# Photography credits

All photographs below are from **Pexels** under the
[Pexels License](https://www.pexels.com/license/): free for commercial use,
no attribution required, modification permitted. Credit is given here anyway
as a courtesy and as a record of provenance.

| File | Photographer | Source |
|---|---|---|
| `img/hero-garage-dark.jpg` | Connor Scott McManus | [pexels.com/photo/13599611](https://www.pexels.com/photo/underground-parking-lot-13599611/) |
| `img/condition-spalling.jpg` | Serinus | [pexels.com/photo/4015582](https://www.pexels.com/photo/dirty-exterior-of-a-car-park-4015582/) |

Product screenshots (`export-exterior.jpg`, `app-viewer.jpg`, `step-export.jpg`,
`step-tap.jpg`, `step-photograph.jpg`) are our own captures from live inspection
work and carry no third-party licence.

`export-exterior.jpg`, `app-viewer.jpg`, `step-export.jpg` and `step-tap.jpg` are
no longer the raw captures. On 2026-08-20 all four were replaced with obfuscated
versions
(ChatGPT, 20 Aug 2026): the model view is redrawn generic and blurred so the
client's building is not identifiable, while the observation photo, the beam, the
app UI and the layout are the real thing. Each carries a "Note: Obfuscated"
caption on the page, since an unlabelled blur reads as a rendering fault in the
product. The unmodified captures stay in `screencaps/` and are not deployed.

No unobfuscated model is left on the homepage. `step-photograph.jpg` is
untouched, being a site photograph with no model and nothing identifying in it.

The regenerated app captures keep the client's name in the window breadcrumb -
`00_IHS` in `app-viewer.jpg`, `01_IHS` in `step-tap.jpg` - so the obfuscation
removed the building but not the label naming it. Both also came back with the
wordmark garbled to "BIMIispection". Neither is legible at the size the page
displays them; both are legible in the file itself.

Two things the regeneration got wrong in `app-viewer.jpg`, both small on the
page and both in the title bar: the wordmark came back as "BIMIispection", and
the model name still reads `00_IHS`, so the client survives an obfuscation pass
meant to remove them. Fixable by compositing the real title-bar strip back over
it, which is unblurred UI and shows no building.

`inspector-capture.jpg` is **AI-generated** (ChatGPT, 16 Aug 2026). It depicts no
real person and no real project, which is why it can sit in the hero without the
client-confidentiality questions the product screenshots carry. Worth knowing if
image provenance is ever asked about.

> A photograph of two inspectors beneath a viaduct was dropped on 2026-08-16.
> People in hi-vis were the weakest thing on the page: the section is about a
> parking basement, and a picture of the actual basement says it better than a
> picture of somebody standing near one.

## Selection notes

The obvious search — "construction inspector using a smartphone" — returns the
most commoditised image set in the industry, and every competitor uses it. Those
shots were rejected for two reasons: they read as residential real-estate stock
rather than structural assessment, and their bright white grounds fight the warm
black and gold identity.

What replaced them is **structural concrete with visible deterioration** —
spalling, cracking, moisture staining, biological growth. That is the literal
subject matter of facility condition assessment, it matches the first real
project (a parking garage), and it sits naturally against `#100E0A`.

## Two licensing traps worth remembering

1. **Unsplash results credited to "Getty Images" are Unsplash+**, a paid
   subscription tier — not the free Unsplash License. A large share of the
   "construction worker + smartphone" results are exactly that. Everything here
   is Pexels, which avoids the issue.
2. **The Pexels License does not permit implying endorsement** by an
   identifiable person in the photo. Keep depicted people away from testimonial
   copy or any claim that they use the product.