BenQ Display with Built in Calibrator

I don't normally do product reviews, but when something comes along that solves a genuine pain point in the studio, I have to share it. BenQ has just released the PD2770U, their first display in the Creative Pro range with a built-in calibration device, and it is a total game changer for my workflow.

While the 27-inch anti-glare screen and the clever magnetic shading hood are great additions, the real star of the show is tucked away at the top of the monitor.

Total Calibration Control

The built-in calibrator isn't just a gimmick; it is a serious tool for anyone who cares about colour accuracy. You can use it in a couple of different ways depending on how you like to work.

There is an auto-calibration feature that keeps the screen accurate to standards like Adobe RGB or sRGB. What I find particularly useful is the ability to schedule this. You can set the monitor to calibrate itself daily or weekly, meaning you never have to wonder if your colours have drifted. If you are running a studio with multiple displays, the inclusion of an Ethernet port makes networking and managing these calibrations even easier.

Putting it to the Test

For my work, especially when I’m preparing images for print, I need very specific settings. I used BenQ’s Palette Master Ultimate software to see how the built-in sensor handled my preferred targets:

• Luminance: 60 candela

• White Point: D65

• Gamut: Adobe RGB

• Gamma: 2.2

• Black Point: 0.5

The results were spot on. The average delta E came back at just 0.68, which is incredible. To satisfy my own curiosity, I ran the same test using my external Calibrite Display Pro HL. The results were almost identical.

Because the performance is so close, the convenience wins every time. I no longer have to dig out cables or hang devices over the screen; the built-in sensor does it all.

A Pro Tip on Lighting

One feature I always recommend turning off is the ambient light sensor. While it sounds like a good idea, you really don't want your screen brightness moving up and down while you are editing. It is much better to control the light in your room with curtains or shutters so your working environment stays consistent.

Is it Worth it?

When you look at the price, this monitor makes a lot of sense. At £1,499 including VAT, it sits at a much more accessible price point than equivalent displays from the likes of Eizo, which can cost upwards of £2,400 for a similar spec.

I’ll be doing a more in-depth look at the other features soon, but for the calibration system alone, this is a massive step forward for the Creative Pro range.

If you’re interested in gear like this or just want to chat photography, come and join us in our free community on Skool. It’s a brilliant, safe space to learn and meet other photographers without the usual social media noise. ( LINK )

Is It Time to Retire the name "Camera Club" ?

There's been a cracking conversation happening inside my Photography Community on SKOOL ( LINK ) recently, and honestly I think it's one of the most important conversations the photography world could be having right now.

The topic?

Camera clubs.

Specifically, why they're struggling to attract younger members, and whether something as simple as what we call them might be part of the problem.

I've never joined a camera club

I've never belonged to a camera club, and I say that not to be dismissive of them, because I know plenty of people who've had brilliant experiences and genuinely improved their photography through being part of one.

But, it never felt like it was for me.

I couldn't quite put my finger on why for a long time. But sitting with this discussion in my community, I think that maybe it starts with the name.

The Elephant in the Room

The demographic at most camera clubs sits firmly at 55 and above, and the majority of clubs have shrunk since Covid, with several folding altogether, which is incredibly sad to see.

Walk into a typical meeting and you'll find familiar faces, familiar subjects, and familiar debates about judging criteria. There's nothing wrong with any of that in itself, but the pattern is consistent enough to ask some hard questions.

The conversation in the Photography Community mentions not only the struggle to attract younger members but also speaks of other clubs announcing declining memberships.

That's not a blip.

That's a warning sign.

So what's driving this?

Competition-heavy formats? a lack of openness to newer genres and technology perhaps? I actually think one thing is being underestimated, and it's the very first impression these clubs make before anyone even walks through the door.

The name.

What I've Noticed Every Single Time I've Visited

Before I get into the name thing properly, I want to share something from personal experience.

As I’ve mentioned, I've never been a camera club member, but I have visited quite a few over the years as a speaker and presenter, and one thing I notice (except for the few) is that every visit has included a mention of the next competition, the upcoming judging session, or where the club currently sits in some regional standings.

Now, I get it. Competitions give members something to work towards. They create structure, they generate engagement. But when it's woven into almost every conversation, almost every meeting, it starts to define what the club is about, and if what the club is about, is winning, or being judged, that's a very specific kind of person you're going to attract, and a very specific kind of person you're going to put off.

Think about it from the outside. You love photography. You take pictures because it makes you happy, because you see the world differently through a lens, because it's your creative outlet. You're looking for other people who feel the same way. You walk into a camera club and within ten minutes you're hearing about judging criteria and competition deadlines. Is that going to make you feel like you've found your people, or is it going to feel like you've accidentally wandered into something that takes itself a bit more seriously than you're ready for?

With dwindling memberships very apparent over the last five to ten years, several clubs have folded entirely, and the more established ones are attracting very low numbers of new, younger members to replace more senior ones as time goes by.

Words Shape Perception

So back to the name, because I think it matters more than people realise.

Naming psychology tells us that a name without an emotional connection is virtually useless, and a name with a negatively charged association can actively work against you. That's not fluffy marketing theory. That's just how human beings process information.

So what does "Camera Club" say to a 25-year-old who shoots on their iPhone, edits in Lightroom Mobile, and shares their work on Instagram? It says hardware. It says equipment. It says a room full of people debating sensor sizes and lens brands. It says: “Probably not for me.”

"Camera" as a word carries baggage. It implies a physical device, and a fairly specific one at that. In a world where the best-selling camera on the planet is a smartphone, leading with the word camera as your entire identity is, at best limiting, and at worst, actively putting off a huge potential audience before they've even given you a chance.

"Photography" though? That's about the image. The art. The craft. The story you're trying to tell. It doesn't care what you shot it on.

"Society" and "Association"is no different

Here's the thing, it's not just "Camera Club" that has a problem. Some clubs have tried to modernise by rebranding as a Photographic Society or a Photography Association, and while I understand the thinking, I'd argue those names bring their own baggage.

"Society" sounds formal. It sounds like membership cards, committee meetings, and a waiting list. It sounds like somewhere you need to be invited into rather than somewhere you wander into because you love taking photos. It has a certain stiffness to it that, however unintentional, can feel exclusive rather than welcoming.

"Association" is even worse. It sounds corporate. It sounds like a trade body or a professional organisation, somewhere you join because you have to, not because you want to. It creates distance before you've even said hello.

The word "Club" though? I actually think that's fine.

A club sounds like somewhere people gather because they love something. It sounds informal, accessible, and human.

Keep the club.

Ditch the camera.

The Psychological Shift

When you call something a Photography Club, you shift the identity of the group from being defined by a tool to being defined by a pursuit. That's a genuinely meaningful distinction. It's the difference between a Running Shoe Club and a Running Club. One is about the kit. The other is about what you do.

A Photography Club says: come along if you love photography. Bring your mirrorless, your DSLR, your phone, your film camera. Bring your creativity. Bring your eye. The name sets an expectation, and if clubs back it up with programming that's genuinely inclusive of all types of image-making, including mobile photography, documentary, portraiture, street, and landscape, the name becomes a promise they can actually keep.

And maybe, just maybe, if the name shifts the identity, the culture starts to shift with it. Fewer evenings built around who's entering what competition, more evenings built around sharing work, exploring ideas, learning from each other.

It's Not Just Semantics Though

Of course a name change alone won't save a struggling club. If the judging is still archaic, if the welcome isn't genuine, if competitions still dominate every conversation the moment you walk in the door, you can call it whatever you like and younger members still won't stay.

In an Amateur Photographer reader poll of nearly 900 people, almost a fifth said they didn't belong to a camera club because they considered it an old-fashioned concept. That's a perception problem, and perception starts with the name, but it doesn't end there. The culture inside has to match the promise the name makes on the outside.

But here's what I keep coming back to; a name change can be a catalyst. It forces a conversation. It makes a club publicly commit to something bigger than it was before. It's a visible signal to the outside world that things are different now, and for someone scrolling past a community listing on their phone, that signal might just be the thing that makes them stop and read on.

My Take

I've never been a camera club member, and honestly, if I'd ever stumbled across a local Photography Club that genuinely welcomed all types of photography, all types of photographers, and all types of cameras, including the one in my pocket, with evenings built around creativity rather than competition, I might well have felt very differently.

That's the gap we're talking about. It's not enormous, but it might be the difference between a club that survives the next decade and one that quietly fades away.

The clubs that will be thriving in ten years' time won't necessarily be the ones with the longest history or the most impressive trophy cabinets. They'll be the ones that made a newcomer feel like the name above the door was written for them too.

Photography Club.

Two words.

BIG difference.

It’s got to be worth a try, right?!?

BenQ Creative Pro PD2770U: The Display I've Been Waiting For 😍

There are products that come along and tick boxes, and then there are products that come along and actually solve a problem you've been living with for years. The BenQ Creative Pro PD2770U falls firmly into the second category for me.

Let me explain why …

A Built-In Calibrator. Finally.

If you've followed my work for any length of time, you'll know I've been a BenQ display user for a long time. I've recommended their monitors, used them in my own setup, and talked about them on the channel more times than I can count, but there has always been one thing missing … a built-in hardware calibrator.

Every time a new BenQ display launched, that was the thing I found myself quietly hoping for, and every time, it wasn't there. Until now.

The PD2770U is the first BenQ PD Creative Pro display to feature hardware calibration with a built-in calibrator, and honestly, that alone was enough to get my attention. Hardware calibration is a different beast to software calibration. Rather than adjusting things at the GPU level, it works directly inside the monitor's chip. The result is more accurate, more consistent, and doesn't eat into your bit depth the way software calibration can. For anyone doing colour-critical work, that distinction genuinely matters.

What makes it even smarter is something BenQ calls Light-Adaptive Calibration. The display has a light sensor that reads your ambient environment and adjusts the monitor's brightness to match before the calibration runs. It sounds like a small detail, but it's actually solving a real problem. How many times have you calibrated a display only to find the brightness felt off the moment you sat back down to work? That's exactly what this is designed to prevent.

Also, you can schedule it. Set it, walk away, come back to a calibrated display. No puck, no laptop, no cables. Just done.

Why I've Made This My Main Display

I've switched the PD2770U to my main display, and the reason comes down to one thing: Adobe RGB.

I do a lot of work that ends up in print, and Adobe RGB covers a much wider range of printable colours than standard sRGB. When you're working in a narrower colour space and then sending files to print, you're essentially working blind. What you see on screen isn't what comes back from the lab. The PD2770U covers 99% of Adobe RGB, which means what I'm seeing when I'm editing is as close as it gets to what's actually going to be printed.

Pair that with a Delta E of ≤1.5 out of the box, triple certification (Calman Verified, Pantone Validated, and SkinTone Validated), and the fact that the panel goes through BenQ's AQCOLOR uniformity calibration where every section of the panel, right out to the edges, is individually tuned, and you've got a display that I genuinely trust. That trust is hard to put a price on when you're making colour decisions for print.

The Bits That Make Day-to-Day Life Easier

Beyond the calibration story, there are a few things about this display that have genuinely improved how I work day to day.

The magnetic shading hood is one of them. It snaps on cleanly, blocks ambient light from messing with how you perceive colour on screen, and is built from noticeably sturdier material than what I've seen on other hoods. It's one of those things where you don't realise how much ambient light was affecting your judgement until you block it out.

The Wireless Hotkey Puck G3 is another. It's a small dial that sits on your desk and lets you switch colour modes, inputs, and now with the G3, launch applications directly. I use it to jump between Adobe RGB mode and sRGB mode when I need to check how something's going to look on a standard screen. It sounds like a minor convenience, but when you're doing it multiple times a day, having it on a dial rather than digging through a monitor menu makes a real difference.

On the connectivity side, the PD2770U has two USB-C ports (both at 96W charging), two HDMI 2.1 ports, a DisplayPort, and a wired ethernet port via RJ45. My desk runs a single USB-C cable from the laptop to the monitor, and everything else flows through the display. Clean, simple, exactly how it should be.

The Panel Itself

27 inches, 4K UHD, IPS. The panel uses BenQ's Nano Matte technology, which brings the reflection rate down to under 3%. That's noticeably lower than a standard matte panel sitting at 3.5%, and miles away from a glass panel at over 4%. In a real working environment with lights and windows, that matters more than it sounds on paper.

It's a 60Hz panel, which for creative work is absolutely fine. This isn't a gaming monitor. It's built for people who need to trust what they're looking at.

Is It Worth It?

If you shoot for print, work in Adobe RGB, or just want the confidence of knowing your display is consistently accurate without faffing about with external calibrators and third-party software, yes, I think it is. The built-in calibrator alone changes the equation for the PD range. The fact that it comes with everything else the PD2770U offers makes it, for me, the most complete BenQ display I've used.

I've wanted a display like this from BenQ for a long time, and this has definitely worth the wait.

Perfect Skin Is Now a Red Flag

There was a time when flawlessly retouched skin was the goal. Smooth it out, remove every blemish, blur every pore. If your portrait looked like it came straight off a magazine cover, you'd done your job. Clients loved it. You were proud of it.

But something has shifted, and if you've been paying attention, you've probably felt it.

Somewhere along the way, perfect skin stopped looking impressive and started looking suspicious.

We've Been Here Before

The debate about how much retouching is too much has been around for decades. The UK's Advertising Standards Authority banned Lancôme and Maybelline ads back in 2011 for airbrushing deemed misleading to consumers. Dove launched its Real Beauty campaign to push back against digitally distorted imagery, eventually introducing a "No Digital Distortion" mark. UK retailer Cult Beauty went further and banned retouched model photos entirely, labelling images as either "untouched" or "retouched".

These were the opening salvos of a long-running argument. But what's happening in 2026 feels different. The conversation has moved from brands and ad regulators arguing about it to audiences instinctively sensing it. And rejecting it.

The Problem AI Created

Here's the irony at the heart of this story: the very tools that made flawless retouching faster and cheaper than ever are the same tools that have made it worthless as a differentiator.

AI-powered retouching can now process portraits in 10 to 30 seconds versus the 15 to 30 minutes that manual Photoshop techniques traditionally took. Batch processing means what used to take 30 minutes per photo can now be applied to 3,000 photos in minutes. On the face of it, that sounds like progress.

But here's the catch. AI retouching tools were trained on millions of existing images, which means they optimise towards the average. The more you let AI handle, the more your portraits start to converge on the same look. Same skin tone, same smoothness, same absence of character. One industry observer put it bluntly: AI "optimises toward average," meaning heavy reliance on it costs photographers their signature aesthetic.

The result? A generation of portraits that are technically perfect and emotionally hollow. And audiences, even those who couldn't explain why, are starting to feel that hollowness immediately.

When Perfect Becomes a Tell

A viral social media discussion in late March 2026 crystallised what many photographers had been quietly thinking: when a photo looks too good, people's first assumption is now that it's been manipulated, even when it genuinely hasn't been. The photographer whose image prompted the discussion had taken a technically excellent, entirely unmanipulated portrait. The comments were full of people insisting it must be AI or heavily edited. It wasn't.

That's the new problem for photographers who care about their craft. You've spent years developing your technique. You've put real effort into lighting, composition, connection with your subject. And the reward, in 2026, is that your best work gets dismissed as fake.

A study by Color Experts International published in January 2026 found that AI retouching tools scored 5.16 out of 10 on average in quality testing, 41.7% lower than human retouchers who averaged 8.85 out of 10. The best performing AI model still trailed human output by 32.2%. Speed, yes. Quality, not yet. But the "AI look" has already contaminated the visual landscape so thoroughly that even high-quality human retouching is being tarred with the same brush.

What Photographers Are Actually Saying

A survey of 363 working photographers published by PetaPixel on 30 March 2026 asked professionals about their relationship with AI retouching. The results are interesting:

78% said they want AI to handle no more than 70 to 80% of their retouching. Only 24% were willing to let AI take full creative control. Photographers consistently said their priority was natural-looking, nearly invisible retouching. And respondents specifically said they want portraits to preserve what makes a face uniquely human, including imperfections, wrinkles, and features that AI tends to erase when left unchecked.

That last point is worth sitting with. Experienced photographers, many of whom already use AI tools daily, are drawing a deliberate line. They're saying there is something in the imperfection that matters, and they don't want it erased.

An Instagram post from a retoucher dated 1 April 2026 made the same point more succinctly: "Most retouching removes skin texture. High-end retouching preserves it."

The Aesthetic Shift That's Already Happening

This isn't just a niche conversation among photography purists. It's a measurable cultural trend.

Industry reports from Aftershoot, Stills, and other creative data sources are all pointing in the same direction: audiences are turning away from over-polished imagery and responding more warmly to photographs that feel honest, immediate, and genuinely human. Natural expressions rather than rigid poses. Visible skin texture rather than smoothed-out skin. Editing choices that preserve the character of the original moment.

The hashtag #texturedskin is growing as viewers increasingly appreciate honest content. Social media content from March 2026 sums it up: natural skin, visible texture, and minimal editing are taking over.

A portrait photographer writing in January 2026 described the aesthetic emerging in response to AI saturation as the imperfect portrait, images that keep the seams visible and the humanity intact. In a culture where the most frictionless images are the easiest to fake, friction becomes a signal of humanity.

The Real Cost of Getting It Wrong

It would be easy to frame this as purely an aesthetic argument. But there's a harder edge to this conversation worth acknowledging.

Research published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2025 found that photo retouching behaviours can lead to dependency and addiction-like symptoms, with chronic retouching associated with negative emotions, low satisfaction with appearance, and in severe cases, body dysmorphic disorder. A study from January 2026 confirmed that engagement with photo-specific social media is associated with body dissatisfaction and poorer mental health, particularly among women, with the importance placed on photo filters identified as a key risk factor.

The UK's Mental Health Foundation has found that one in three adults has felt anxious or depressed because of concerns about their body image, and one in eight has experienced suicidal thoughts connected to body image concerns.

Dove's research found that 77% of women believe all the images they see in the media have been digitally distorted, and 69% say the pressure to reach those standards makes them feel anxious. By age 13, 80% of young girls have already used filters or retouching apps to alter their own appearance.

That context matters.

So Where Does That Leave Us?

The consensus emerging from photographers, retouchers, brands, and researchers in 2026 is straightforward, even if it runs counter to how a lot of retouching has been taught.

The goal of retouching is to be invisible, not impressive.

Industry professionals now widely follow a simple rule: remove temporary features like spots, bruises, and blemishes while keeping permanent marks like moles, freckles, and natural skin texture. The rule of thumb from experienced retouchers? Less is more. Always.

The tools have never been better. Frequency separation, subtle dodge and burn, Lightroom's AI masking, all of it can produce genuinely beautiful results that still look like a human being was photographed rather than generated. The question isn't whether to retouch. It's whether the retouching you're doing adds to the image or slowly drains the life out of it.

Retouching in 2026 is about restraint. Preserving texture, refining light, not erasing the person.

Over to You

When you're retouching a portrait, where do you draw the line? Is it a technical threshold, as soon as you can't see pores, you've gone too far? Is it a subject-by-subject decision? Or has your thinking shifted in the past year or two, as AI tools have made "perfect" skin so cheap and easy to produce that it's stopped feeling like something to aim for?

Drop your thoughts in the comments. I'd love to know where you stand on this.

NEW 💥 Photoshop's One-Click Auto Distraction Removal

Adobe has just dropped a seriously powerful update to the Remove Tool in the Photoshop Public Beta (version 27.6.0), and it’s a total game-changer for cleaning up your photos. It can now automatically scan your entire image, identify distractions across 26 different categories, and let you remove them with a single click.

Here is a quick look at how it works and how you can start using it to save yourself hours of manual cloning and healing.

What is the New "General Distractions" Feature?

Previously, the Remove Tool had specific buttons for "Wires and Cables" or "People." This new update introduces General Distractions. It uses generative AI to find things like trash cans, signs, vehicles, and even stray animals that might be cluttering up your shot.

How to Use It: A 3-Step Tutorial

Before you start, make sure you have GPU hardware acceleration turned on in your Photoshop settings (Preferences > Performance) to ensure the tool runs smoothly.

1. Select the Remove Tool

Head over to your toolbar and select the Remove Tool. In the options bar at the top, make sure Sample All Layers is ticked and, most importantly, check the Create New Layer box. This acts as a fail-safe, putting all your removals on a separate layer so you can easily bring things back if you change your mind later.

2. Find Your Distractions

In the options bar, click on the Find Distractions dropdown and choose General Distractions, then click Find. Photoshop will take a few moments to scan the image. When it’s finished, it will highlight potential distractions with color-coded overlays.

The cool part? The list of categories it shows you is dynamic. It won't show you all 26 categories; it only lists the ones it actually found in your specific photo—like "Vehicles," "Animals," or "Urban Elements."

3. Refine and Remove

You have total control over what stays and what goes:

• Toggle Categories: You can untick specific categories in the dropdown if Photoshop picked up something you actually want to keep (like a cool cloud it mistook for a "light diffusing element").

• Manual Overwrite: Use the plus (+) or minus (-) brush icons in the options bar to manually add areas to be removed or protect areas you want to save.

• The Big Reveal: Once you're happy with the selection, click the Tick icon. Photoshop will work its magic, and the distractions will vanish, seamlessly filling in the background.

Why This Matters

I've been testing this on complex street scenes and busy beach shots, and the results are mind-blowing. It handles everything from removing pigeons at someone's feet to rebuilding stone walls where a trash can used to be. It’s not just a time-saver; it’s doing work that used to require advanced cloning skills in just a few seconds.

Since this is currently in the Public Beta, if you run into anything unexpected, be sure to use the "Feedback" icon in the top right of Photoshop to let Adobe know. The more feedback we give them now, the better the final version will be.

Why Photography in 2026 Feels Less Perfect and More Human

Something really encouraging is happening in photography right now, and if you have been feeling quietly frustrated with the pressure to make everything look flawless, I think you are going to love it.

Industry reports from Aftershoot, Stills, and other creative sources are all pointing in the same direction: audiences are turning away from over-polished, over-processed imagery and responding much more warmly to photographs that feel honest, immediate, and genuinely human. After years of chasing technical perfection, it seems the tide is finally turning, and I find that genuinely exciting.

Why the shift is happening now

It makes a lot of sense when you think about it. We are living in a visual landscape absolutely saturated with AI-generated content, heavily filtered social media imagery, and endlessly refined visuals.

In that context, a photograph that carries real emotion, a little texture, or a fleeting spontaneous moment stands out precisely because it feels true. Audiences can sense the difference, even if they cannot always articulate it.

What "more human" actually looks like

What the trend reports describe as "more human" photography comes down to a handful of connected ideas: natural expressions rather than rigid poses, visible texture rather than smoothed-out skin, and editing choices that preserve the character of the original moment rather than ironing everything into a generic finish.

In practice that might mean embracing grain, direct flash, looser framing, or a more documentary approach to light and movement. None of that requires you to abandon your craft; it just asks you to use it in service of feeling rather than control.

Your personality is the point

The most encouraging thing I take from all of this is that technical quality still matters, it just is not the whole story anymore. The photographers who are really connecting with people right now are the ones combining solid skills with a genuine point of view and a willingness to let a little life into the frame.

That is something worth celebrating, because it means your personality and your way of seeing the world are actually an asset, not something to sand away in post.

The bigger picture

There is also a broader context worth keeping in mind. Adobe's recent updates to Photoshop and Express are a good reminder that automated, AI-assisted production is only going to become more common across the creative industry. That is not something to fear; it is actually an opportunity. The more synthetic visual content floods our screens, the more a real photograph, one made with intention and feeling, can cut through simply by being authentic.

The question worth asking yourself

So the question worth sitting with as you work in 2026 is not whether your images are perfect. It is whether they are meaningful. Can the photograph still do its job if it keeps a bit of roughness, a bit of risk, or a bit of life? According to everything being written about where the industry is heading, that roughness might be exactly what makes it memorable.

That feels like a genuinely good moment for photography, and for the people who make it.

AI and Photography: It's Not the End of the World

There is a conversation happening in photography right now, and chances are you’ve heard it. Whether it is in comment sections, Facebook groups, or at events, the same question keeps coming up: is AI going to kill photography?

I get it. When generative AI started producing photorealistic images from a text prompt, the alarm bells rang, and not entirely without reason. If a computer can conjure a dramatic seascape or a perfectly lit portrait from a few typed words, where does that leave those of us who actually pick up a camera?

So here’s what I believe: I don’t think it’s the threat people fear it is. Of course for some areas of Professional / Paid Photography but certainly not for enthusiasts; not for anyone who shoots because they genuinely love it.

We’ve Been Here Before

Photography has always had to adapt. Digital replaced film, and people said it would ruin photography. Smartphones put a camera in everyone's pocket, and people said that would ruin it too. It didn’t. If anything, more people are shooting now than ever before. Accoridng to CIPA shipment data with 2025 market reports, the hobbyist camera market made up well over two thirds of all digital camera sales, and the number of photography workshops and online courses has grown by more than 30 percent in recent years. People are not falling out of love with photography. They are falling deeper into it.

AI is the latest chapter in that same story. It’s a new tool arriving in an industry that has always evolved alongside new tools.

What AI Actually Is, and Is Not

Here’s the thing that often gets lost in the noise. AI, in the context of most photographers' day-to-day lives, is not generating fake images to replace yours; it’s quietly working inside the software you are already using.

Take Lightroom and Photoshop. Both are packed with AI-powered features now. Masking that would have taken me the best part of an hour a few years ago takes seconds. Removing a distracting element from the background of a portrait, reducing noise in a high ISO shot, selecting a subject with precision. These are the kinds of tasks that used to eat into your editing time without giving anything creative back. They were just tedious.

That is where I have found AI genuinely useful. Not as something that replaces my decisions, but as something that handles the mechanical stuff so I can focus on what I actually enjoy, developing the image, getting the look I had in my head when I pressed the shutter, making it feel the way I want it to feel. The creative part is still mine. AI just means I am not spending forty minutes (and more) doing fiddly selections to get there.

Yes, There Will Be Casualties

It would be dishonest to say AI has no impact on photography as a profession, because it does. Certain areas are already feeling it. Product photography is one. Generic stock imagery is another, and headshot photography is shifting too, with a growing number of AI applications now capable of producing professional-looking results at a fraction of the cost of hiring a photographer.

Will some people choose those options? Of course. But then, every industry has customers who will always gravitate towards the cheapest available option. Photography is not immune to that, and it never has been. There have always been clients who want results without paying for expertise. AI simply gives that segment of the market a new way to do what they were always going to do.

The clients worth having though, tend to think differently. They understand the difference between a generated image and a photograph made by someone who knows what they are doing. They value the professionalism, the experience of working with a skilled photographer, and ultimately an image that could not have come from a prompt box. That market is not shrinking. If anything, as AI imagery becomes more widespread, it is becoming more discerning.

The Authenticity Factor

There is something interesting happening on the other side of the AI conversation. As AI-generated imagery has flooded the internet, audiences have started to crave the opposite. The photography trends emerging in 2026 are centred around authenticity, real moments, real imperfections, real emotion. The slightly overcooked, hyperpolished aesthetic is losing its appeal. People want to see images that feel genuinely human.

That is actually great news for photographers, because the one thing AI cannot do, no matter how sophisticated it becomes, is be there. It cannot stand on a cold beach at six in the morning, read the light, time the wave, feel the composition before it happens. It cannot build a relationship with a portrait subject and find the moment where they forget the camera is there. It can produce images that look impressive on a screen, but impressive and meaningful are not the same thing.

Photography Is Not Just About the End Product

This is the point that gets missed entirely in the AI debate. When people talk about whether AI can replace photography, they tend to focus on the output. Can it produce a decent image? In some cases, yes. But photography has never really been just about the image at the end of it.

It is about being out in the world with a camera. It is the discipline of learning your craft, understanding light, making decisions in the moment. It is the feeling of nailing a shot you had been visualising for weeks. It is the connection you build with a subject during a portrait session. It is standing somewhere beautiful and choosing how to see it.

No AI can replicate that experience. And for the vast majority of photographers, enthusiast or professional, that experience is the whole point.

So Where Does That Leave You?

If you shoot because you enjoy it, AI changes very little about that. It might make some parts of the process quicker and easier, and used well, that is no bad thing. But it is not going to make the experience of making a photograph redundant.

Yes, the industry will keep changing. Some corners of it will shrink. But photography itself, the act of it, the craft of it, the joy of it, is not going anywhere. Do not be scared of AI; just don’t hand it the wheel either.

Photography is not dying. If anything, the conversation AI has started might just remind people why real photographs matter.

My Upgraded Realistic Photoshop Lighting Effect + Dust

This is one of those techniques I absolutely love. Adding a lighting effect to a portrait can completely change the mood of an image, and it really doesn't take long once you know the steps. What I want to share here is an upgraded version of what I used to call the "world's simplest lighting effect," but this time with realistic floating dust and a bit of atmospheric depth thrown in.

The Secret to Realism: Highlights

Before you even open Photoshop, there's one thing you really need to look for in your original photo, and that's existing highlights. For a lighting effect to look convincing, your subject needs to already have highlights on the side where you're going to place the light source. If you're adding light coming down from the top left, for example, there need to be highlights there already. Without them, the effect just never looks right no matter how much you tweak it.

Step 1: Creating the Light Source

A common mistake I see is people grabbing a massive brush and clicking once. The trouble is that with a huge soft brush, the feathered edges often get clipped by the edge of the canvas, leaving a harsh, ugly line.

Here's a better approach. Create a new blank layer, then select a standard round soft brush from the toolbar with the hardness set to 0%. Set your foreground colour to white and click once in the middle of your image with a relatively small brush. Now go to Edit > Free Transform (Cmd/Ctrl + T), hold down Shift and Option on Mac or Alt on Windows, and drag a corner handle to scale that brush stroke up proportionally until it's nice and large. Then grab the Move tool and reposition the light into the corner so that only the soft, feathered edge spills into the frame.

Step 2: Adding the Atmospheric Dust

This is where you take the effect to the next level. Those tiny bits of dust and debris that become visible when caught in a beam of light make all the difference. I tend to use a texture that looks a bit like a photograph of rain at night, shot looking upwards and slightly out of focus.

To apply a dust overlay, place the image over your work and use Free Transform to scale it so it fills the whole image. If the layer is a Smart Object, right click it and choose Rasterize Layer. Then go to Image > Adjustments > Desaturate so the dust doesn't introduce any unwanted colour. Change the Blend Mode to Screen, which knocks out the black background and leaves only the bright dust particles. Finally, add a Layer Mask to the dust layer. Grab a soft brush with a black foreground colour and paint away the dust where you don't want it. Keep it concentrated near the light source and off the main parts of your subject.

Step 3: Adding Movement

Static dust can look a bit "stuck on," so adding a touch of motion blur makes a huge difference. Go to Filter > Blur > Motion Blur and adjust the angle so the blur follows the direction of the light beam, usually from top left down to bottom right. Keep the distance quite small. You just want a subtle sense of movement, as if the particles are caught in a gentle drift.

How to Create Your Own Dust Textures

If you haven't got a dust overlay to hand, you can actually use AI to generate one. Using a tool like Adobe Firefly or Google Gemini, try a prompt along the lines of "dark atmospheric bokeh background with falling rain or snow particles." I find that asking for a 4x3 aspect ratio works well for most portraits.

I hope you find this upgraded technique useful for your own retouching. It's a quick way to add a lot of drama and production value to your images without needing any kind of complex setup.

Images from the UK Photography Show

Last week, I was working at the UK Photography Show with Adobe, hosting their Capture, Edit, Print area of the Adobe stand.

This area was kitted out with lighting from Westcott (thank you) and also featured my vintage gray background.

David

The lighting being used was the L120-Bs, fitted with Rapid Box Switch softboxes, so folks attending the show could take pictures of our fantastic models, Kristina, David, Grace, and Beth, (great fun and great to work with) using either their cameras or their mobile phones, with no need to worry about triggers. This worked extremely well.

Kristina - Captured using my iPhone 17 Pro Max

We also had some great photography students from Birmingham University, who were kitted out with Lightroom mobile on iPads. They could edit images taken by attendees and print them out there on the spot, thanks to Canon for lending printers and also Hahnemühle for providing paper. This definitely went down well with attendees.

David - Captured with my iPhone 17 Pro Max

It was great working with Adobe and great to catch up with friends who also work at Adobe that I've known for many years, but not seen in person for way too long.

Here's a few more samples of some of the pictures that I managed to take while setting up the stand ready for attendees, or maybe grabbing the odd one in between shots during the day ; I’ve more to edit so will share them in another post …

David

Kristina

Models at Photography Shows - They're NOT Props!

I've worked at photography shows. I've stood behind lighting setups, watched attendees cycle through shooting bays, and seen how models are treated over the course of a long day on their feet. The vast majority of people who step up to take a photograph are perfectly decent. Many are a bit nervous, maybe self-conscious about their ability, unsure of what to say. They take their shot and move on. And I get that. Not everyone is comfortable striking up a conversation with a stranger, especially one who's posing under studio lights in front of a crowd.

But here's the thing: even if you're feeling a bit awkward, even if you don't know what to say, just saying "thank you" would mean a lot. That model has been standing there for hours, holding poses, giving energy to every single person who steps up with a camera. A simple acknowledgement that they're a human being doing a job goes a long way.

What concerns me, though, is the other end of the spectrum. Because there are times when you watch certain people take a photograph, check the back of their screen, and walk away, and something about the whole thing just doesn't sit right. The way they framed the shot. The way they looked at the image. Their whole demeanour. You can't always put your finger on exactly what it is, but it gives you cause for concern. You find yourself wondering what the purpose of that shot actually was.

I've been thinking about this for a while now, and the more I look into it, the more I realise this isn't just a feeling. It's a well-documented problem across the photography industry, and models themselves have been talking about it for years.

What models have been saying

When you actually listen to what models say about working at photography shows and events, the picture is consistent and, frankly, uncomfortable to hear as a photographer.

At Photo Plus Expo in New York, a model was placed on a narrow traffic pylon on concrete for a dramatic skyline portrait. She was visibly frightened, reaching for a spotter's hand to keep her balance, yet photographers kept shooting. One attendee actually called out "Wait!" when the spotter stepped in to help her, prioritising a clean composition over a woman's physical safety. No one had brought mats, padding, or any safety equipment.

Chris Gampat, Editor in Chief of The Phoblographer, described watching models go for hours without a break, with photographers growing frustrated when they asked for water or a bathroom visit. He recounted swimsuits and summer fashion being shot outdoors in February, with the photographer complaining about shivers and goosebumps as though a woman in near-freezing temperatures should somehow override her own biology for the image. When lunch orders were taken on set, models were routinely passed over. As Gampat observed, when the model stepped onto the set she left her humanity at the edge of the seamless. She stopped being a person and became a prop.

That word, "prop," keeps coming up. And it's exactly the attitude I've seen glimpses of at shows. The model isn't a colleague or a collaborator. She's part of the furniture, there to be consumed.

Evelyn Devere, with thirteen years of modelling experience, described photographers making unnecessary comments about her body and their attraction to her, implying that photos would be used for personal gratification or shared among friends. She recounted a photographer who slowly adjusted her positioning so that areas she had explicitly chosen not to expose would be visible, reassuring her he couldn't see anything when she raised her discomfort.

Kat Yip, a UK-based model with eleven years' experience, described photographers bypassing her professional portfolio to request personal nude photos, and others who opened conversations by commenting on her body.

Amandy Rose Silva-Ranger, a promotional model speaking to VICE, described working a car show where attendees grabbed her as she walked past. She said she didn't feel like a model; she felt like a piece of meat on display. Nicole de Melo, another promotional model, said she had experienced sexual harassment many times and had left multiple companies because of it, adding that the boundaries between professional expectation and personal entitlement became blurred.

These aren't isolated stories. A survey by Zoner Studio found that over half of model respondents had negative photoshoot experiences, with the vast majority involving sexual harassment. 58% said they preferred working with female photographers, and many reported feeling uncomfortable or pressured when working with men. Data from the Model Alliance found that nearly 87% of models had been asked to pose nude without any prior agreement.

Reading all of this, I kept thinking back to those moments at shows. The ones where you watch someone take a photo, glance at the back of their camera with a look you can't quite place, and walk away without a word. Those moments that make you uneasy. The models' accounts suggest that unease is well founded.

The camera can make people forget themselves

There's something about holding a camera that can change the dynamic between two people. At its best, it creates a collaboration, a shared creative moment. But at a show, where there's no pre-shoot conversation, no agreed brief, no relationship at all between the photographer and the model, that dynamic can tip the wrong way very quickly.

I think some people genuinely forget, or perhaps never considered, that the person standing on that set is a professional doing a job. She's not there for them personally. She's giving the same energy, the same poses, the same patience to everyone who steps up. And she deserves to be treated with the same basic respect you'd give any other professional you encounter at a trade event.

A female photographer writing for Photofocus catalogued the directions she had personally heard given to models at events and shoots: requests for "sexy looks," instructions to touch themselves, to spread their legs, to push their chests forward with their arms. She titled her piece simply: "I am over the creepy ones." And I think a lot of us in the industry share that sentiment but haven't been vocal enough about it.

The trade show format makes this worse. At CES, one reporter observed a model kept inside a physical pen for attendees to photograph, remaining silent for four straight days while even the most provocatively dressed promotional models at other booths were at least armed with product knowledge and a sales pitch. At Photokina 2016, female models were positioned as test subjects for camera equipment, dressed in ways that had nothing to do with the technology being demonstrated. The model becomes set dressing. Wallpaper with a pulse.

I understand that photography shows use models to demonstrate lighting and equipment in a practical, engaging way. That's legitimate. But the format creates a uniquely one-sided power dynamic. The model is static, available, performing. The photographer is transient, anonymous, accountable to no one. There's no conversation, no agreed brief, no relationship. And in that gap, some people's behaviour goes unchecked.

So where are the guidelines?

This is where it gets properly frustrating. When I started looking into whether any formal guidelines or codes of conduct exist around how photographers should interact with models at these events, I found almost nothing.

The one standout exception is Magnum Photos, which published a comprehensive Code of Conduct in January 2021 explicitly prohibiting all forms of discrimination and sexual harassment. It provides detailed examples of prohibited behaviour, including touching, unwanted advances, sexually oriented remarks, and comments about a person's sexuality, and applies across offices, events, workshops, and assignments. It includes a public complaints procedure with sanctions ranging from written reminders to permanent expulsion. Notably, a previous 2018 version had contained a confidentiality clause preventing its publication, which was removed in the 2021 revision. This is exactly the kind of thing we need more of. But Magnum stands almost entirely alone.

The major UK photography bodies, the Master Photographers Association, the Royal Photographic Society, the Society of Wedding and Portrait Photographers, the British Institute of Professional Photography, all have codes of conduct. But they're focused on business practices, client relations, and general professionalism. The RPS has a Nature Photographers' Code of Practice covering bird nesting sites and habitat disturbance, but nothing equivalent for the treatment of human subjects at events. The Professional Photographers of America asks members to maintain high levels of professionalism and integrity but offers no specifics around model interaction. None of these bodies have published event-specific guidelines addressing the concrete behaviours that models consistently report.

The photography shows themselves? Nothing I could find. No published attendee codes of conduct. No harassment policies. No briefings for people using interactive shooting bays. Nothing that says: "Here's how we expect you to behave when you step up to photograph a model."

Other industries figured this out years ago

What makes this even more frustrating is that other industries tackled the exact same problem a decade ago.

PAX, the gaming expo run by Penny Arcade, banned booth babes back in 2010, requiring that any promotional models be educated about the product and prohibiting overtly sexual or suggestive methods. Eurogamer Expo in the UK completely disallowed promotional models from 2012, with formal guidelines stating that the practice was unacceptable. RSA Conference banned revealing attire for booth staff in 2015, and CES updated its exhibitor guidelines after sustained public pressure. The "Cosplay Is Not Consent" movement drove widespread adoption of anti-harassment policies at fan conventions, with major Comic-Cons now defining harassment to include unwanted photography or recording.

A freely available Conference Code of Conduct template, adopted by over a hundred organisations, specifically states that sponsors should not use sexualised images and that booth staff should not use sexualised clothing, uniforms, or costumes. The templates are there. The frameworks exist. The photography industry just hasn't adopted them.

And here's the irony that really gets me: photography is the one industry where the relationship between a camera and a human subject is the entire point. We should understand the ethics of looking at people through a lens better than anyone. Yet we're behind gaming conventions and tech expos when it comes to protecting the people in front of our cameras.

What I think needs to happen

I'm not writing this to shame anyone or to suggest that every photographer at a show is behaving badly. Most aren't. Most are there to learn, to practise, to enjoy the event. And I genuinely understand the self-consciousness that comes with stepping up to a shooting bay in front of other people. It can feel awkward. You might not know what to say. That's completely fine.

But at the very least, say thank you. Acknowledge the person who's been standing there all day giving you their time and energy. That small thing matters more than you might think.

Beyond that, I think the industry needs to step up properly. Photography shows could adopt attendee codes of conduct tomorrow. The templates exist and they're freely available. UK professional bodies like the MPA, RPS, BIPP, and SWPP could develop specific guidelines for photographer-model interaction at events, going beyond generic professionalism language to address the concrete behaviours that models consistently report. Event organisers could provide briefings for people using interactive shooting bays, setting clear expectations around consent, communication, and basic respect. The Magnum Photos code demonstrates that detailed, enforceable standards are entirely achievable.

Models at photography shows are professionals. They deserve professional treatment. They deserve to be spoken to, not just photographed. They deserve to have their boundaries respected, their physical comfort considered, and their basic humanity acknowledged, and when something about a person's behaviour at a shooting bay gives you that uneasy feeling in the pit of your stomach, the kind where you watch them check the back of their screen and walk away and you think, "What was that actually about?", the industry needs structures in place that mean someone can act on that concern.