Comparison
AI headshots against studio portraits
The same comparison a client makes, written by the photographer.
Comparison
The same comparison a client makes, written by the photographer.
A generated headshot costs about the same as lunch and arrives in an hour. A session costs from 600 pounds and arrives in a week.
Anyone comparing the two deserves a straight table rather than a sales pitch.
| What you are comparing | AI headshot service | Studio session |
|---|---|---|
| Price | Roughly 29 to 45 US dollars for a batch | From 600 pounds for a two-hour session |
| Time to delivery | About an hour | Seven business days |
| Likeness | Close, not exact | It is you |
| Hands in frame | Unreliable | Normal |
| Clothing | Collars and seams drift | What you wore |
| Reuse next year | Retrain from new selfies | Same files, still valid |
| Publishable without a note | Risky | Yes |
| Several looks from one sitting | Generated variants | Real changes of clothing and light |
Prices and features on this page were read from each vendor's own website on 25 September 2026. Vendors change plans often. Check the current page before you buy.
An internal staff directory where nobody will look twice.
A remote team that needs the same background across twelve countries next week.
A personal profile where the picture is a convenience, not a claim.
In those cases the price difference is real and the risk is close to zero.
Raising money. An investor who spots a generated founder photograph asks what else was generated.
Press and speaking. Publications ask for a photographer credit, and there is none.
Anything with a legal function. A press pass or a visa needs a photograph of you.
Luxury and hospitality. The whole category sells on things being real.
Mariya's verdict. If the picture carries a claim about who you are, it should be a photograph. If it only fills a square, use the cheap option and spend the money elsewhere.
Two hours, in the studio in west London or on location.
A styling conversation before the day, so the clothing works on camera.
Retouched files in a private gallery, delivered in seven business days.
Full usage rights for the work you bought them for.
The full list and the prices sit on the services page.
A session also gives you frames in more than one crop, which matters when the same picture has to work on a website, a badge and a press page.
You upload between ten and thirty photographs of one person.
A small model is trained on that face, then used to generate new images.
Everything that is not the face comes from the base model: the suit, the office, the light, the hands.
That is why the face is usually close and everything around it is generic.
Hands. If any part of one is visible, look closely at the fingers.
Ears, glasses and jewellery, which lose symmetry between versions.
Collars and seams, which fail to meet across the shoulder.
Hair against the background, which is where the edge gives it away.
Likeness, checked by somebody who knows the person rather than by the person.
The generated services checked here start between 29 and 45 US dollars for a batch.
A two-hour portrait session on this site starts at 600 pounds.
For twelve staff spread across four countries, generated images are cheaper by a wide margin.
For one founder whose photograph will appear in press, a spotted fake costs more than the session would have.
A person who directs you, which is most of what makes a portrait work.
Several looks, real changes of clothing and real changes of light.
Frames in more than one crop, so the same picture works on a website, a badge and a press page.
Files you can license, print and publish with a photographer credit.
The same files still being valid next year, with no retraining.
For a generated batch: even light on the face, no sunglasses, several angles, simple clothing without patterns or logos.
For a session: bring more than you think you need, including one plain option, and say where the images will be used.
In both cases, decide the use first. A profile picture and a press portrait are different photographs.
If the picture carries a claim about who you are, it should be a photograph.
If it only fills a square in a directory, use the cheap option and spend the money somewhere that matters.
That line is easy to apply and it has never caused an argument with a client.
| Case | Answer | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Internal directory | Generated | Nobody inspects it |
| Remote team, one look | Generated | Consistency across countries in a week |
| Founder, investors, press | Session | A spotted fake questions everything else |
| Speaker profile | Session | Publications ask for a credit |
| Passport or press pass | Session | A photograph of you is required |
This page is written by Mariya Harley, a fashion, portrait and hotel photographer working from a studio in west London.
The tools described here are the ones that reach a working photographer's desk, and the failures described are the ones that reach a client's screen.
Prices and features are read from vendor pages rather than repeated from other articles. The date of that check is printed above each table.
Nothing here is sponsored, and there are no affiliate links. A tool appears because it does the job, or because people ask about it.
What is deliberately absent: benchmark scores copied from press releases, rankings that change with the season, and any claim that software can replace direction, light or responsibility for the result.
If a price here is out of date, the vendor page wins. Tell me and I will correct it.
Every price and feature on this page was read from the vendor's own website on 25 September 2026.
Plans change often, and a tool that was a one-off purchase last year may be a subscription now.
Check the current page before you buy, and treat the figures here as a starting point for comparison rather than a quote.
Nothing on this page is sponsored. No vendor paid for a place in the tables, and there are no affiliate links.
This page is written by Mariya Harley, a fashion, portrait and hotel photographer working from a studio in west London.
The tools described here are the ones that reach a working photographer's desk, and the failures described are the ones that reach a client's screen.
Prices and features are read from vendor pages rather than repeated from other articles. The date of that check is printed above each table.
Nothing here is sponsored, and there are no affiliate links. A tool appears because it does the job, or because people ask about it.
What is deliberately absent: benchmark scores copied from press releases, rankings that change with the season, and any claim that software can replace direction, light or responsibility for the result.
If a price here is out of date, the vendor page wins. Tell me and I will correct it.