AI Headshots Reddit: What Users Actually Think About Professional AI Photos

The main subreddits discussing AI headshots are r/resumes, r/careerguidance, r/cscareerquestions, r/LinkedInLunatics, and r/recruitinghell.

The community consensus has shifted over the past year. In 2024, AI headshots were controversial on Reddit. In 2026, the debate has settled into something more nuanced: paid tools produce results that most people cannot distinguish from a professional photo session, free tools often still show clear artifacts, and whether using them is ethical for LinkedIn is a question that gets answered differently depending on who you ask.

The Reddit summary on quality: "HeadshotPro and BetterPic are hard to tell from the real thing if you put in decent input photos. The free ones still look fake."

The practical outcome from r/resumes discussions: several users report getting more profile views and recruiter contacts after replacing casual selfies with AI headshots. The improvement from a bad photo to a decent AI headshot is measurable in engagement.

Based on Reddit discussions across r/resumes, r/careerguidance, and r/cscareerquestions:

HeadshotPro Most frequently mentioned for value. At $29 for 120 photos, users consistently cite the volume-to-cost ratio. Reddit threads show users comparing output side by side and finding HeadshotPro competitive with services charging twice as much.

Common praise: "I got 120 photos and at least 20 of them were genuinely usable. For $29 that felt worth it." Common criticism: "A few of mine had that plastic skin look. Still better than my phone selfie for LinkedIn."

BetterPic Mentioned frequently for skin realism. Priced at $35, Reddit comparisons position it ahead of HeadshotPro for natural skin rendering.

Common praise: "BetterPic got my skin texture right where other tools made me look airbrushed."

Aragon AI Praised specifically for likeness accuracy. When users post side-by-side comparisons, Aragon outputs are most often cited as "actually looks like me."

Common praise: "Aragon is the most realistic. Other tools can make you look like a slightly different person."

Dreamwave AI Noted for style variety. Offers 50+ background and style options for $35.

AI SuitUp Gets mentions for the outfit-swapping feature. Generates professional attire from casual photos.

Secta AI Appears in threads about enterprise use and team headshots. Higher price point, better team management tools.

This is one of the most discussed questions in r/recruitinghell and r/LinkedInLunatics.

The honest answer from Reddit discussions and the limited data that exists: experienced recruiters can sometimes identify AI headshots, but many do not flag them. One survey referenced in r/recruitinghell found approximately 60% of recruiters said they "could sometimes tell" but very few said they would reject a candidate over it.

What gives AI headshots away to trained eyes:

• •Overly perfect skin with no pores or natural variation
• •Background that looks slightly too clean or uniform
• •Subtle lighting inconsistencies on hair and face edges
• •Eyes that are slightly too symmetrical

What modern paid tools do better than 2023-era AI photos:

• •Natural skin imperfections preserved from input photos
• •Realistic lighting with directional shadows
• •Hair rendering has improved substantially
• •Better handling of glasses and accessories

The Reddit consensus in 2026: using a polished AI headshot on LinkedIn is not considered deceptive if it actually looks like you. It is more analogous to hiring a professional photographer and using good lighting. The line that Reddit draws is if the photo looks like a different person entirely.

One r/careerguidance comment summarized it well: "A good AI headshot shows you at your professional best. That is what a real photographer shoot does too. The tool does not matter, the output does."

Reddit has tested the free options thoroughly, and the community position is consistent.

Free tools (general consensus) The free tiers of paid services and standalone free tools still show visible artifacts in 2026 in most comparisons. Common issues: plastic or overly smooth skin, inconsistent background rendering, lower resolution output, and facial feature drift from the original photo.

The exceptions: tools that offer a limited free trial of their paid processing pipeline. These produce better results than tools built specifically as free alternatives.

When free is acceptable For a professional photo that will appear on LinkedIn, company websites, or conference bios, Reddit users generally recommend paying. The $29-49 cost of paid tools is under the hourly rate of most professional photographers.

Users who report good results with free tools are typically those who already have high-quality input photos taken with good lighting, and who are less sensitive to subtle rendering artifacts.

What paid tools do better Paid tools invest in post-processing pipelines that preserve natural skin texture, handle difficult input (poor lighting, casual clothes, varied angles) better, and produce output at higher resolution.

The r/resumes position that comes up repeatedly: "If you are trying to get a job that pays $50K+, spending $29 on a professional headshot is not a serious cost-benefit question."

r/resumes and tool-specific communities have documented what input photos produce the best outputs.

Input photo requirements (applies to all paid tools)

• •12-25 photos minimum, more variety is better
• •Multiple angles: front-facing, slight left, slight right
• •Varied lighting conditions across the set
• •Clean background on at least some photos
• •Different expressions (smiling, neutral, slight smile)
• •Clear focus on face with full head visible

What kills your results

• •Sunglasses in input photos (tools struggle with eyes)
• •Extreme filters applied to source photos
• •Very dark or overexposed inputs
• •Group photos or partial face coverage
• •Single input photo for multiple processing runs

Outfit considerations Most tools work better when some input photos show collar-level clothing rather than bare shoulders. This gives the AI a clearer base for suit and professional clothing overlay.

Reviewing outputs From paid tool runs, expect 20-40% of the outputs to be genuinely excellent, 40-50% to be good but not ideal, and 10-20% to have visible issues. Users report filtering their 120 HeadshotPro outputs down to 15-20 that they actually use.

The filtering step is expected. No current tool produces 100% hit rate across a full pack.