Photo & Video Content Production

Catalogue image production, on your templates

Retouching, cutouts, ghost mannequin and video cuts. Production work, where the whole game is doing the same thing to the ten-thousandth item as to the first.

  • Named, in-house designers
  • A written spec per output
  • Sampled QA

How the production is run

Image production is judged on consistency, not on any single image. A catalogue where the shadow direction, crop ratio and white point shift between batches looks amateur in a way no individual image does.

That consistency comes from a written specification, not from good designers. Good designers with a vague brief produce individually excellent, collectively inconsistent work.

StaffCloud produces to a spec agreed on a pilot batch, with sampled QA against it and the defect types fed back. The team is named and in-house, so the person who learned your spec in month one is still applying it in month twelve. The three capabilities below are how the work divides.

Capabilities

Spec before volume

Crop, background, shadow, colour and export rules written and agreed on a pilot batch. Everything downstream depends on this being explicit rather than implied.

Sampled QA against the spec

Output checked on a sample against the written spec, with defect types reported rather than quietly corrected — a recurring defect is a spec gap.

Channel-ready exports

Each destination's own size, ratio and background rules met on export, rather than one master resized and rejected by two marketplaces.

The same team, month after month

Named designers on your account. Consistency over a year is a staffing question as much as a process one.

How the engagement runs

  1. 01

    Spec and pilot

    A pilot batch produced against a draft spec and reviewed together, with the spec revised where your real images argue with it.

  2. 02

    Standard agreed

    The spec signed off with worked examples, including the awkward product types that break simple rules.

  3. 03

    Production

    Volume work to the spec with sampled QA, on a cadence and turnaround agreed with you rather than published here.

  4. 04

    Review

    Defect types and volumes reported, with the spec revised where a recurring issue points at the rule rather than the work.

What clients are actually buying

Not cheaper editing. A catalogue that looks like one catalogue, produced at a rate that does not depend on one person's availability.

  • Consistency across batches and across months
  • Exports that meet each channel's rules first time
  • Capacity that flexes for a launch without a hire

Platforms and tools we work in

The pod works inside your stack. These are the systems this team uses day to day — if yours is not listed, we will learn it.

  • Adobe PhotoshopRetouching, compositing, cutouts
  • Adobe LightroomBatch colour and tone
  • Adobe IllustratorVector assets and layout
  • Adobe Premiere ProVideo editing and cuts
  • Adobe After EffectsMotion graphics and titles
  • Capture OneTethered capture and batch processing
  • Your DAMAsset delivery and versioning
  • Shopify / Seller CentralDestination specifications
  • Frame.ioReview and approval rounds
  • Excel / Google SheetsProduction tracking and QA logs

Questions buyers ask

The things worth knowing before the first call.

Not sure this is the right scope?

Describe the workload in a sentence and we will point you at the right team — or tell you honestly if it is not something we should take on.

Ask us

Agreed per engagement against your actual volume and mix, not published here. A number quoted before seeing your images would be a guess, and production creative is exactly where an over-promised turnaround does damage.

Post-production is what these pages cover. Where shooting is needed we will say so rather than stretch the scope — and for many catalogue needs generated context plus real product photography is a cheaper answer than a shoot.

Yes, working from your reference set. Matching an existing style is easier than inventing one, provided the existing catalogue is itself consistent — where it is not, that is the first finding.

They go into the pilot deliberately. Reflective, transparent and irregular items are where simple specs break, and finding that on the pilot is much cheaper than finding it at volume.

Where they genuinely help — background removal and some cleanup have improved a lot — with a designer checking every output. We will tell you where automation is used rather than present it as hand work.

Then the spec was wrong or we did not follow it, and both are our problem. Revision rounds are part of the pilot by design, because the pilot exists to find disagreements while they are cheap.

Planned for, with capacity agreed ahead of the season. Peak is predictable; being surprised by it is a planning failure rather than a capacity one.

WhatsApp