Photos, treated like deliverables.

Comments work like they do on video — anchored to the thing being discussed. Clients draw directly on the photo: an arrow at the stray hair, a circle around the blown highlight, a note pinned where it matters. Time-coded comments and photo annotations share the same commenting system, so the workflow your clients already learned on video carries straight over to stills.

Retouching rounds are versioned: upload the corrected photo as a new version with a note, compare it against the original, and keep the history. Nothing gets overwritten, and "which edit is this?" stops being a question.

Galleries carry the same review status as videos — needs review, approved, changes requested — with the decision recorded with name and date. Delivery tracking logs who opened the gallery and when, and webhooks fire on gallery delivery, approval, and comments, so your automations and external systems treat photos as first-class events.

Sharing works the way video sharing does: magic links with optional password, visitor identification, and per-visitor access records.

A gallery is a task like any other: it lives on your kanban board next to the video deliverables for the same campaign, moves through the same statuses, and triggers the same automations. A campaign with two videos and a photo set is one project view, not two tools and a shared drive.

For hybrid studios this is the difference between "we also do photos" and photos being an actual, managed deliverable with the same accountability as every cut you ship.