About EditFrame
Honest reviews from people who edit for a living
EditFrame started in 2021 in a rented studio room in Tallinn, when three working photographers got tired of reading AI software reviews written by people who had clearly never delivered a client gallery.
Back then, every new editor promised to replace an hour of retouching with one click. Some of that was true. Much of it was marketing copy wrapped around a mediocre model. We were spending our own money on subscriptions, testing generative fill on real commercial shoots, and comparing notes over coffee. At some point the notes became a website.
Five years later the site exists for one reason: skepticism. When a tool claims its noise reduction beats everything on the market, we want to see the 100% crop. When a video maker says its auto-cuts understand pacing, we want to drop a real wedding ceremony timeline into it and watch what happens to the ripple edits. Our reviews come from that process, not from press releases.
What we believe
AI features are tools, not magic. Masking that saves you twenty minutes on a product shoot is worth paying for. A skin-smoothing model that turns pores into plastic is not, no matter how good the demo video looks. We judge every feature against the same question: does this hold up on a paid job, with a deadline, on files a client will actually see?
We also believe in disclosure. EditFrame has no sponsored placements, and no vendor sees a review before publication. If a link on this site is ever an affiliate link, it is labeled, and it never changes a ranking. You can read the results of this approach in our AI photo editor reviews.
How we test
Every photo editor goes through the same pipeline. We shoot a fixed set of RAW files in mixed lighting: a backlit portrait, a high-ISO interior, a landscape with clipped skies. Each tool gets the same files, the same calibrated monitor, and the same export settings. We compare RAW conversion quality, masking accuracy on hair and glass, generative fill artifacts, layers handling, noise reduction detail retention, and final exports at 100% magnification.
Video tools get a parallel treatment: a multicam ceremony edit, LUT application, keyframe work on motion graphics, and export comparisons at identical bitrates. If a tool stutters on a 4K timeline with color grading applied, you will read about it.
Scores come from the whole team, argued out in person. When we disagree, the review says so.
A review you can trust is written by someone who would use the tool on Monday morning, for money.
The team
Mara Ellison
Editor-in-Chief
Fifteen years shooting portraits and editorial work across the Baltics. Mara sets the testing protocols and writes the final verdicts. She still culls every wedding gallery herself, because she does not trust any AI to know which frame made the bride laugh.
Daniel Reyes
Video Reviews Lead
A former broadcast editor who cut documentaries before moving into commercial video. Daniel owns the video side: timelines, color, audio, and export pipelines. His patience for marketing claims about automatic editing is famously short.
Sofia Lindqvist
Contributing Photographer
Product and food photographer who shoots the RAW files used across our tests. Sofia writes the workflow guides and runs the long-term retests, checking whether a tool we praised last year has actually kept its edge.
Get in touch
Questions about a test, a tool you want us to look at, or a correction to something we published? The fastest way to reach us is the contact page. We read everything, and corrections get fixed in the review with a note.