Art-directing AI imagery: keep the rules, vary the composition

To commission a coherent image series, decide what stays fixed and what must vary before generating it. Fix the material language, palette relationships, light and exclusions. Vary the subject, silhouette and arrangement according to each image's job. Then review the results together at their real sizes. A consistent surface treatment cannot make interchangeable compositions project-specific.

Blankout's project covers give us a small, inspectable example. We needed images for three related ventures, in both Tactile and Modular expressions. Service images already described the studio's capabilities through abstract studies. Reusing their construction for project covers would have given another part of the site the same visual job.

The answer was to start with each venture's own material, draw its main construction natively, then commission a paper interpretation. This is a record of that bounded studio study, not a benchmark of image models or a claim that every series needs this workflow.

Define the subject before the surface

For Kickbrand, we inspected the existing image of two substantial planes, a narrow seam and a deliberate connection. Its promise/experience proposition gave the relationship a reason. The new cover keeps the adjacent planes and their connecting bridge, interpreted in yellow, ivory and ink.

For RSH, the source was the faceted particle form behind its doorway headline. The cover turns that particular diamond-like geometry into a folded construction. A literal diamond aperture was not an existing RSH asset; the new drawing is our interpretation of the source form.

For InnerStunner, the inspected homepage illustration shows people working around a table. The cover abstracts the shared work surface and opposing places into a long horizontal composition. It refers to the product's two audiences without pretending to document a real workplace or hiring outcome.

These subjects cannot be freely exchanged without changing the explanation. That is a useful maker check. It is not proof that someone encountering the cover alone will identify the venture without its name.

Prove the geometry before commissioning texture

We drew the Modular covers as editable SVG. Kickbrand and RSH went first because their upright and faceted constructions could test whether the series had enough range. We compared them with the existing service images, then inspected the actual card and project-opening components at desktop and phone widths.

We then developed the Tactile covers from those drawings. InnerStunner added a horizontal worktable to the family. Each image was reviewed beside its geometric counterpart and in the places it would appear.

The native drawings supplied structure; a separate reference supplied material and photographic treatment. Keeping those roles explicit reduced the risk that a material reference would quietly become a copied composition. The model still made surface and lighting decisions, so the results needed inspection rather than automatic acceptance.

Keep a real selection record

An earlier cover approach repeated the studio studies already used around the site. We rejected that approach because a shared surface language was doing too much of the identification work. The replacement begins with the project, then applies the surface language.

Keep the alternatives you actually considered and explain the choice. Here, the important decision was to give each project its own construction instead of repeating the service studies.

Our record retains the editable drawings, exact prompts, generated originals and file hashes. The visible cover has a concise credit. The case body retains actual source material so a reader can inspect the project separately from its new presentation.

Review the collection in its placements

Inspect the whole set before enlarging any single image. Do the silhouettes differ in greyscale? Does the important relationship survive a card crop? Are the service images and project covers still doing different jobs? Then open each image and examine its edges, joins, lighting and material for unintended artifacts.

The two expressions also need comparison as pairs. The Tactile and Modular covers should describe the same subject even when their backgrounds and textures differ. Keep essential geometry away from crop boundaries. Test the Work index, home cards and project openings, since each gives the image different space.

A selected output is not necessarily a finished asset. It still needs the right export, alternative text, a useful caption and a stable sharing image. If a later crop or composition revision changes the subject, reopen the pair rather than silently let the two expressions drift apart.

Record origin without confusing it with truth

Keep source references, tools, prompts, selection decisions and delivered derivatives together. That record helps the next maker understand what may be changed and what should remain stable. It also makes it easier to distinguish a generated presentation from a real photograph or a delivered physical application.

The C2PA 2.4 explainer describes verifiable provenance and the limits of what it establishes. Provenance does not prove that the depicted scene happened. We retain ordinary production records for this study; we are not claiming these covers implement a C2PA credential workflow.

Use the series commissioning sheet to record the fixed rules, allowed variation, placements and selection reasons. For the preceding decision, see how positioning becomes art direction. For choosing the production method itself, see photography, illustration or generation. Blankout's art-direction work connects those decisions to a library another maker can continue.