CGI vs Photography for Luxury Products
I get asked this a lot: should we photograph our products or render them in CGI? The answer depends on what you need. I do both - I photograph jewellery and watches in studio, and I render them in photorealistic 3D. Here's an honest breakdown of when each approach makes sense.
What is CGI Product Photography?
CGI (computer-generated imagery) product photography creates product images using 3D modelling and rendering software. The product is built digitally, textured with real-world materials, lit in a virtual studio, and rendered at any resolution. The output looks like a photograph. The process is completely different.
When Photography is the Better Choice
Real photography captures something CGI still struggles with: the feeling of a real object under real light. There's a tangibility to a photographed product that resonates, especially for luxury goods where tactile quality matters.
Choose photography when:
- You want the authentic, textured quality of a real object
- You need lifestyle, editorial, or model photography
- The product has organic surfaces (leather, fabric, natural stone) that are faster to photograph than to model
- Your audience values craft and authenticity - they want to see the real thing
When CGI is the Better Choice
CGI excels where the camera has limitations. Impossible angles, perfect consistency, infinite variations - all without shipping or scheduling.
Choose CGI when:
- The product doesn't exist yet (pre-launch visualisation)
- You need unlimited colour or material variants from one model
- You want angles a camera physically cannot achieve
- You need 360-degree spins or interactive viewers
- You want motion content (animation, turntables, product reveals)
- You need to scale: 50 products rendered consistently without 50 shoots
When to Use Both
This is where it gets interesting - and where I spend most of my time. Photography for the hero images. CGI for the variants, the animations, the impossible shots. Both created by the same person, so the visual language stays consistent. Same creative eye behind every image, every render, every frame. One brief. One direction. No coordination headaches. Most brands that start with one eventually add the other. Having both from the same creative saves time, money, and the headache of briefing two separate vendors.
Cost Comparison
Photography:
- Per-image cost: £25 (packshots) to £500+ (styled editorial)
- Requires: studio, lighting, shipping, physical product
- Turnaround: 1-2 weeks for a typical shoot
CGI:
- Initial cost: higher (3D model needs to be built)
- Per-render cost after model exists: very low
- No shipping, no studio booking, no scheduling constraints
- Turnaround: 1-3 weeks for first render, days for subsequent renders
Combined:
- Best value for brands that need ongoing content across multiple formats
- One brief, one creative, consistent results
The Bottom Line
Photography and CGI are not competitors. They are complementary tools. The question is not which one is better. The question is: what does your brand need right now, and which approach gets you there? If you're not sure, get in touch. I'll recommend the right approach for your specific situation - no sales pitch, just honest advice from someone who does both every day.
