Comparison

Photo packshot vs CGI packshot: which one to choose for your brand?

Parametre Studio · Paris, 7 May 2026
Photo packshot vs CGI — Parametre Studio Paris

It is one of the most frequent questions we receive from creative directors and project managers. Photo or CGI? The honest answer: both have their place, but not in the same situations. Here is how we help our clients decide.

What photo does better

Product photography retains real advantages. It is often quicker to set up for a simple product with a single visual needed. It captures organic textures, such as raw wood, skin or natural materials, with a spontaneity that CGI must painstakingly recreate. And for certain contexts, particularly lifestyle visuals featuring people, it remains irreplaceable.

What CGI does better

CGI takes the lead as soon as the production involves multiple references, multiple colour variations, or complex materials such as glass, metal or translucent packaging. It is also the preferred solution when the product does not yet physically exist, when it is too fragile to be handled on set, or when the creative direction requires a perfect visual that post-production alone cannot deliver from a photograph.

CGI perfume packshot comparison photo — Parametre Studio Paris

The decisive factors

The choice between photo and CGI is rarely a question of principle. It depends on several concrete factors: the number of references to produce, the degree of material complexity, the available timeline, the need for future variations, and the required consistency with existing visuals. A brand launching a range of thirty references will almost always benefit more from a CGI investment than from thirty separate photo sessions. A brand needing a single visual quickly for a specific activation might opt for a targeted shoot.

And if you combine both?

Many productions combine the two approaches. A photo shoot captures the human or environmental dimension of a campaign, while the product visuals are produced in CGI. This allows each technology to be used where it genuinely excels, without compromise. It is an approach we recommend frequently, particularly for beauty campaigns where the brand universe is built around both people and products.

Combined CGI photo production beauty — Parametre Studio Paris

The question is not which technology is better in absolute terms. It is which one best serves the specific needs of your project, your timeline and your visual ambitions. That is what we help you determine.

Not sure which approach is right for your project?

Get in touch →

Frequently asked questions

Is CGI always more expensive than a photo shoot?
Not necessarily, and the comparison must factor in the full scope of a project. For a single simple visual, a targeted photo shoot can be less expensive. But from three to four references or as soon as variations are planned, CGI becomes economically competitive. And over time, a 3D model is reusable, which amortises the initial investment across all subsequent productions.
Can you tell a CGI packshot from a photo packshot?
Not with a well-produced CGI. The rendering engines we use today produce results that are indistinguishable from photography for the final consumer. The difference, when it exists, comes from production quality, not from the technology itself.
What if my product does not yet exist in physical form?
This is precisely where CGI becomes indispensable. We can create a perfectly photorealistic visual of a product that exists only as a technical file or a mock-up. This is particularly useful for pre-launch campaigns, investor presentations or packaging validation before production begins.
Can we start with a photo shoot and switch to CGI later?
Yes, and this transition is common. Brands often start with photo for a first launch, then switch to CGI once the range stabilises and the production volume justifies the investment in 3D model creation. The CGI model then becomes a long-term asset that serves all subsequent campaigns.