Are AI Product Images Helping Small Makers — or Making Us Trust Them Less?

I’ve been thinking about something that happened to me recently, and I feel it is happening more and more.

I was scrolling through social media and saw a beautiful image of handmade ceramics by a local artist. The photo caught my attention straight away. The colours were lovely, the styling was polished, and at first glance, the work looked really appealing.

Then I looked a little closer. The images were AI-generated and I paused.

Not because I suddenly disliked the product or AI is a no-go for me, but because, as a consumer, I felt a small shift in trust.

Was I looking at the actual object? Would the product look and feel like that when it arrived?

That pause is what interests me.

Because if I paused, other customers might pause too. And for small makers, that pause carries real risk. When someone is deciding whether to buy from you online, trust is doing a lot of invisible work. If the image creates doubt, the customer may not just hesitate — they may quietly move on and not return.

As a photographer, I understand that images are created. They are styled, lit, edited and carefully chosen. But as a consumer, I also know that when I buy handmade work online, I am looking for evidence. I want to feel that what I am seeing is connected to the real object.

So this is not really a post about whether AI is good or bad. It is a reflection on trust, handmade work, and what happens when a beautiful image makes us slightly less sure of what we are looking at.

A product image is not just decoration

When we buy online, especially from a small maker, the image has to do a lot of work.

We cannot pick the piece up. We cannot feel the fabric, turn the mug around, see the glaze in real light, check the size in our hand or notice the small details that make handmade work feel alive.

So the image becomes a kind of evidence.

It tells us that the thing exists. It gives us clues about the material, the finish, the care, the scale, the quality and the personality of the maker.

For handmade products, those clues matter because they are often part of what we are buying. We are not only buying a candle, a print, a textile, a ceramic piece or a piece of jewellery. We are buying the process, the human touch, the maker’s eye and the reason it does not look like everything else.

If the image is beautiful but also leaves the customer wondering how much of it is real, attention has been gained, but confidence may have been lost.

What the research says about trust

This is not just my own little internet wobble.

Getty Images’ VisualGPS research found that nearly 90% of consumers want transparency around whether an image or video has been created using AI. The same research found that 98% of consumers say authentic images and videos are important for establishing trust.

That feels very relevant for artists and makers.

Because trust is not a nice extra when you sell handmade work. It is part of the value.

There is also an awkward catch-22 here. People say they want to know when AI has been used, and I think they are right to want that transparency. But once they know an image is AI-generated, they may not feel quite the same about it. Some research into AI-generated advertising suggests that disclosure can make people view the content as less credible.

So where does that leave small makers?

Not disclosing AI can feel misleading. Disclosing it may still create doubt. And trust, once shaken, is not always easy to rebuild.

But aren’t photographs edited anyway?

This is the counterargument I keep coming back to, because it is a fair one.

Yes, photographs are edited. Product images are styled, lit, colour-corrected and retouched all the time.

A photographer might remove dust, clean a background, adjust exposure, soften a crease or correct colour so the product looks closer to how it appears in real life. That is part of responsible image-making.

For me, the question is whether the image still helps the customer understand the real product.

There is a difference between showing a real handmade piece at its best and creating an idealised version that the customer may never actually receive.

That difference might seem small on a screen, but it can feel very big when the parcel arrives.

Where AI can be useful

I don’t think AI is useless or wrong.

A maker could use it to explore campaign ideas, create moodboards, test colour palettes, imagine seasonal styling, plan a shoot, develop packaging concepts or build a visual story around a collection.

Used like that, AI can help small businesses think bigger before they spend time, money and energy producing new images.

But when the image is used to sell the actual handmade product, I think the foundation needs to be real.

Real photos. Real scale. Real materials. Real texture. Real proof.

If the image is conceptual, say it is conceptual. If the product is real but the background is generated, say that. If it is a fantasy campaign image, make that clear.

People do not necessarily need every technical detail, but they do need to know whether the image is a reliable representation of what they are buying.

Why this matters more for handmade work

For handmade products, tiny details are not always flaws to hide. They are often the reason the work has value.

AI can smooth all of that into something more perfect, but sometimes less believable.

And I wonder if this is where small makers need to be careful. In a world where so much online is becoming synthetic, the realness of handmade work may become even more valuable, not less.

A simple, honest photograph of a real object in real light can still say something powerful: this exists, this was made, and this is what you can expect.

So where is the line?

For me, the line sits around honesty.

Images used to sell real handmade products should be honest, whether they are photographed, retouched or AI-assisted.

That does not mean every image has to be raw, unedited or technically perfect. It does not mean small makers need expensive shoots every week.

It simply means the image should not create a better, smoother, more luxurious or more polished version of the product than the customer will actually receive.

A good product image can be beautiful and still be truthful.

Actually, I think the best ones usually are.

I’d love to know what you think

I should also say here that I do use AI. Many people who know me know that already. I use it as a tool for ideas, planning, writing support, research and problem-solving, and I find it genuinely useful.

So this is not me standing outside the technology wagging a finger. I am very much inside the conversation. But I do think there is a difference between using AI as a tool behind the scenes and using AI-generated images as the main visual proof of a real handmade product.

Would you feel differently about buying a handmade product if you knew the main image was AI-generated?

Do you think clear disclosure solves the problem, or does it still change how much you trust what you are seeing?

And where do you think the line sits between creative marketing and misleading imagery?

I think this is a conversation we are going to be having more and more.