and AI location selection. The client review process is similar to traditional production but happens at the pixel-prompt level. A notable challenge: when the client asked to "take off an apron" from a synthetic character, the AI tool flagged it as a ‘clothing removal request’ and blocked it. The team had to learn entirely different prompt language to accomplish a simple wardrobe change.
Is it actually cheaper and faster?
Timelines are roughly similar to traditional production. Cost savings exist - primarily in talent fees (not having to pay real models). One panelist estimated 20–25% savings. However, it is not automatically cheaper, especially when AI requires many revision rounds or when the technology requires specialized expertise. Cheap AI looks cheap. Clients who think AI is an automatic cost saver often end up disappointed.
Legal landscape
- Large holding companies (WPP, Omnicom, IPG) maintain living approved-tools lists - green/yellow/red ratings that change constantly
- Approved tools vary by project and by client, there is no blanket policy even within the same network
- Midjourney is currently off-limits at most major agencies. Firefly and Runway are broadly approved
- Contracts now commonly shift AI liability to the client when the client approves AI use
- Copyright and training data sourcing remain core legal concerns - work only with vendors who can document their image sourcing
- Cannes Lions now requires disclosure of all AI tool usage in awarded work
One panelist suggested reading what Seth Godin has written about AI.
The human value argument
When everyone can make beautiful and perfect images, the value becomes zero.
—Matt George
Multiple panelists made the same observation: AI can produce technically perfect, beautiful images, but those images have no origin story, no human perspective, and no inherent meaning. The value of hiring a specific photographer is precisely their lived experience, their connection to the culture they're shooting, and the perspective that only comes from being human. That is what clients are ultimately paying for, and it cannot be replicated.
There's a movement happening where people enjoy seeing things created by people, like a 'Made in America' movement, but for human-made content.
—Dani Jackson-Smith
Winning the work: chemistry, pitching, and standing out
Chemistry calls are becoming standard
Some producers now conduct informal "vibe check" Zoom calls with multiple directors or photographers before the formal bidding process even begins. This narrows the field based on personality fit. In some cases, shortlisted talent are asked to present their treatments directly to creatives over Zoom. Being a good communicator and showing genuine enthusiasm for the creative is increasingly as important as the portfolio itself.
- Personality, flexibility, and how enjoyable you'd be to spend a few days on set with
- Authentic passion for the subject matter - not performed enthusiasm
- Clear point of view that is specific to you and your experience
- Showing personal work that reveals who you are beyond commercial projects
- Research - knowing the agency's clients, the creative's past work, and coming prepared
Practical advice for getting in front of buyers
- Do your homework before reaching out. Know what the agency shoots and who their clients are. Don't pitch food photography to an agency that has never shot food.
- Don't just sell, be a resource. Share relevant articles, observations about the industry, or things that would be useful to that producer specifically.
- Offer a test shoot proactively to demonstrate what you'd bring to a specific brief
- Consider forming collectives with other photographers to create a stronger presence in inboxes
- Avoid generic LinkedIn cold messages that make it obvious you don't know the person
- APA membership and trade organizations are valid networks to tap when looking for specialized photographers
Master your craft, understand there's new technology out here, and bring all that juice and juju that got you into this industry. When you're sitting with producers and creatives, you're not a robot.
—Dani Jackson-Smith
A recap from Christy Schmid (moderator)
Based on conversations with the panelists and attendees before and after the panel, I wanted to add a bit more color to the overall conversation:
Advocacy
I heard from multiple photographers post event that it was discouraging that agencies don’t seem to be pushing back on certain client requests, even when those decisions could hurt the production industry and the photographers they’ve worked alongside for years, or raise ethical or environmental concerns.
AI
Although AI is being explored more as a solution for tighter budgets, it’s not all as easy or effective as it might seem, and it’s not always working the way people expect it to. There’s still a lot of trial and error, and in many cases it’s not necessarily faster or simpler, just different.
Some panelists also shared that they don’t particularly love the experience of working fully in AI. The process ends up feeling like post production from beginning to end, with a lot of time spent at a computer making selections, adjusting prompts, and working through iterations. It’s a very different rhythm from being on set, and not one that everyone finds creatively fulfilling.
A question came up during the Q&A around whether photographers would ever be bidding directly against an AI production. The general consensus from the panel was no. Typically, by the time a project reaches the bidding stage, there have already been early conversations and ballparks that determine whether the campaign will be shot practically or approached with AI.
That said, I have heard from a few people who have found themselves bidding against AI-driven productions. My sense is that it will be a bit of a mixed bag. It’s probably safest to assume that, at times, you may be up against AI in the same way photographers have historically bid against CGI or other alternative approaches.
My feeling, or maybe my hope, coming out of these conversations is that things will find a balance. There will be projects where AI makes sense, and certain clients who feel they need to rely on it, many of whom may not have spent money on production anyway. But consumers are already starting to push back on the overall “too perfect” or artificial quality of AI.
We’ve spent years optimizing everything for speed and efficiency, and now it feels like there’s a shift happening in the other direction. People are starting to look for work that has texture, intention, and a human point of view. AI can do a lot, but it doesn’t come with a lived perspective. And that difference is becoming harder to ignore. My opinion is that if brands want to stay relevant, they’ll need to find ways to show real perspectives, real connections, and real people, both in front of and behind the camera.