“Can we make it look more professional?”

For a small startup team, that can be the beginning of a long afternoon. One person changes the background. Another asks for brighter colors. Someone suggests starting again. By the end, there are several new images and no clear reason to choose one.

AI image generation makes producing alternatives easier. It does less to resolve disagreements about what the image is supposed to accomplish.

Before creating another version, it helps to settle a few decisions that often get left until the review.

Give the image a specific job

“An image for our launch” is a description of an assignment, but it leaves most of the important questions unanswered.

Where will it appear? What should someone understand after seeing it? Does it need to show the product, explain a problem, or simply provide a setting for the headline?

Consider a hypothetical startup offering appointment software for independent fitness instructors. A polished gym illustration might establish the right setting. It would not explain how the software handles a cancellation or fills an empty time slot.

If that is the point of the page, a real interface screenshot with a short explanation may do a better job.

Deciding this early can save a team from improving an image that was never suited to the task.

Separate flexible details from fixed ones

Some parts of a visual can change freely. Others carry information that must remain accurate.

For an editorial illustration, the background, lighting, and arrangement may all be open to interpretation. For a product image, the shape, packaging, label, and included accessories may be fixed.

Put those distinctions in the brief before anyone begins editing.

A request such as “try a cleaner setting” leaves room for interpretation. A more useful instruction would be:

“Replace the background with a plain light-gray surface. Keep the product’s proportions, label, and position unchanged. Leave space on the right for a headline.”

Even with a precise instruction, the result needs checking. Describing what must stay the same gives the reviewer a reference; it does not guarantee that those details will survive an edit.

Choose the method after writing the brief

Different assignments call for different tools.

A real screenshot is usually the clearest starting point when showing software functionality. Existing photography may be appropriate when the subject’s actual appearance matters. A generated illustration can be useful when exploring a setting or communicating an abstract idea.

Text-based tools such as Nano Banana 2.1 provide another way to create an image or request changes to an uploaded picture. Whether that approach fits depends on the brief and how much correction the result requires.

For exact typography, approved logos, or detailed layout work, a conventional editor may still be needed. Choosing a tool does not have to mean completing every stage of the job inside it.

Make feedback something another person can act on

“Too generic” may be an honest reaction, but it is difficult to turn into an edit.

More useful feedback identifies an observable problem:

“The background has more contrast than the product.”

“The text becomes unreadable at mobile size.”

“This looks like a feature we do not offer.”

Each comment points to a decision. It also makes it easier to judge whether the next version addressed the issue.

When several people review an image, nominate one person to resolve conflicting requests. Otherwise, the person making revisions has to interpret several different briefs at once.

Decide when the work is finished

Before reviewing alternatives, agree on the conditions for approval.

For a simple landing-page illustration, those conditions might be that the subject is understandable, the composition works on mobile, there is room for the headline, and the image makes no misleading claims.

Once a version meets those conditions, further changes need a reason. There may be a good one, but “we could try something else” is an invitation to keep going indefinitely.

Save the chosen image with its brief and a short note explaining the decision. That record gives the next person a useful starting point when the asset needs updating.

A better brief will not make every generated image usable. It will make it easier to recognize which results are useful, which need correction, and which should be abandoned. For a team with limited time, those decisions matter as much as the ability to produce another version.