C. Using FoundView
(You may click on a desired question or simply scroll down to the answer)
C-1. What if only minor elements are added to—or changed in, or removed from—a photograph via post-shutter manipulations? Why can't those images qualify as FoundView? C-2. Can photographers who use digital cameras or computers for imaging make FoundView photographs? C-3. What about photographs that meet the "letter" of FoundView (i.e., no forms or shapes were manipulated) but violate the "spirit" of the standard (i.e., they are in some other way deceptive)? C-4. Are some kinds of photography more suited to FoundView than others? C-5. Can a photographer credibly do both FoundView and composite (non-FoundView) photography? C-6. What is problematic about mixing FoundView photographs with synthesized or composite images? C-7. How is the FoundView checkmark used? C-8. Who can use the FoundView checkmark? C-9. What is the briefest way to explain FoundView when attaching it to an image or a group of images? C-10. What about situations where some of the images in a grouping are FoundView and some are not? C-11. Why bother using the checkmark? C-12. Who enforces FoundView standards? C-13. Doesn't that leave room for abuse? C-14. What are the limitations or potential weaknesses of FoundView? C-15. In light of these shortcomings, why should photographers use the FoundView standard? C-16. What can supporters do for FoundView? C-1. What if only minor elements are added to—or changed in, or removed from—a photograph via post-shutter manipulations? Why can't those images qualify as FoundView?
Ah, but who's to say what's "minor"? Manipulations that are called "minor" by the photographer (who is hoping to just "touch up" the photograph without damaging its trustworthiness) are almost invariably considered more "major" by the viewer (who is suspicious of any change in content from what was recorded by the camera at the moment the shutter was clicked). For example, it is not difficult to describe photographs wherein the kinds of "minor" elements that are most often deleted through post-shutter manipulations—litter, power lines, tree branches, a parked car, weeds, jet contrails, a stain—could significantly affect the picture's content (see also E-10). Furthermore, because each photographer and viewer has a different definition of what is "minor," allowing for any post-shutter manipulation of forms and shapes would quickly lead to an endless process of arguing "If you can delete that, then why not this too?" Because FoundView was designed to help prevent deceiving the viewer, photographs that qualify as FoundView must defer to the viewer's expectation that the content has not been altered in even the smallest way. (See also E-4 and E-5.)
Imagine an exhibit of realistic-looking nature, wildlife, and landscape photographs, at the entrance to which was a sign:"The elements pictured in some of the photographs in this exhibit have been left completely unmanipulated. In other photographs, various minor items have been added; in others, minor items have been reshaped or moved around; and in still others minor items have been deleted. In some of the photographs more than one of these actions was performed.
"However, the viewer of these photographs can rest assured that all of the items added, changed, or deleted were of no importance whatsoever and their removal did not affect in any way the content of any of the pictures."Would viewers be satisfied with that in an exhibit of realistic-looking photographs? To take it a step further, what if various elements were manipulated and the viewers weren't alerted that any of the photographs had been changed at all? That would be the result of following the logic in question C-1. It's easy to see why viewers find the undisclosed manipulation of even "minor" elements unacceptable.
The three types of manipulation listed in question C-1 (adding, changing, and deleting forms or shapes in a photograph) each shortcut a particular challenge of realistic photography. Viewers find each of the three shortcuts deceptive. To wit:
Re: adding: Capturing that little something extra is often what separates routine images from exceptional ones. Seeing what others do not see is what separates the eye of the photographer from that of the non-photographer. The kinds of little touches that are most likely to be added post-shutter (e.g., the visible steam of a wolf's breath in the winter sun, the little frog next to the bright yellow flower) are precisely the kinds of things photographers traditionally spend a great deal of time looking for—and viewers concomitantly prize. Obviously these sorts of "improvements" are tempting to add long after the shutter is clicked, because they imply great skill, effort, or serendipity on the part of the photographer, but viewers are not impressed when they find out about the manipulations. (See also D-4.)
Re: changing: Finding meaning (including order and pattern) in the chaos of the real world is a constant challenge for photographers. Photographers who can't find these things can easily create post-shutter simulations of having done so, but these efforts to "improve" on reality can never equal the real thing—and, understandably, viewers want to know whether or not they're seeing a record of reality. For example, one prominent nature photographer described how pleased he was once he could indiscernibly, digitally correct the "disruption" that occurs in "masses of animals [in which] one animal would invariably be wandering in the wrong direction." But as viewer Kenneth Brower commented, "Wandering in the wrong direction according to whom? Whose patterns is the nature photographer supposed to celebrate—nature's or his own? In the human herd that animal wandering in the wrong direction would be the Buddha, or Luther, or Einstein" (see Notes). Any argument that the simulated scene "could have happened" is completely unpersuasive to the viewer (see E-4 and E-8), as is the defense that the shutter click was "only" one moment in time anyway. Granted, an unmanipulated photograph can record only what happened at one place at one brief moment in the whole span of history—but that's the point of realistic photography. That "decisive moment" is anything but arbitrary or random—quite the opposite. It is specifically chosen above all other moments. When a photograph undergoes post-shutter changes to its content (no matter how "minor"), it can only simulate having accomplished a particular effect or composition during this moment and should never be presented as the real thing. (See E-10 and E-12.)
Re: deleting: Realistic photography is largely about the process of reduction, simplifying a complex, real-life scene so that it is comprehensible to the viewer from within the finite boundaries of a single frame. Indeed, eliminating distracting elements from the photograph so that the viewer focuses on the main subject, it could be argued, is often the greatest challenge facing the photographer in the field, whether the subject is nature, wildlife, landscape, a street scene, architecture, adventure, or travel. As photo contest winners in magazines demonstrate on a monthly basis, the degree of success in this reductive process is often what distinguishes a merely adequate photograph from a very strong one. To revisit a photograph long after the shutter was clicked in an effort to simplify it by deleting various elements—calling them "minor"—and then to falsely present the result as a single-click, unmanipulated image is to repudiate the value of actually photographing elegantly simple compositions in the real world.
Bottom line: Anyone who wants to add, change, or delete elements, whether "minor" or "major," after the shutter is clicked is certainly free to do so—but the viewer of the resulting image invariably wants to be made aware of such manipulations.
C-2. Can photographers who use digital cameras or computers for imaging make FoundView photographs?
Certainly, as long as any manipulations that are done fall within FoundView standards. For example, an image for which a computer was used merely to lighten tones would qualify as FoundView, while an image made by sandwiching two photographs in a conventional darkroom (e.g., a full-moon photo superimposed over a wildlife scene) would not. FoundView's only concern is whether content was altered in a realistic-looking photograph, not what tools were used to do it. Thus the FoundView standard will still be just as relevant if and when digital technology someday replaces every last roll or sheet of film.
The viewer cares what was done to a photograph, not how it was done. Viewers want to know if the photograph depicts all forms and shapes as recorded by the camera when the shutter was clicked, with nothing changed except tones (see Notes). If the photographer secretly superimposes the silhouette of an African giraffe in front of an enormous fireball sunset photographed at a different time or place, does the viewer of the resulting image care whether the deceit was performed in the camera (see F-22), in the darkroom, or on a computer? Of course not. The viewer doesn't care what tools were used to do the manipulation. This realization has come slowly to film-using photographers, but just because something can be inserted into a photograph in a darkroom doesn't make it "less deceptive," any more than altering tones on a computer somehow makes that "more deceptive." Within the next decade or so, countless serious photographers (including many who formerly railed against "digital manipulation") will switch from film to digital cameras . . . and begin digitally manipulating their images' brightness and tones just as surely as they used to "burn" and "dodge" in their darkrooms. FoundView is designed to ensure that photographic ethics remain constant even as the technology and techniques of photography change.
C-3. What about photographs that meet the "letter" of FoundView (i.e., no forms or shapes were manipulated) but violate the "spirit" of the standard (i.e., they are in some other way deceptive)?
FoundView incorporates a simple test that can be applied to all photographs: asking, simply, "Would the typical viewer feel deceived?" If the answer is "Yes" or even "Maybe", the photograph cannot be FoundView. Any photograph that has even the slightest chance of being deceptive should be put to this test.
Of course, any photograph that underwent post-shutter manipulations of forms or shapes is immediately disqualified from FoundView; the test need not even be applied to these. But deception is also possible with photographs in which only tones were altered—and with photographs in which nothing at all was changed after the shutter was clicked.
Some images that fail the test are deceptive only with respect to tones, especially if the tones are closely related to the content of the image. An example of this would be changing the color of bird's plumage so that the bird is not recognizable as its own species. But some images fail the "Would the typical viewer feel deceived?" test for reasons unrelated to tones, such as an animal photographed in an American zoo but deceptively presented as though it was photographed in the African savanna. Even cropping can be deceptive, and photographs that are cropped in a manner that the viewer would find deceptive—even if they are otherwise unmanipulated—should not be labeled FoundView. Simply asking "Would the typical viewer feel deceived?" can usually resolve questions about various hypothetical or rare photographic scenarios.
Two important notes about FoundView's "Would the typical viewer feel deceived?" test: First, it does not distinguish between intentional and unintentional deceptions, because their effect—what matters to the viewer—is the same. Secondly, the test goes beyond asking whether the photograph "depicts what it appears to depict." That traditional test leaves too much room for deception. For example, if a photographer is able to sedate a hungry lion to a degree that the lion snuggles up to a little lamb, an unmanipulated photograph of the cuddling pair would indeed "depict what it appears to depict" (a sleepy lion lying down with a nervous lamb). But the photograph would still be deceptive, because viewers would have no way of knowing that the lion was sedated, and unsedated lions don't cozy up to lambs except to eat them. Thus the test must be "Would the typical viewer feel deceived?" rather than "Does the photograph depict what it appears to depict?"
No labeling standard could provide detailed instructions for every conceivable situation (see E-14). But if everything in the final image was recorded by the camera when the shutter was clicked (no forms or shapes were manipulated) and the photograph is, in the New York Times' words (see B-3), "genuine in every way," it's relatively easy to determine whether the typical viewer would feel deceived. When in doubt, photographers can actually ask a typical viewer about an image—never a bad idea, by the way—or they should err on the side of not labeling the image as FoundView.
Some people have a problem with the "Would the typical viewer feel deceived?" test because of its deference to each photographer's judgment and discretion. The fact is that there are many gray areas, in life and in photography, and FoundView is structured to be as simple as any code of ethics can be in light of that fact. The gray areas in photography may relate to context, such as the different expectations viewers have of photographs in a clothing catalog, for example, as compared with those on the front page of the New York Times. Or the gray areas may relate to degree: even typically-tame image manipulations, such as color-correction or sharpening, can be used to excess and become deceptive (see also F-10 and F-15, respectively). Those who are troubled by gray areas are understandably troubled by FoundView's accounting for them, and some even struggle to contrive unusual or bizarre scenarios in an effort to find loopholes in the FoundView standard. The principles on which FoundView is rooted are deep enough, however (see B-2), that the standard easily passes such tests. FoundView certainly is not fundamentally flawed. If it were, it would not have survived two years of public scrutiny without anyone seriously suggesting a better place to draw the line than where FoundView does.
Bottom line: This test (asking "Would the typical viewer feel deceived?") need not even be considered for photographs in which any forms or shapes have been manipulated after the shutter was clicked; none of these images can ever qualify as FoundView. However, not all remaining images automatically qualify as FoundView. If a typical viewer would find a given photograph deceptive for any reason, that image does not qualify as FoundView.
C-4. Are some kinds of photography more suited to FoundView than others?
Although FoundView can be applied to almost all types of photography, it is most useful in fields where issues of believability and credibility with the viewer are critical to the image's effectiveness: news/journalism, documentary, war, travel, adventure, sports, street, landscape, nature, and wildlife photography. In realms such as fashion, advertising, and catalog photography, viewers are less concerned with whether the photograph depicts exactly what the camera recorded when the shutter was clicked—and thus they are less likely to expect the FoundView checkmark.
Obviously context plays a huge role in this, and FoundView's appropriateness often depends on where the image in question is to be reproduced. Supermarket tabloids routinely publish realistic-looking, composite photographs without identifying them as fabrications, while the New York Times never would under any circumstances do so; reader (viewer) expectations of the respective publications have developed accordingly. Even placement within publications can make a big difference: in the newsweeklies many advertisements, and even some features, incorporate composite photographs, while these kinds of images are unheard of in the news sections of the same publications unless they are clearly presented or identified accordingly. Looking beyond the news media, it's safe to say that composite travel and wildlife photographs that are acceptable to most greeting card and calendar publishers will be rejected by travel and nature magazines. (The general public is still largely unaware of this distinction, but FoundView aims to help spread awareness of it.)
C-5. Can a photographer credibly do both FoundView and composite (non-FoundView) photography?
Of course. Countless photographers do. However, photographers and publishers who present both FoundView and synthesized photographs report that, for the credibility of FoundView images, it is important to very clearly help viewers distinguish between FoundView and non-FoundView images. Otherwise photographers who had hoped that the believability of their unmanipulated photographs would rub off onto their synthesized images (i.e., that all of their images will be trusted) can find that the reverse actually happens (i.e., none of their images are trusted). Once a photographer gets a reputation for passing off any synthesized or composite images as single-click photographs, viewers begin to doubt the believability of all of the photographer's images.
Clear separation is also advisable in terms of physical proximity and subject matter. A photographer who displays fabricated nature scenes alongside FoundView nature scenes risks jeopardizing his or her credibility far more than does a photographer who displays FoundView nature scenes in one room and fabricated fashion photographs in another. (See also C-10.)
C-6. What is problematic about mixing FoundView photographs with synthesized or composite images?
It's unfair to the FoundView photographs. Besides the obvious problems of confusion and mistrust (see C-5 above), viewers have different expectations and standards for single-click photographs than they do for synthesized and composite images.
Consider the example of a photography contest: few proponents of either branch of photography would claim that it is fair to pit a traditional, unmanipulated FoundView nature scene against an undisclosed-composite photograph depicting a mirror lake (in Oregon) with two superimposed swans (photographed in Florida) reflected in the water under a superimposed full moon (originally shot in Nebraska). Each of these two images—the FoundView nature scene and the composite image—requires very different skills, the former placing a higher value on achievement in the field and the latter on achievement at the computer. Contest sponsors need to acknowledge that both ways of making images are here to stay. Since viewers will never regard the two as equal, the best solution eventually will be to offer separate FoundView and non-FoundView categories in such contests. To use a sports metaphor, the result will be two separate level playing fields rather than a single unlevel one. (See also Contest section.)
C-7. How is the FoundView checkmark used?
The FoundView checkmark, pictured on this site's home page, combines an f (in the style traditionally used to denote f-stops) and a v (stretched into a checkmark signifying that the image qualifies under FoundView guidelines). The checkmark was formerly accompanied by the phrase "Seen at the Scene," but too many people wrongly interpreted that as permission to cut-and-paste into a photograph anything they remembered seeing at the scene so the phrase was dropped. (That older version of the checkmark, however, may still be used.)
The FV checkmark need not appear on the photograph. It can be anywhere that its meaning is clear: on the photograph's border or back, on the mat or frame, with the photograph's caption or credit line, at the front of an exhibit or publication containing the photograph(s), or on the portfolio cover or case containing the photograph(s). (See C-9 for details on how to succinctly explain FoundView when attaching the checkmark.) The checkmark logo may be reproduced at any size appropriate to its context; it was designed to be legible when no larger than the type in a typical caption, and can even work at small photo-credit sizes.
The FoundView name and checkmark logo are trademarked only to prevent misappropriation or distortion. There are no licensing fees involved—nor will there ever be—and no charge for legitimately using the logo. Copies of the FoundView checkmark are available on the Internet, along with this guide, at www.FoundView.org and may be duplicated, without advance permission, for usage in a manner compatible with the spirit of the standard. The FV checkmark can be downloaded; high-resolution printouts of the checkmark are available at no charge by mail.
C-8. Who can use the FoundView checkmark?
Anyone who is willing to guarantee that his or her photographs meet FoundView standards, including publishers (see Contest section). Professional photographers and others who publish photographs obviously benefit from FoundView, but amateurs and hobbyists are also welcome—and encouraged—to use the FoundView standard and checkmark. Amateur photographers, like all artists, should be encouraged to be creative and make images as they see fit, but also to be honest about their art—especially if they plan to get published. Whether it was made by a neophyte or by a veteran magazine photographer, every realistic-looking photograph faces the same question from the viewer: is it a single-click image or a composite?
C-9. What is the briefest way to explain FoundView when attaching it to an image or a group of images?
Until FoundView is more widely recognized, photographers using the checkmark will usually want to append a brief explanation of the standard. When FoundView has appeared in books, the checkmark has been featured once, on the copyright page in the front of the book, along with a very short explanation of FoundView. To wit:"The presence of the FoundView checkmark on this page guarantees that every photograph in this book depicts the forms and shapes that the camera recorded the moment the shutter was clicked--no more, and no less. Any post-shutter manipulations were limited to tonal variations; no one involved in producing the photographs moved, added, deleted (except by cropping), or otherwise altered any forms or shapes in the photographs after the shutter was clicked."
(In the first sentence of the explanation above, the phrases "on this page" and "in this book" obviously can be modified to suit portfolios, exhibits, etc.) There is usually no need to reproduce the checkmark more than once in a book or portfolio of photographs, provided that the checkmark is positioned prominently and clearly covers all of the contents (assuming that all of the photographs therein meet the standard; see C-10 below).
In composing their own explanations of the standard, FoundView photographers are free to combine phrases from the above recommendation, from the FoundView summary on the home page of this web site, or from anything in the site that might be helpful. This guide is copyrighted and the FoundView logo is trademarked, but nonmalicious excerpting or reproduction with no intent to deceive or make money off the standard or the logo constitutes fair use. (Legitimately labeling photographs to be sold is perfectly acceptable.)
It is assumed that as FoundView becomes more widely known, less and less explanation will be required, until eventually in many contexts the mere presence of the checkmark will be sufficient.
C-10. What about situations where some of the images in a grouping are FoundView and some are not?
How best to handle this depends on the setting—is it an exhibit? a magazine? a newspaper? a book? a portfolio?—and the proportion of FoundView images to non-FoundView ones. If there are only a few non-FoundView exceptions in a large publication or body of work, the least cumbersome solution may be to list the exceptions alongside the FoundView checkmark and general statement. The best way to do this is through a version of the statement in C-9, modified to allow for exceptions:"The presence of the FoundView checkmark on this page guarantees that unless otherwise noted every photograph in this [type of publication] depicts the forms and shapes that the camera recorded the moment the shutter was clicked—no more, and no less. Any post-shutter manipulations to FoundView-marked photographs were limited to tonal variations; no one involved in producing those photographs moved, added, deleted (except by cropping), or otherwise altered any forms or shapes in the photographs after the shutter was clicked. Exceptions to the FoundView standard are as follows: [identify name, location, or page number of exceptions]"
As the proportion of non-FoundView images contained in a body of photographs rises, it may be least confusing to only label the FoundView images rather than have a long list of exceptions to an overall label. In practice, however, especially for a specific project produced by a single photographer, all—or virtually all—images tend to be either FoundView or non-FoundView; the proportion rarely approaches anything close to 50-50. (See also C-5 and C-6.)
C-11. Why bother using the checkmark?
To inform the viewer that the forms and shapes in the scenes depicted remain as they were recorded by the camera the moment the shutter was clicked. FoundView photographers and publishers have nothing to lose and everything to gain by labeling genuinely FoundView images, because both viewers and photographers appreciate the challenges of single-click, FoundView-type photography.
But using the FoundView checkmark is also a way of serving notice to those who falsely present their composite images as single-click photographs that "the free ride is over"; they will no longer profit by taking unfair advantage of photography's hard-earned heritage of credibility with the viewing public. Eventually, viewers accustomed to seeing the FoundView checkmark may question the believability of any realistic-looking photographs that don't have the FV label or a similar disclosure guarantee.
C-12. Who enforces FoundView standards?
There is no centralized enforcement. FoundView's code of ethics is completely democratic and self-policing. It is up to the discretion, judgment, and honor of each photographer who chooses to attach the FV checkmark to his or her photographs to interpret and carry out FoundView, and any external "judging" of appropriateness will be done by those in charge of publications, exhibitions, and competitions.
C-13. Doesn't that leave room for abuse?
Of course. There will doubtless be a few who try to abuse the FoundView standard. However, when competitions and publications have FoundView and non-FoundView categories, for example, those who falsely vouch that their content-manipulated images meet FoundView standards risk destroying their artistic reputation if they are found out. FoundView was designed to be much stronger than any one photographer and easily survives the occasional abuse.
C-14. What are the limitations or potential weaknesses of FoundView?
There are several, to a degree interrelated:
A. There's obviously some room for abuse, between the room allowed for personal interpretation, the accounting for life's inevitable gray areas, the "Would the typical viewer feel deceived?" test, and the lack of a single enforcing body to keep tabs on everyone at all times. Note, though, that each of these is also a strength of FoundView—and each of these also applies to democracy!
B. It relies on the integrity of the photographer. This is nothing new, and the alternative is far worse. Photographers, who can privately and without external monitoring produce images purporting to depict reality, have been on the honor system since the birth of the medium. Digital photography offers unprecedented advances in both the capabilities of image manipulation and in the difficulty of outside verification (when there's no film used to capture the image, there's usually no indisputable "original" to go back to for proof). But the digital era has arrived, and viewers will increasingly have to rely on the photographer's integrity, with or without FoundView. FoundView simply reminds photographers of this long-standing accountability to their audience; it didn't create it. FoundView is, then, both (1) an expression of faith in the capacity of viewers to understand what's at stake and (2) a gesture of optimism that enough photographers care sufficiently about their chosen medium to do all they can to preserve its trustworthiness. The alternative to FoundView is to give up and tell the viewing public, "Just assume that no photographs can ever be trusted, no matter what the photographer claims." Few photographers—and few viewers—want that to happen.
C. FoundView only spells out specific guidelines for post-shutter manipulations to the photograph, not pre-shutter manipulations to the subject. Issues of how much orchestration or manipulation of the subject is permissible—move a branch? pick up a piece of litter? direct a person? lure an animal?—have been hotly debated for well over a century in all realms of photography. FoundView does all it can to address post-shutter manipulation issues, but there is no corresponding label to disclose to viewers what happened to the subject before the shutter was clicked (for reasons explained in E-11). When it comes to matters of pre-shutter manipulations, the photographer must use his or her discretion, applying the "Would the typical viewer feel deceived?" test (see C-3) to judge whether such manipulations cross the line and become deceptive.
C-15. In light of these shortcomings, why should photographers use the FoundView standard?
Because it's the best way to protect the integrity of real, single-click photographs from the erosion of trust caused by undisclosed image manipulations. There are more than 50 billion original photographs made each year, many millions of which are published. With an almost infinite number of combinations of photographers, careers, subjects, circumstances, goals, habits, ethics, trends, expectations, audiences, technological advances, and publishing contexts tied up and involved with these billions of images, coming up with a standard that speaks to—let alone is adopted by—even a fraction of the image makers and producers is a daunting task. In light of this, it is clear that no labeling system can ever be perfect, and FoundView does not claim to be. However, FoundView proponents feel that a labeling standard that is directly applicable well over 99 percent of the time—and easily discernible in the remaining cases by asking "Would the typical viewer feel deceived?"—is far better than no standard at all. Yes, the FoundView checkmark will inevitably be the occasional refuge of scoundrels (who will use it as a shield or distraction to get away with inappropriate manipulations), but any abuses that occur are simply the price that must be paid to have a widely accepted standard. As FoundView becomes more popular, such abuses will become easier to identify.
There's no question that advances in computer technology have forever altered the face of photography. Any manipulation is possible with almost any image. For example, there's no longer any technical reason why a brochure for a resort hotel that's trying to entice potential visitors need show power lines, ugly surroundings, an errant parked car, or even a puffy cloud in a position that doesn't help the composition. Most kinds of photography have the potential for similar technical perfectibility, and there will always be an appetite among a portion of the viewing public for this brand of perfection. Many viewers want more, however, and fortunately many photographers in all realms of the medium will continue to transmit through single images the compelling power of unadulterated reality (without undisclosed post-shutter "cleaning up" of "imperfections" in the scene that are part and parcel of reality). It is to these photographers and viewers that FoundView is directed, recognizing that the viewer's regard for the subject and the photographer are inextricably intertwined. Henri Cartier-Bresson wrote that "one must always take photos with the greatest respect for the subject and for oneself." FoundView is a means of preserving both.
C-16. What can supporters do for FoundView?
Spread the word about FoundView! FoundView spends no money on promotion or publicity, depending instead on word of mouth. So don't be bashful. When you submit FoundView-compatible photos for exhibition, competition, or publication, always attach the FoundView checkmark and, if appropriate, the brief description of FoundView found in C-9. (The checkmark logo can be downloaded and high-resolution copies of the checkmark logo are available at no charge by mail.) We encourage FoundView supporters to list on their work or web site "Proud supporter of FoundView since [date]." (Note, though, that very few people had heard about FoundView before this web site started in May, 1998, so don't "backdate" your support!)
Also, please tell any interested Internet contacts, friends, colleagues, fellow camera club members, and workshop participants about this web site (feel free to distribute printouts of any portion of the text on this site to those who aren't online, and bring a copy or two of the Introduction along when you go to workshops). Many of our supporters make www.FoundView.org a link from their own web sites, and of course this helps spread the word as well.
Finally, please share your thoughts on FoundView with us via e-mail. We deliberately rejected the idea of a registration procedure or membership program, but we appreciate hearing from each new supporter. This web site will evolve and be refined only with continued input from working photographers and from viewers of photographs, so drop us a line when you can.
[Note: We're sorry, but we can no longer read or respond to e-mail correspondence that does not incorporate reasonable use of capital and lowercase letters. It takes too long to decipher correspondence that only uses one or the other.]