You’ve probably heard it already—“Why aren’t we using AI yet?” Or maybe: “Can’t we just make this faster with CGI?”

For marketing and content leaders, that pressure is real. Executives see the headlines, see the demos, and assume the future has arrived. Overnight, it seems every image, video, and campaign can be made by a machine. And suddenly, the conversation turns from “What’s our next story?” to “How much can we save?”

If that feels familiar to you, it should. This isn’t the first time technology has promised to “revolutionize” how creative work gets done. And, if history is any guide, it won’t be the last.

When generative AI first hit creative departments, it promised to change everything. Write faster. Design quicker. Concept in real time. For many teams, that’s partly come true—but the other part of the story is less shiny. What’s becoming clear is that AI doesn’t automatically make creative work better or easier. In many cases, it makes the gaps in process, clarity, and direction more visible.

The old programming adage “garbage in, garbage out” has never been more relevant. AI will dutifully generate exactly what you ask for—whether or not what you ask for is any good. That’s the uncomfortable truth now confronting both brands and agencies: the problem isn’t the technology. It’s the inputs.

In the modern world of content creation, photography and computer-generated imagery (CGI) have become the cornerstones of visual storytelling. These two mediums, while distinct in their methodologies and applications, share the common goal of creating compelling visuals that resonate with audiences. 

“The debate over whether photography or CGI is superior is an outdated dichotomy,” according to Jack Kreber, President at Kreber. 

Instead, he explains, the focus should be on which method delivers the best value for the project at hand. By adopting a medium-agnostic approach, creators can maximize both the impact and efficiency of their projects.