Before counting photos, separate agreements from requests
Imagine receiving this message: “One photo of each cup for the shop; we also want them for social.” What would you ask before preparing the shoot? We propose an exercise with fictional notes: make the list by hand first, then request a draft from a text assistant for comparison. The aim is to check whether it adds deliveries, drops details or treats a request as an agreement.
Our example has a specific answer key: two product references, three required views and three agreed files. The portrait version remains pending. Here, “view” means an image requested in the notes, not the number of camera exposures. We are not presenting a completed assistant test or performance results. The notes and human key let you make your own comparison.
Prepare a sheet for references, views and deliveries
Lenso’s guide separates the brief from the record of outputs by product and view. Signal Studio recommends agreeing file versions before delivery. Drawing on those recommendations, this is our proposed exercise sheet. These sources address photography planning; they do not establish that an assistant will solve the assignment.
Create these columns in a sheet: product reference, variant, sample received, required view, agreed file, pending request and source note. Keep the original notes separately. For the AI trial, use only the fictional text below; there is no need to attach photographs.
- Reference: preserve each product code exactly. Do not replace “TA-CR” with “the cup” when there is another cup.
- View: record only requested sides and details. In this exercise, a front and a detail are two different views.
- File: copy format and dimensions where agreed. If the size is missing, leave a question; do not choose a social-media size yourself.
- Status: separate agreements, pending requests and exclusions. An AI draft never establishes client acceptance.
Fictional exercise: two cups, three views and a pending crop
Use these invented notes, without client data. N1, inventory: “TA-CR, cream cup; TA-TE, terracotta cup. Both samples received.” N2, accepted scope: “One front view per reference; also one handle detail of TA-CR. Deliver exactly one square JPG file at 1600 × 1600 pixels for each of those three views.” N3, request not yet accepted: “The cream front view in portrait for social too; I will give you the size later.” N4, exercise boundary: “No group photograph and no change to the product colour.”
Sizes and formats are fictional job conditions, not universal recommendations or platform requirements. The table is an editorial interpretation for checking the trial, not observed assistant output.
| Reference and view | Accepted delivery | Open question or boundary |
|---|---|---|
| TA-CR · front · N2 | One square JPG, 1600 × 1600 | N3 requests another version: size and acceptance pending |
| TA-TE · front · N2 | One square JPG, 1600 × 1600 | Do not copy TA-CR’s portrait request |
| TA-CR · handle detail · N2 | One square JPG, 1600 × 1600 | Do not add a TA-TE detail |
| Both cups together · N4 | Outside the supplied scope | Do not create another view or file |
Copy this instruction and check every row
“Use only fictional notes N1–N4 below. Propose a table for human review with: reference, variant, required view, agreed file, pending request and source note. Quote the passage from N1–N4 supporting each row. Preserve codes, sizes and exclusions. Do not invent views, formats, prices, dates or acceptances. Where information is missing, write pending and ask a question. Do not mark photographs taken or files delivered. Notes: [paste N1–N4 here]”
Save the first response before correcting it. Compare it with the human table: cream front, terracotta front and cream handle detail, each with exactly one square JPG. The portrait request in N3 is excluded from the total. Also check that no terracotta handle detail or group photograph has been added.
Anthropic’s documentation warns that Claude can produce incorrect text or text inconsistent with its context, and recommends allowing uncertainty and checking citations. Our proposed exercise therefore includes checking each row against the notes. A citation also needs review: check whether it supports the row rather than merely having a number.
Review the change: another view or another file?
For a second fictional case, replace N3 with: “One additional portrait file from the TA-CR front view accepted, at 1200 × 1600 pixels; the photographer confirms it can be prepared from that front view.” Adapt the instruction to the new text and compare it with this key: still three required views, now four agreed files. This is an invented exercise condition; it does not assume that every crop is feasible.
On a real assignment, ask whether “in portrait too” means another composition or a version of an already agreed image. Leave feasibility, preparation and pricing to the photographer. AI does not validate the framing or confirm scope for either party.
Before using a list, keep an identified version of the agreement and record who resolves each open question. Relate each file to its product reference and source view. During the exercise, do not rename existing files or connect capture, editing, galleries or shops: this guide verifies none of those compatibilities.
Measure the pilot before connecting programs
Work through the original case and the portrait change by hand. You can add two fictional variations: a sample not received and a note saying “same as before” without a reference. Write the human key before requesting a draft. For each case, record the input version, first response, corrections and total preparation and review time.
Count changed references, added or omitted views, incorrect files and requests treated as accepted separately. Define in advance which errors make a list unusable and who validates it. Compare against the manual sheet to decide whether to continue, rework or abandon the trial; assume no savings or better results.
Start with fictional data only. Do not paste briefs, unreleased photographs, personal data or real commercial information without permission and appropriate conditions for use, retention and access.
When to consider custom development
In the manual trial, you copy the notes and review the response. Before proposing automation, check what your current tool offers and which connections it supports, with their permissions and limits. An initial proposal could be limited to one brief format and rows awaiting review, without saving final changes.
Adaris considers custom software, CRM and automation with AI case by case. For this process, an authorised intake of assignments and a reviewable list by reference, view and delivery could be evaluated. Permissions, export, recovery and acceptance criteria would need agreement. This is a proposal requiring assessment and a quote; it is not an available proprietary photography app. Capture, editing, client delivery and shop publishing would remain outside that initial scope.
Related services
Sources
Do deliverables change between the brief and the shoot?
Tell us in Spanish how assignments arrive and where scope gets lost. With a fictional example, we can assess scoped development or integration with agreed permissions and checks. Commercial communication is in Spanish.