NOTE: This is a text only (ascii) version of this document, with no embedded codes such as _italic_ or *bold*. For readability's sake you may want to try opening one of the other three versions of this document (the Word or WordPerfect version if you use an IBM/Windows computer or the Mac version if you use a Macintosh). Those three versions should each preserve bold, italic, and other typographic characteristics. ***************** Welcome to FoundView! Updated May 1, 1999 - This document (c) 1997, 1998, 1999 by FoundView "Light, the first created element, draws the picture." _--William Langenheim_ You want to know: Were all of the things you see in a remarkable photograph really there when the picture was taken? Or were they added later? By attaching the FoundView checkmark to a photograph, the photographer or publisher guarantees that the viewer is seeing the forms and shapes that the camera recorded the moment the shutter was clicked--no more, and no less. Computer technology has made it easier than ever before to manipulate forms and shapes in photographs, in ways that are indiscernible to even the most observant viewer. Because the viewer wants to know whether any forms or shapes were altered in a realistic-looking photograph, FoundView provides a simple way for photographers and publishers to label their own photographs accordingly. The FoundView checkmark is their guarantee that post-shutter manipulation, if any, was limited to tonal variations (contrast, brightness, intensity, hue) and that no one involved in producing a FoundView photograph moved, added, deleted (except by cropping), or otherwise altered any forms or shapes in that photograph after the shutter was clicked. "The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than the whole harvest of invention." _--Francis Bacon (posted on Dorothea Lange's darkroom door)_ ***************** Contents of this document A. Introduction B. FoundView's History and Growth C. Using FoundView D. FoundView and the Art of Photography E. FoundView Philosophy F. FoundView in the Real World (Practical Applications) G. Notes to Sections A-F H. A Word to the Skeptical J. FoundView's Internet Policy K. FoundView in Publications, Contests, and Exhibits Updated May 1, 1999 - This document (c) 1997, 1998, 1999 by FoundView E-ddress: (see http://www.vad1.com/photo/foundview/about.html ) Web site: (see http://www.vad1.com/photo/foundview/ ) FoundView | PMB 120 | 60 E. Chestnut | Chicago, IL 60611 ********************************** A. Introduction to FoundView Contents of Introduction A-1. FoundView basics: What, why, how, who, when A-2. Five key tenets of FoundView A-3. Seven ways FoundView is different from previous labeling systems A-4. Eight things FoundView does NOT do A-5. How FoundView works: A quick explanation A-6. The official FoundView guidelines ***************** A-1. FoundView Basics: What, Why, How, Who, When What? FoundView is a label that helps viewers discern whether realistic-looking photographs are real or synthesized. FoundView relates only to the _presentation_ of _realistic-looking_ photographs. It never puts limits on anyone's right to artistic expression, nor does it apply to photographs that are obviously composites or fabrications. The FoundView standard is simple, easily understood, easily reproduced, signaled by a logo immediately identifiable at any reproduction size, useable by anyone, voluntarily adhered to, free of charge, applied only to one's own images, applicable to most types of photography, viewer driven, comprehensive but not overreaching, sensitive to the many gray areas in photography, backwards compatible (that is, applicable to past photography), and flexible enough to allow ample room for artistic interpretation. The term "FoundView" refers to the code of ethics that comprises the standard (published in its entirety in this document and at the web site (see http://www.vad1.com/photo/foundview/ ). It also refers to photographs that meet the standard and to the nonprofit consortium of people who support these principles and maintain the FoundView web site. Why? It's about audience expectations and the medium's credibility. Consider the book buyer, who values a remarkable and well-told story but invariably wants to be told whether it is fiction or nonfiction. So, too, viewers who see a realistic-looking photograph want to know if it's real or synthesized--especially if it's striking or unusual. Their first question of such a photograph is often something along the lines of "Where was this picture taken?" or "Where would I go to see this?" If viewers learn that a photograph passed off as real is actually synthesized, they may begin to doubt the trustworthiness of other realistic-looking photographs. When the scenario is repeated and multiplied by millions of viewers, the resulting disillusionment jeopardizes the credibility of the entire medium. That's why FoundView isn't just applied to "news" or "journalistic" photographs. The viewer doesn't care whether the subject is landscape, wildlife, nature, a street scene, or a portrait: if a photograph _looks_ like its content was not manipulated, viewers want to know whether they should believe their eyes. For viewers of photographs, the benefit of the FV checkmark is the photographer's or publisher's reassurance that the photograph depicts all of the forms and shapes that were recorded by the camera the moment the shutter was clicked. For photographers, the benefit of the FV checkmark is that it affirms and preserves the value of single-click photographs. The FV checkmark lets photographers who value photography's unmatched potential for veracity declare that their photographs are not deceptive in any way. For publishers, the FV checkmark enhances or reinforces the publication's credibility, reassuring readers that any photographs so marked can be trusted not to misrepresent the subjects they appear to portray. How? FoundView divides all post-shutter manipulations of photographs into two categories, manipulation of _light_ ("tones"), and manipulation of _elements_ in the photograph ("forms and shapes"). Photographs that have undergone the former (manipulation of tones) usually qualify as FoundView (and, if so, can be labeled with the FoundView checkmark). Images that have undergone the latter (manipulation of forms and shapes) never qualify as FoundView. The difference can be thought of as changing _tone_ vs. changing _content._ Consider the expectations of sports fans: often fans monitor various media because they value different sportswriters' interpretations of a given game or athlete (variations in _tone_)--but they would not tolerate for a moment a sportswriter who falsified final scores or outcomes of games (i.e., changed the _content_ of his subject). Viewers of realistic-looking photographs have similar expectations. Who? The FoundView standard and checkmark may be used, free of charge, by anyone--professionals, amateurs, and publishers--willing to guarantee that the photographs they are presenting meet FoundView standards. As an organization, FoundView is a loose consortium (no dues, no newsletter, no membership list, no meetings) of like-minded photographers spreading the FoundView philosophy at the grassroots level. No money is spent on marketing or publicity. No one profits financially from FoundView, as there is no source of income. All time, expertise, and money to sustain the organization and this web site are donated by private individuals. When? FoundView was a response to the changes in photography brought about by new digital imaging technologies developed in the 1990s. The idea for a consortium and standard to address issues of undisclosed image manipulation grew out of a series of long-running discussions between 1994 and 1996. These discussions culminated in the first published write-up of FoundView principles (which later evolved into the text on the web site) in early 1997. The first book of photographs to use the FoundView checkmark was published in May 1997; the web site www.foundview.org was launched in May 1998. ***************** A-2. Five key tenets of FoundView 1. If it looks like a photograph that depicts the things recorded by the camera when the shutter was clicked, the viewer wants to know whether it is or isn't precisely that. 2. Viewers who repeatedly discover that photographs passed off as unmanipulated are instead synthesized or composite images eventually don't trust _any_ realistic-looking photographs. 3. Photographers who try to pass off composites or other content-manipulated images as unmanipulated photographs hurt the trustworthiness of other photographers' photographs. 4. Photographers and artists are free to combine and synthesize photographs as much as they please, but the results should not be presented as photographs in which content was not manipulated. 5. Photographers who aren't trying to deceive their viewers have no reason to hide manipulations of content. ***************** A-3. Seven ways FoundView is different from previous labeling systems 1. FoundView was designed not merely around photographers' needs but also around the expectations of the _viewers_ of photographs. 2. FoundView does not distinguish between manipulations performed on a computer and those done in the darkroom. FoundView recognizes that computers and darkrooms are both merely tools and the typical viewer cares far more about what was done to a photograph than about the tools used to do it. Earlier attempts at labeling drew a shaky distinction between images that were manipulated in the darkroom and those that were manipulated on a computer; for more than a decade many photographers reflexively distinguished between traditional, film-based photographs ("Good") and digitally altered images ("Bad"). This differentiation misses the point, which is that a photograph's integrity can be preserved--or compromised--with either technology. For example, a photo's integrity is not affected by removal of a scratch, while it _would_ be compromised by adding a full moon--but either procedure could be done in a traditional darkroom or on a state-of-the-art computer. 3. FoundView embraces digital technology and will be just as relevant after most of the medium of photography has moved in that direction. Previous labeling systems were premised on traditional film-based photography, and their proponents often were branded Luddites or old fogies. FoundView proves that the ethics of image making are timeless, while the tools used to make images can be cutting edge, traditional, or anything in between. 4. When determining which photographs warrant disclosure about manipulation, FoundView avoids such worthlessly vague tests as "Does the manipulation hurt anybody?" or "Is it a news picture?" With FoundView, the test is simple: "Does it look like a single photograph made with a single click of the shutter?" If it does, the viewer will want to know whether it is or isn't one. Period. 5. FoundView divides post-shutter image manipulations into two simple categories: those involving light (tones) and those involving forms and shapes. This easy-to-remember division bypasses complex lists of rules and arbitrary distinctions that few photographers are inclined to agree on. 6. FoundView limits itself to labeling photographs in which forms and shapes are _not_ manipulated after the shutter is clicked. Previous labeling systems relied on those who extensively manipulated images to announce to the viewer what they were doing. This proved unrealistic in cases where the goal was deceiving the viewer into thinking a single-click photograph was being presented. 7. There is no association or supervising body to police the use of FoundView. Photography, like other art forms, has moved away from rigid and hierarchical organizations, and FoundView reflects the reality that ethics do not need a governing body to gain influence and respect. ***************** A-4. Eight things FoundView does NOT do 1. FoundView does not object to the manipulation of _photographs._ FoundView objects to the manipulation of _viewers._ That's why the FoundView checkmark isn't applied until the final stage of the photographic process--presentation--and even then FoundView is concerned only with photographs that look realistic. 2. FoundView does not have any problem with images that do not look like photographs taken with a single click of the shutter (see notes G-1 and G-2). If post-shutter manipulations are obvious to the viewer (for instance, inserting images of giant warthogs flying over a major metropolis), labeling the image to prevent deception is unnecessary. 3. FoundView does not put any limits whatsoever on artistic freedom. As far as FoundView is concerned, anyone, anywhere, anytime is free to manipulate, cut, paste, resize, bend, stretch, crush, and do anything they please to things in photographs--_as long as they don't try to pass the results off as single-click photographs._ Only then do image manipulations become deceptions. FoundView is not at all opposed to manipulation of content in photographs--only to _undisclosed_ manipulation of content in realistic-looking photographs. 4. FoundView does not break new ground. It is a repackaging of a well-established international consensus on the uses and abuses of realistic-looking photographs. 5. The FoundView checkmark is never applied to others' images, only to one's own. Even then, it's strictly voluntary. Those who feel no need for FoundView are free to ignore it. 6. When it comes to realistic-looking photographs, FoundView does not care whether the scene depicted in a fabricated image "could have happened." FoundView's policy is based on the viewer's wish to see the items that the camera actually recorded at the scene the moment the shutter was clicked. The things pictured in a photograph either were captured by the camera at that moment or they weren't. Period. 7. FoundView does not have a hidden agenda; what is on this web site is all there is to it. It is a completely independent, purely grassroots movement, entirely nonprofit, and is not indebted to any corporation or institution. 8. FoundView does not spell out specific guidelines for pre-shutter manipulations to the subject the way it does for post-shutter manipulations. 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. With respect to pre-shutter manipulations, the photographer is encouraged to use his or her discretion, applying the "Would the typical viewer feel deceived?" test to judge whether such changes cross the line and become deceptive. ***************** A-5. How FoundView works: A quick explanation To guarantee to the viewer that no forms or shapes in a given photograph were manipulated after the shutter was clicked, the photographer or publisher simply attaches the FoundView checkmark to the image or to a group of images. The viewer or reader sees the FV checkmark and trusts that each photograph thus labeled depicts the things that the camera recorded when the shutter was clicked. As the FoundView checkmark becomes more widely used, more members of the viewing public will routinely look for it--even if they know next to nothing about photography. 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. Which images get checkmarked and which don't? Obviously all photographs go through some changes--intentional or otherwise--between the click of the shutter and the final presentation to the viewer. But not all of these changes are equal. Inspired by numerous precedents (see question B-2), FoundView divides these post-shutter photographic manipulations into two simple categories: 1. Those manipulations that involve light (that is, variations in tone--for example, lightening, darkening, color shifts, and increases or decreases in contrast). Every photograph ever made goes through these kinds of changes, whether intentional or not, during the journey from the original scene to the final image. (See question E-13.) _Images in this first category usually (though not always) qualify as FoundView._ 2. Those manipulations that involve forms and shapes (adding, deleting, reshaping, or moving various things in the picture after the shutter is clicked--for example, pieces of litter, power lines, leopard spots, or people). These kinds of manipulations have become much more prevalent with the advent of digital photography. _Images in this second category NEVER qualify as FoundView, regardless of whether the manipulations were done in a darkroom or on a computer._ If category #2 manipulations *never* qualify as FoundView, what about the "usually" in category #1? This refers to misleading tonal manipulations (e.g., changing the color of a bird's plumage so that the bird is not recognizable as its own species) or other deceptions relating to content that viewers would find ethically unacceptable (e.g., photographing an animal in a zoo and presenting the image as though it were photographed in the wild). In cases like these, photographers can make a final determination by asking, "Would the typical viewer feel deceived?" If the answer is "Yes," (as it clearly would be in both examples above), the image would not qualify as FoundView. This can usually be the last question asked, not the first, and it only disqualifies from FoundView a relatively small number of category #1 images. It need never be asked about category #2 images, because they can never qualify as FoundView. (See also question C-3.) The FV checkmark can be reproduced at any size and put anywhere that an intended viewer will find it: on the back of a photograph, on its mat or frame, on an accompanying card, at the front of a photographic book or exhibit, or in the caption or credit line of a published image. (See questions C-9 and C-10.) ***************** A-6. The official FoundView guidelines The official FoundView guidelines consist of two simple questions. Together they alone determine whether or not the FoundView checkmark can be attached to any given photograph: 1. Has there been any post-shutter manipulation of any forms or shapes in the photograph? If so, the photograph cannot qualify as FoundView. 2. Would the typical viewer feel deceived about any aspect of the photograph? If so, the photograph cannot qualify as FoundView. ***************** Thats it! (But note that in order for a photograph to qualify as FoundView, the answer must be "No" to BOTH questions above, not just one or the other.) The above is the essence of FoundView, reduced to its most basic core. Everything else on this website (especially the dozens of questions and answers in Sections B-F) is an elaboration of these two simple requirements. We strongly encourage those interested in applying FoundView to their work to read the other sections of the website in order to more fully understand the evolution, philosophy, and practical implications of FoundView. _(End of Introduction)_ ***************** B. FoundView's History and Growth B-1. Why is FoundView necessary _now_? Haven't photographers always manipulated images? B-2. How did FoundView decide where to draw the line? B-3. What's the difference between FoundView and the photo manipulation policy of news publications such as the _New York Times_? B-4. What's the difference between FoundView and the way photography has generally been practiced for the past 160 years? B-5. Isn't it too late for something like FoundView, in light of the boom in digital manipulation? Are we trying to close the barn door after the horse has escaped, to put the lid back on Pandora's box? B-6. If viewers expect realistic-looking photographs to portray what they appear to portray and if most photographs do indeed do this, why is there a need for FoundView? B-7. How was the name "FoundView" chosen? B-8. How and when did FoundView get off the ground? ***************** B-1. Why is FoundView necessary _now_? Haven't photographers always manipulated images? Response: Although image manipulation has been a part of photography from its inception (see question E-3), recent advances in digital technology have made a new range of photographic manipulations much cheaper and easier to execute--and much harder for the viewer to detect. As a result, the viewing public is becoming increasingly uncertain and suspicious about what is real in photographs and what is synthesized. Some advocates of undisclosed manipulation have sought to resolve this confusion by trying to persuade viewers that _all_ photographs lie (see question E-6). A less cynical approach, one that doesn't discard viewers' hard-earned faith in photography, is "honesty in labeling"--the goal of FoundView. Recent technical advances have made image manipulation easier, but they have not changed when that manipulation is ethical and when it is not. In other words, FoundView would have been an appropriate measure at any time in the history of photography. It only became urgent when extensive but indiscernible image manipulation became more pervasive. While this change didn't happen overnight, by the mid-1990s it was generally agreed that digital technology was rapidly and permanently altering the nature of photography. The new technology was in itself neutral--neither good nor bad--but it was often used to indiscernibly manipulate the content of photographs, resulting in synthesized and composite images that were frequently passed off as single-click photographs. Manipulation advocates began encouraging photographers to "save" weak photographs by substituting more interesting skies, inserting wildlife, removing unwanted elements, etc., with little or no attention given to disclosing to the viewer these secret manipulations. Those performing the indiscernible manipulations--and advocating them--claimed that their techniques were no different than using such conventional tools as black-and-white film or telephoto lenses. In reality, of course, there was a huge difference: unlike most manipulation techniques of the pre-digital era, these new processes provided the viewer with no way of knowing that the _content_ of the image had been altered. _For the first time in history, even relatively unskilled users could easily and extensively manipulate the content of photographs without making the images look any less realistic._ (See note GB-1a.) An alarming casualness was accorded to many of these manipulations, which were breezily rationalized with phrases such as "It's no different than using black-and-white" (which is untrue, because black-and-white is an alteration that the viewer can immediately _see_) and "People opposed to undisclosed manipulations are just scared of computers" (again untrue, as more and more FoundView-type photographers were buying digital cameras, digitally scanning their images, adjusting the tones on computers, and starting up web sites). Worst of all was the accompanying tone of cynicism: "Right or wrong, everybody'll be doing it soon"; "All photographs are lies; to be a good photographer you have to learn to lie better than other people do"; and, most disturbingly, "If you're too lazy or uncreative to go out and get remarkable photographs, don't worry. Now you can easily, cheaply make them on your computer at home!" (See question E-15.) To many, the threat to the trustworthiness of _all_ photographs was very real. As even a prominent supporter of image manipulation later admitted, the digital photography revolution "eliminates our trust in a means of communication that was once premised on the objective transfer of information." (See note G-B1b.) While the word "eliminates" was an exaggeration--the public will always trust respected newspapers and newsmagazines not to alter the content of news photographs, for example--it hinted at the danger posed by undisclosed manipulations. Eventually a clear trend began to emerge. A number of photographers noticed that--without exception--the only people trying to blur the distinction between single-click photographs and composite images were creators of the latter. Those making composite or synthesized images often tried to pass off their images as unmanipulated single-click photographs, but the reverse never happened: single-click photographs were never presented as fabrications or composites (it's much harder to create a remarkable image with a single click of the shutter than it is with post-shutter manipulations; see questions C-1 and C-6). Opposition to undisclosed manipulations increased as photographers realized that those who combine and synthesize photos--whether on the computer or in the darkroom--and try to pass off their work as single-click photographs eventually can damage the trustworthiness of _all_ photographs (and photographers). But opponents of undisclosed manipulations agreed that this loss of trust in photographs was neither inevitable nor unstoppable. Photographers and publishers were uniquely positioned to prevent this erosion of trust, through clear disclosure to viewers about which images _have_ undergone manipulations of content and which have not. In other words, photography's future credibility with viewers was entirely in the hands of the medium's practitioners. In early 1997 FoundView was born out of the belief that the very foundation of photography was at stake and a line needed to be drawn. B-2. How did FoundView decide where to draw the line? Response: The founders of FoundView didn't want a manipulation standard that was arbitrary; there had to be solid logic behind it. They also didn't want to repeat the shortcomings of previous attempts at labeling systems (see section A-3). As it happened, figuring out where to draw the line wasn't difficult at all. Everything evolved quite naturally from the Greek root of the word _photograph,_ which means "drawing with light" (_graphein_ + _photos_). This made sense: in the making of every photograph, light (tone) invariably undergoes _some_ change between the three dimensional original scene and the two-dimensional final image (see question E-13), but pictorial elements such as people and objects (called, in FoundView language, "forms and shapes") do not change unless someone intervenes after the shutter is clicked to artificially change them. It quickly became clear that not only was FoundView's distinction not arbitrary, it wasn't even new. It was less an "invention" than a readaptation or repackaging of a very broad consensus that's already out there. Besides the roots of the word "photograph," FoundView's antecedents included: 1. _Historical precedent._ Every one of the billions of photographs made in the first 150 years of photography went through changes in tone (lighter, darker, etc.) between the original scene and the final image. However, until the digital era none but a tiny fraction of those photographs contained elements ("forms and shapes") that had been moved, added, reshaped, or deleted in indiscernible ways after the shutter was clicked. In other words, the photographs that everyone was accustomed to seeing during photography's first century and a half were FoundView-compatible. 2. _Journalistic ethics._ FoundView's distinction between altering tone and altering content was consistent with the standard followed by newspapers and serious newsweeklies. With thousands of publications drawing the same distinction, the standard already had widespread support. 3. _Viewer expectations._ Tens of millions of people, when they flip through a new batch of their own snapshots, expect that some pictures will be lighter and some darker than expected, but no one expects to find a space shuttle, giant prairie dog, or other previously unseen element inserted in the middle of a family photo. The same expectations hold true when they read the daily newspaper: they know that tones and contrasts in photographs may have been changed, but they take for granted that no elements have been added, changed, or deleted (except by cropping) in the published photographs. In other words, no re-education of viewers would be necessary; viewers were already accustomed to FoundView standards. 4. _Human seeing._ Individual variations in human vision can cause two people to see tones in even the simplest scene very differently, but--assuming a clear view--both will invariably see the same number of forms and shapes. FoundView allows for similarly personal interpretation of tones, while faithfully recording forms and shapes. B-3. What's the difference between FoundView and the photo manipulation policy of news organizations such as the _New York Times_? Response: There is no substantive difference, although of course each publication uses unique wording in its policy (just as FoundView's phrasing reflects _its_ diverse constituencies). Also, different policies must reflect their users' different reputations and histories: viewers are understandably wary of granting to an individual photographer (whose work they may encounter only once) the same credibility that readers bestow on a newspaper that has depended on readers' trust for 150 years. That is why FoundView raises the bar so high when defining standards for manipulations of content. A standard based on the highest common denominator ("No post-shutter manipulation of forms or shapes, ever") is far more likely to win viewers' trust than is a standard based on the lowest common denominator ("If the viewer can't spot the manipulation, go for it!"). Every respected news publication has strict photo manipulation policies designed to preserve the credibility that the publication has worked so hard to earn. Thus these publications allow their photo departments to perform limited post-shutter adjustment of _tone_ (though generally not as much as FoundView allows; see questions E-13 and F-10) but never of _content_ unless *very* clearly presented or identified otherwise. For example, at the _New York Times,_ pictures of news situations can never be posed or undergo post-shutter manipulation of content: "Images in our pages that purport to depict reality must be genuine in every way." Non-news photographs in the _New York Times_ may be posed or manipulated only if the intervention is "unmistakable to the reader and unmistakably free of the intent to deceive." Similarly, the Associated Press states, "The content of a photograph will NEVER be changed or manipulated in any way. . . . Retouching is limited to removal of normal scratches and dust spots." And _Newsweek_ declares, "While we often correct color values and contrast levels in pictures we use, it is not _Newsweek_'s policy to change or misrepresent the subject matter in any way." (See note GB-3 for sources.) FoundView makes the identical distinction. Whether it's the cover of _Time_ magazine or a vacation image being shown to a local camera club, the underlying principle is the same: if it looks like a realistic photograph that was taken with a single click of the shutter and then left unmanipulated, the viewer wants to know whether it is or it isn't one. Note that FoundView isn't just for news photographs. The trend among photographers trying to get away with undisclosed manipulations has been to claim that if photographs don't depict "news events" they are somehow magically exempt from viewers' expectations of trustworthiness. But as this web site makes repeatedly makes clear (see, for example, questions D-2, D-6, E-4, and E-8), viewers don't dole out their trust based on what subject a photograph depicts. Instead, if the photograph merely _looks_ realistic, viewers will want to know whether it's a fabrication or whether they should believe their eyes. B-4. What's the difference between FoundView and the way photography has generally been practiced for the past 160 years? Response: There is no difference at all. FoundView is simply a new label for the way most photographers have traditionally worked (i.e., "drawing with light" but not changing the forms and shapes in a photograph without identifying or presenting it accordingly). The increased availability and use of sophisticated image manipulation created the need for such a label but did not change the nature of the long-accepted photographic practices that it addresses. B-5. Isn't it too late for something like FoundView, in light of the boom in digital manipulation? Are we trying to close the barn door after the horse has escaped, to put the lid back on Pandora's box? Response: No. Although some photographers present the case as closed (i.e., claiming that composite and synthesized images are no different than FoundView photographs), their wishing does not make it so. In fact, quite the opposite is true: the manipulation possibilities created by new digital technologies have forced publications that extensively use photographs to make distinctions among manipulations that simply weren't an issue before the digital age. A generation or two ago, there were technical limits to how much the content of a photograph could be changed before it looked fake. Everybody knew that photographs could only veer so far from reality and still look real, so most publications, viewers, and photographers saw no need for anti-manipulation policies or labeling. Digital technology removed those technical limits, and new manipulation technologies introduced in the 1980s and 1990s compelled newspapers and newsmagazines to take a position on what is a genuine record of a scene or event vs. what is deceptive. Not surprisingly, they erred on the side of credibility, and today equivalents of the FoundView standard are faithfully self-enforced at the highest levels of journalism. Most national newsmagazines and newspapers--including those that make extensive use of digital (filmless) photography--refuse to publish (except in ads) images that do not meet FoundView-like standards unless the images clearly look synthesized or the manipulations are disclosed. (Publishers of magazines, journals, newspapers, and books are welcome to make use of the FoundView standard; see section K, "Using FoundView in Publications, Contests, and Exhibits.") Because they can seriously damage credibility with readers, the rare occasions on which respected magazines even _appear_ to breach this industry-wide consensus tend to get national attention. Most photographers who have followed the manipulation debate can readily cite the rare exceptions that prove the rule: _National Geographic_'s cover in which the pyramids were digitally moved, the _Time_ cover in which computer manipulations were used to darken and soften O.J. Simpson's police mug shot, _Newsweek_'s digitally straightening the teeth of the Iowa septuplets' mother. (See note GB-5.) Note that while FoundView follows the standard set by the news media, "news" photographs are only a small part of FoundView's purview. The standard is equally applicable to landscape, travel, nature, street, architectural, sports, adventure, wildlife, and any other branches of photography that benefit from the believability of realistic-looking images. (See also questions C-4, D-2, and E-12.) B-6. If viewers expect realistic-looking photographs to portray what they appear to portray, and if most photographs do indeed do this, why is there a need for FoundView? Response: Because the percentage of believable photographs is diminishing and in many contexts viewer expectations will likely follow suit. As increasing numbers of realistic-looking photographs contain undisclosed manipulations of content, the need for FoundView continues to grow. When FoundView was born, relatively few photographs were being created using digital technology. Most members of the viewing public assumed that most photographs they saw depicted the forms and shapes that were recorded by the camera the moment the shutter was clicked. And why not? Most photographs had done exactly that since photography began. Since the mid-1990s, however, the percentage of digitally-made photographs has steadily risen, and the manipulation of forms and shapes has increased correspondingly. ("Digitally-made" does not automatically mean "excessively manipulated"--see question C-2--but the temptation to manipulate forms and shapes is fairly strong once a photograph is converted to millions of pixels, all of which can be changed with the click of a mouse.) Industry analysts predict that within a decade (by about 2010), most photographs will be made using digital technology (rather than conventional film); digital cameras are already widely used by consumers. As this shift happens, and as the viewing public learns (by manipulating their digital vacation snapshots on their home PCs) that with digital technology anything is possible in a photograph, the general assumption may quickly shift 180 degrees. In other words, what was the "norm" in 1997 or 1998 (FoundView-compatible photographs) may well become the exception in a few years, and what was the exception back then (content-manipulated photographs) may well become the "norm." At that point, viewers will take for granted that most photographs _have_ had forms and shapes manipulated unless otherwise indicated. FoundView is a way of indicating that otherwise. B-7. How was the name "FoundView" chosen? Response: During development of the standard, the original working title had been "The Viewfinder Principle" (as in "Was everything in the image seen through the viewfinder at the time of exposure?"). However, this name turned out to be problematic when taken too literally. SLR viewfinders black out at the instant of exposure, rangefinders have parallax discrepancies, many viewfinders show only about 90 percent of the recorded image, and still other cameras' viewfinders reverse or invert the image! The phrase was also clumsy and a mouthful. So "Viewfinder" morphed into FoundView, which incorporated "found," conveying the notion that the elements in the final photograph would have been found at the scene at the time of exposure--and on the resulting film or file. Obviously, since it does not disqualify photographs of subjects that have undergone pre-shutter manipulations, FoundView encompasses more than pristine wilderness scenes that were merely "stumbled upon" (see questions E-11 and F-23). But the term _does_ signal the portrayal of all the elements the camera lens found at the scene--and what the viewer would have found at the scene had he or she been there--when the shutter was clicked and the photograph was taken. B-8. How and when did FoundView get off the ground? Response: The idea of devising a standard to address issues of undisclosed content manipulation--what eventually became FoundView--developed over the course of about three years, initially inspired by a February 1994 _Scientific American_ article and related lecture (see note GB-8) on the subject of digital photographic manipulation. Various other articles and troubling examples of undisclosed content manipulations that were published during 1995 and 1996 clarified the need for action. FoundView's organizers conceived the consortium idea (and the name and logo) during the winter of 1996-97 and wrote up the first informational brochure in March 1997. The FoundView checkmark and standard were first incorporated in a book of photographs published in May, 1997 (_The Promise of Winter_, ISBN 0-8028-4436-7), but word about the new standard was slow to get out until this web site was fired up almost a year later, in late spring of 1998. The rest, as they say, is history. The Internet is ideal for something like FoundView, because it goes straight to the appropriate audience, it allows plenty of room to explain things, and it lets supporters easily stay in touch with each other. Best of all, it allows exponential growth. One photographer hears about FoundView, mentions it in a forum, and soon countless other photographers know about it--including many who put it on their photographs or make it a link on their web site--and then mention it in other forums (please see section J, "FoundView's Internet Policy"). Thus, even though FoundView has never spent a penny on marketing, promotion, or publicity, word of mouth has led to steady growth. The controversy over undisclosed photographic manipulation heated up noticeably after Kenneth Brower wrote an article in the _Atlantic Monthly_ (May 1998) on digital manipulation in which he called for "a modern-day Group f64." For many photographers, FoundView--though not mentioned in the _Atlantic_ article--filled the bill precisely. The reaction to FoundView has been overwhelmingly affirmative, indicating widespread consensus that a line needs to be drawn with respect to disclosing indiscernible image manipulations. FoundView has received constructive suggestions from both supporters and critics about various sections of its web site, and the site design has been modified, the wording clarified, and the explanations amplified accordingly. Among the critics, none have suggested a better place to draw the line; the chief disagreement seems to be that no line should be drawn. Obviously no standard, no matter how logical, popular, or well-reasoned, can satisfy those who think no line need be drawn, but if this standard speaks to the many who do see a need, it will thrive and prosper. Some photographers who previously had had little experience with digital technologies did not immediately see the need for FoundView, and it's true that when the standard was introduced it may have been a little ahead of its time. But it's better to anticipate a problem than to try to correct it after it's too late, and as the digital revolution spreads and more photographers and publications adopt the FoundView standard, general awareness continues to grow. FoundView has evolved steadily, logically, organically--not arbitrarily or haphazardly--with input from both photographers and viewers. If FoundView's most serious problem is that it's ahead of its time, its future is bright indeed. Bottom line: The need for such a standard increases daily as the technology of photography continues to race ahead. FoundView is here to stay. (End of Section B) ***************** C. Using 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? 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? Response: 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 question 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 questions 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 question 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 note GC-1). Any argument that the simulated scene "could have happened" is completely unpersuasive to the viewer (see questions 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 questions 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? Response: 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 note GC-2). 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 question 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)? Response: 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 question 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 question 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 questions 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 question 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? Response: 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? Response: 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 question C-10.) C-6. What is problematic about mixing FoundView photographs with synthesized or composite images? Response: It's unfair to the FoundView photographs. Besides the obvious problems of confusion and mistrust (see question 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 section K, "FoundView in Publications, Contests, and Exhibits.") C-7. How is the FoundView checkmark used? Response: 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 question 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 (see http://www.vad1.com/photo/foundview/ ) and may be duplicated, without advance permission, for usage in a manner compatible with the spirit of the standard. High-resolution printouts of the checkmark are available at no charge by sending a self-addressed, stamped #10 (9.5 x 4-inch) envelope to FoundView, PMB 120, 60 E. Chestnut, Chicago, IL 60611. C-8. Who can use the FoundView checkmark? Response: Anyone who is willing to guarantee that his or her photographs meet FoundView standards, including publishers (see section K, "FoundView in Publications, Contests, and Exhibits"). 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? Response: 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 question 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? Response: 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 questions C-5 and C-6.) C-11. Why bother using the checkmark? Response: 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? Response: 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? Response: 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 question 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 question 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? Response: 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? Response: 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 the answer to question C-9. (You can also obtain high-resolution copies of the checkmark logo by mail, by sending a self-addressed _stamped_ 4x9 envelope to FoundView at PMB 120, 60 E. Chestnut, Chicago, IL 60611.) 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 (see http://www.vad1.com/photo/foundview/ ) 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 at (see http://www.vad1.com/photo/foundview/about.html ). 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._] (End of Section C) ***************** D. FoundView and the Art of Photography D-1. Am I not free to do whatever I want to MY photographs? After all, it's a free country, and it doesn't hurt anyone if I choose to delete a tree or add a moon in one of my own photographs. D-2. Isn't it possible to separate "art" photographs (where any manipulation would be acceptable) from "documentary" photographs (where any manipulation of content would be wrong)? D-3. Does FoundView allow room for artistic expression in photography? D-4. Why DO some photographers try to pass off manipulated images as if they are traditional, single-click photographs? If they claim to be creating "art" and not "documentary" photographs, why do they try to trick the viewer into thinking the image is as credible as a documentary photograph? D-5. Suppose I say that my manipulations are about expressing "truth," and no one else can know what my personal "truth" is. Doesn't this free me to manipulate to my heart's delight? D-6. We often hear that "In art, the final image is all that matters; how you get there isn't important." Is this true in photography? ***************** D-1. Am I not free to do whatever I want to MY photographs? After all, it's a free country, and it doesn't hurt anyone if I choose to delete a tree or add a moon in one of my own photographs. Response: Certainly all photographers are free to do whatever they want with their own photographs. It cannot be said often enough that FoundView has nothing to do with limiting or labeling anyone else's art; it is merely a voluntary labeling system for photographers who wish to use it on their own photographs. However, as anyone who lives in a free society can attest, having the right to do an action doesn't make the action right. Having the right to conceal from viewers manipulations of content in realistic-looking photographs doesn't mean that these deceptions "don't hurt anyone," as it is sometimes claimed. The reality is that synthesized and composite images passed off as real, single-click photographs hurt everyone involved in photography because they damage the believability of _all_ realistic-looking photographs. For most photographers, any damage to the trustworthiness and integrity of their chosen means of expression is a very real injury--regardless of the rationales offered by those who inflict such damage through undisclosed image manipulation. To repeat: photographers who aren't trying to deceive their viewers have no reason to conceal manipulations of content. So yes, you're free to do whatever you want to your photographs. However, if you wish to respect the wishes of viewers and other photographers, don't try to present your photographs as something that they're not. If they _aren't_ real, single-click photographs even though they look it, the viewer obviously will want to be made aware of this. D-2. Isn't it possible to distinguish "art" photographs (where any manipulation would be acceptable) from "documentary" photographs (where any manipulation of content would be wrong)? Response: No, because "documentary" photographs are widely considered to be "art." Thus by itself the term "art" does not alert the viewer to content manipulations in realistic-looking photographs. Photography battled for decades to be accepted as an art form, and now that the battle has been won, art museums routinely display the work of photojournalists such as Henri Cartier-Bresson, Dorothea Lange, Robert Capa, and Sebastio Salgado. In other words, all kinds of "documentary" photographs of actual events, news, people, objects, and scenes from everyday life are now fully accepted as "art." The "art" label does not magically free realistic-looking photographs from viewers' expectations of trustworthiness. The "manipulation = art" rationale is popular with photographers who get caught trying to pass off content-manipulated photographs as single-click, unmanipulated photographs. But they're not the only photographers creating "art." As noted above, "art" also describes photographs in which content has _not_ been manipulated. Thus the description "art photograph" is of no help to viewers, who can judge for themselves whether or not any photograph is "art." What viewers _can't_ tell just by looking is whether or not a realistic-looking photograph shows all of the things recorded by the camera when the shutter was clicked. Viewers can't tell which kind of "art photograph"--manipulated or unmanipulated--they are seeing. Granted, viewers do not hold "synthesized" art photographs to the same no-manipulation standard as "single-click" art photographs (e.g., the museum examples above). But viewers' expectations of the images also vary accordingly, because they know that it's much easier to create a remarkable image with post-shutter manipulations than it is with a decisive single click of the shutter (see note GD-2). Thus in order to interpret either kind of art photograph fairly, the viewer needs to know _beforehand_ whether the content of the image has been altered (see also question C-6). Every photographer is free to go either way with every picture he or she creates, but no one can have it both ways. One can't ignore the no-manipulation rules that give documentary photographs their credibility and then ask viewers to bestow on the manipulated images documentary-like credibility (see questions E-4 and E-5). Every realistic-looking photograph that has undergone manipulation of content is either presented as a synthesized image or it's a deception (it can't be "documentary," of course, because its content has been manipulated). If the creator of such an image isn't trying to deceive the viewer--if he sincerely wants the viewer to interpret it as "content-manipulated" art instead of "documentary" art--he should clearly tell the viewer _up front_ that regardless of how realistic the image may look, it's actually synthesized. Bottom line: Photographers who aren't trying to deceive their viewers have no reason to hide manipulations of content in photographs. The alibi of "art" is irrelevant when rationalizing undisclosed manipulations, because countless people (fans of Cartier-Bresson, for example) feel passionately both that photography is an art _and_ that its trustworthiness is one of its most valuable characteristics. FoundView proponents believe that this trustworthiness should not be ruined by a small minority of photographers who present realistic-looking photographs that have secretly been manipulated and then claim--_after_ the ruse is exposed--that the manipulations should be excused under the rubric of "art." D-3. Does FoundView allow room for artistic expression in photography? Response: Of course. FoundView imposes no limits at all on creative expression, dealing instead only with the _presentation_ of realistic-looking photographs. FoundView proponents believe that all manner of such expression is legitimate but they maintain that when an artistic medium implies veracity--as realistic-looking photography does--the artist should be honest with the audience. Thus FoundView celebrates photographers' freedom of expression while honoring photography's unique ability to record the world with an accuracy unparalleled by any other artistic medium. The integrity and value of this singular quality must be preserved. What, to the viewer, is the appeal of the work of Cartier-Bresson, Adams, Weston, and other masters of "straight" photography? Their masterpieces cannot be considered apart from their medium; the photographs wouldn't mean the same thing if they were compositions in watercolor or pastel. In other words, their images have a unique value because they are _photographs._ The viewer's esteem for these photographers is directly tied to the knowledge that these artists captured the remarkable subjects of their legendary photographs with a single, decisive click of the camera shutter (as opposed to gradually assembling the images later by rearranging and reshaping elements from multiple photographs). No one would suggest that these photographers shied away from personal interpretation or expression, even though their post-shutter manipulations were almost invariably limited to _tone_ and not to _content._ "Artistic expression" is not a synonym for "undisclosed manipulations of content"--not when it comes to realistic-looking photographs. (Cartier-Bresson's _Gare St. Lazare_ is cited in the answer to question E-8 and he is quoted in the answers to questions C-15 and E-12; Adams's _Moonrise_ is discussed in the answer to question E-8.) For many photographers, the timeless challenge of discovery, of seeing what others do not see and capturing it within the boundaries of a single frame, is the essence of photography. Those who are able to notice such things in the world and capture them in a photograph have achieved something very different than have those who combine parts of several pictures into one image (see also the paragraph that begins with "Re: adding" in the answer to question C-1). FoundView is designed to ensure that those who value the long tradition of photographic integrity can continue to work in the same vein even in the digital era. D-4. Why DO some photographers try to pass off content-manipulated images as if they are traditional, single-click photographs? If they claim to be creating free-form "art" and not "documentary" photographs, why do they try to trick the viewer into thinking the image is as credible as a documentary photograph? Response: Regarding the first question: in a word, precisely because doing so is deceptive. There's no reason to hide manipulations of content except to deceive the viewer. A prominent landscape photographer who occasionally produces composite photographs writes, "I'd have to agree that there is an intended deception [in my composite images]. I am trying to make the image appear 'real,' real in the sense that it is designed to appear to be a photograph made of a single landscape at a particular moment in time, not two or more landscapes photographed at different times and perhaps in places far from one another." Regarding the second question: this claim is not usually made for obviously fantastical, non-realistic-looking photographs (where the success of the image doesn't depend on fooling the viewer) but in realms where the photographer is counting on the viewer's belief in the traditional "documentary"-like veracity of photographs. For example, landscape, travel, adventure, street, architectural, sports, nature, and wildlife photographs easily lend themselves to deceptive manipulations because they traditionally have been vested with documentary-like credibility. To come right out and tell the viewer that the content of such pictures has been manipulated would ruin the effort to convince viewers that they're seeing the work of a very talented landscape, travel, adventure, street, architectural, sports, nature, or wildlife photographer (as opposed to a "mere" artist spinning fantasies, apparently). Thus the viewer's trust is key to the success of such deceptions (see also questions E-4 and E-5). There are additional specific motivations for passing off undisclosed manipulations as one-click photographs, including: _Profit._ Some publishers, especially in the greeting card and calendar market, don't care whether the images they disseminate are FoundView or are identified to the contrary; if it _looks_ anything like a remarkable, single-click photograph, they'll pay a premium for it no matter how much it was manipulated. There will always be hungry photographers who, through undisclosed manipulations, can fill the need--even to the detriment of personal reputation. _A competitive edge._ The photographic "stock" market (sale of photographs that are "on file" for multiple reuse) is extremely competitive. In some of the most competitive stock photo markets (including calendars and greeting cards), a photographer whose ethical principles preclude unidentified image manipulations is at a serious disadvantage compared to a photographer who will manipulate an image in any way necessary to make a sale (for example, see note G-D4b). Sometimes photographers who manipulate forms and shapes in images will make a halfhearted effort to point out such manipulations to the publisher, but it's clearly to their advantage if the manipulated images are "accidentally" published without a disclosure label. As a leading proponent of digitally adding various animals to nature photographs told _Popular Photography,_ "If you sold the picture to a calendar company and they simply used it without saying how the picture was made, I don't see this as either misleading or morally reprehensible." This perspective isn't surprising: photographers who gain a competitive edge by passing off fabricated images as single-click photographs obviously don't "mind" when a publisher fails to reveal such deceptions to the viewer--in fact, they're probably quite pleased. _Self-aggrandizement._ It's ironic that a photographer would use deceit to _enhance_ his or her reputation, but until the deception is revealed the strategy can actually be quite effective. Viewers know how rare it is to find photographs that are both excellent _and_ made with a single click of the shutter. Photographers can't fool viewers about which photographs look excellent, but they _can_ fabricate composite images that look like impressive single-click photographs. Viewers who interpret such images to be excellent, single-click photographs will temporarily regard the images' creator as more talented than he or she actually is--but only for as long as the photographer can maintain the hoax. Sometimes photographers will even use their past honors (won, as such awards are in nature and wildlife photography, for _unmanipulated_ photographs) to deceive buyers of their newer, highly-manipulated photographs. For example, if the buyer of a nature photographer's latest calendar--which is full of undisclosed composites--reads that it was created by an "award-winning nature photographer," the buyer naturally assumes that the images in the calendar are _not_ manipulated. The deceit may seem commercially shrewd on the photographer's part in the short term, but it entails trading off his long-term reputation of integrity. Once the viewer catches the photographer trying to pass off even a single undisclosed manipulation, the viewer will always be suspicious about _all_ of the photographer's images ("He probably manipulated this one too"). The photographer then learns what authors and journalists have long known: to create fiction and present it as nonfiction can irreparably damage one's reputation. (See also question E-5.) FoundView has no problem with image manipulations that are presented or identified honestly. Digital technologies have brought into being a powerful new set of tools that can be used to create remarkable images. But when viewers are cynically tricked into thinking that composites are actually single-click photographs--solely so that the images' creators can make a sale or be temporarily regarded as better photographers than they really are--the credibility of the entire medium is jeopardized. The only effective weapons against undisclosed image manipulation are the ethical integrity of other photographers and the small but powerful FoundView checkmark. D-5. Suppose I say that my manipulations are about expressing "truth," and no one else can know what my personal "truth" is. Doesn't this free me to manipulate to my heart's delight? Response: Certainly photographers, like all artists, are free to manipulate their artworks all they want; FoundView clearly does not in any way limit artistic freedom (see section A-4, point #3). But when fabricated images are falsely presented as single-click photographs--when it is _viewers_ and not merely photographs that are being manipulated--this issue moves from simple matters of personal artistic freedom into the realm of causing genuine harm to other artists (see question D-1). Any action that damages the livelihood and reputation of other photographers is no longer a purely private matter (and deceptions of the viewing public that tarnish the integrity on which other photographers depend are no exception to this). Thus FoundView proponents only ask one small thing, for the sake of viewers and of other photographers, present and future, who wish to preserve the credibility of realistic, single-click _photographs:_ IF your images look like realistic, single-click photographs, THEN you should be forthright and honest about manipulations of content that are not discernible to the viewer. Of course, it's unrealistic to expect 100-percent compliance with this modest request for honesty. Some photographers are making a living--and a very nice one--by deceiving viewers into thinking that highly-manipulated photographs are actually not manipulated at all. That's why FoundView concentrates on labeling images that have _not_ had forms and shapes manipulated. (See question E-2.) The word "truth" as used in this question is usually shorthand for "Undisclosed manipulations that I want to get away with." Indeed, the term "truth" is so casually and ambiguously tossed around in contemporary artistic discussions that it is never used to make the case for FoundView; it does not appear once on this web site (except in this question--and then only in quotation marks--and in the Notes, when quoting others who have used it). Instead, the discussion here is limited to "honesty" and "veracity" (does the photograph show the viewer the forms and shapes that were recorded by the camera the moment the shutter was clicked?); "believability" (can the viewer believe what the picture appears to show?); and "integrity" and "credibility" (if the nature of the manipulations was revealed to the viewer, would it hurt the trustworthiness of this image in particular and of photography in general?). (Note the emphasis on _the viewer._ During its creation and evolution FoundView continually took into account what typical viewers expect from photographs so that the standard wouldn't be merely "by photographers" or "for photographers." See also questions E-4 and E-5.) D-6. We often hear that "In art, the final image is all that matters; how you get there isn't important." Is this true in photography? Response: In some kinds of photography, perhaps, but in realistic-looking photography, no, it's not true. The nature of the medium (and the fact that most viewers have experience taking photographs--see question E-7) means that a realistic-looking image implies a believability to the viewer that, say, a watercolor painting would not. Thus anytime a photograph looks anything like a depiction of an actual scene, object, or event, the evolution of the image matters greatly to the viewer. For example, a picture of a 1,200-pound polar bear charging across the ice toward a lone Arctic explorer means something very different to the viewer when it is an unmanipulated record of an actual event than when it is revealed to be a composite of two photographs, one of the bear and one of the explorer. Granted, the composite version simulates a scene that theoretically "could have happened" (Arctic explorers and polar bears both being indigenous to the same areas; see also question E-8), but that alibi matters little to the viewer of the photograph. The viewer simply wants to know whether the scene depicted did or did not happen--and whether the photographer was quick enough to capture the unpredictable action with a single click of the camera shutter (see also question E-15). As the polar bear example shows, it isn't just "news" pictures that are relevant when discussing how photographs were made. Whether it's a landscape, wildlife, adventure, nature, travel, architectural, or street photograph, most viewers are understandably curious if the image looks both impressive and realistic. Their first question often is, "Where did you take this remarkable picture?" Discovering that apparently real scenes are fabrications or composites that were not actually captured with a single click of the camera shutter usually leads to disappointment on the part of the viewer and consequent disillusionment with the reliability of _all_ photographs. Any photographer who conceals post-shutter manipulations of a realistic-looking photograph's content is implying that the final physical product--the end--is all that matters. The means--how the image was made, including the myriad personal choices made just prior to "the decisive moment" when the shutter was clicked--are negated or dismissed as unimportant (see also questions E-10 and E-12). Viewers of realistic photographs (and most photographers) vehemently disagree with approach. Bottom line: when it comes to photographs that look realistic, the "ends" do not justify any "means" necessary. If an image looks like a single photograph made with a single click of the shutter, whether it is or isn't one _always_ matters to the viewer. Of course, for images that _don't_ look like a single photograph made with a single click of the shutter--or those that are presented or identified to make it clear that they're not so--the viewer will not be as concerned (if at all) with how the image was made. (End of Section D) ***************** E. Philosophy of FoundView E-1. Why do photographs need a labeling system? Haven't they always been able to speak for themselves? E-2. Why should viewers have to watch for the FoundView checkmark on single-click, unmanipulated photographs? Wouldn't it be more logical to label images that have been heavily manipulated? E-3. Haven't photographers--including some very famous ones--been combining images since the mid-1800s? If FoundView says "manipulations are manipulations, whether darkroom or digital", why are current synthesized photographs any different from historic ones? E-4. FoundView talks a lot about the expectations of "the viewer." Why should photographers care what viewers think? And what _are_ viewers' expectations of photographs, anyway? E-5. Why should photographers care about upholding their covenant with the viewer? E-6. Don't all photographs lie? E-7. Isn't all image manipulation equal, whether cutting and pasting or burning and dodging? E-8. What is so sacrosanct about "forms and shapes" that they can't be altered but tones can? After all, the appearance of a picture can be drastically changed by altering tones and only changed a little bit by minor alteration of forms and shapes. E-9. Didn't some of the greatest masters of straight photography manipulate content in ways indiscernible to the viewer? E-10. Is it true that some visual effects, if set up in the camera or at the scene _prior to_ clicking the shutter, meet the FoundView standard--but if manipulations that simulate these exact same effects are performed _after_ clicking the shutter, the image cannot qualify as FoundView? E-11. What about pre-shutter manipulations to the subject? E-12. Why does FoundView put so much emphasis on "the decisive moment"? E-13. If realism is often the goal, why does FoundView sanction any manipulation at all, of tones or anything else? E-14. Why doesn't FoundView spell out exactly what to do in every situation? E-15. What about the argument that post-shutter manipulation of forms and shapes "levels the playing field" in photography because it allows those who don't have the skills, experience, creativity, time, energy, or patience required to capture remarkable images in the field to instead generate such images at home, on a computer? ***************** E-1. Why do photographs need a labeling system? Haven't they always been able to speak for themselves? Response: Most image manipulation techniques that preceded the digital era (soft focus, hand-tinting, photomontage, solarization, posterization, black-and-white) were so immediately apparent that deception of the viewer was not a common problem. The need to alert viewers to manipulations in photographs became much more urgent with the advent of digital technologies that make even major post-shutter manipulations of content undetectable to the viewer. E-2. Why should viewers have to watch for the FoundView checkmark on photographs that _haven't_ undergone manipulations of content? Wouldn't it be more logical to label images in which the content has been manipulated? Response: It might seem logical at first, but why would photographers want to publicly announce that they've manipulated the content of their photographs if they're trying to pass the images off as unmanipulated? Such labels have been proposed before, but they failed quickly because they were universally ignored. When the success of a synthesized image depends on deceiving the viewer into thinking that a single, unaltered photograph is being viewed, the images most in need of labeling are in fact the least likely to be labeled. No photographer whose most important tool is deception is going to affix a label that negates that tool. Imagine that you market genuine gold jewelry and you want consumers to be able to distinguish between imitation gold and the real thing. Which would be more realistic: hoping that your competitors who try to pass off costume jewelry as real gold will voluntarily imprint the words "Not Real Gold--Cheaply Plated Tin" on their wares, or stamping "Genuine 24-karat Gold" on yours? FoundView is a means of declaring that photographs in which content was not manipulated are exactly what they appear to be. Note that FoundView does not take issue with honestly presented synthesized images (or costume jewelry!), only with synthesized and composite images masquerading as single-click photographs. This is why it is important to distinguish between "obvious" composites and "disguised" ones and to recognize that FoundView is only a response to the latter. Many of today's best--and best-known--photographers are creatively and openly arranging photographs and combining images; they make no apologies and no secret about doing so, nor need they. When a photograph is obviously synthesized, there is no danger of deceiving the viewer the way there is when the manipulation techniques are disguised so that the viewer thinks it's an unmanipulated photograph. E-3. Haven't photographers--including some very famous ones--been combining images since the mid-1800s? If FoundView says "manipulations are manipulations, whether darkroom or digital," why are current synthesized photographs any different from historic ones? Response: Rejlander, Rodchenko, Lissitzky, Moholy-Nagy, Man Ray, Uelsmann, Mutter: all of these photographers were combining images long before the digital era--but with an important difference: _they didn't try to conceal their image manipulations._ Viewers were not led to believe that these artists were making unmanipulated images, and contemporary imitators should note that these photographers became celebrated largely _because_ of their creative synthetic techniques, not _in spite_ of them. FoundView has absolutely no problem with images that underwent content manipulations that are obvious or are otherwise clearly disclosed to the viewer (see section A-4), whether those images were created this morning or a century ago. But what was true then still holds true today: photographers who aren't trying to deceive their viewers have no reason to hide manipulations of content. E-4. FoundView talks a lot about the expectations of "the viewer." Why should photographers care what viewers think? And what _are_ viewers' expectations of photographs, anyway? Response: Ansel Adams used to say, "There are always two people in all of my pictures, the photographer and the viewer." It is tempting for some photographers to disregard or ridicule the expectations of the viewer because they like to think they only make images to please themselves. (One prominent nature photographer stated, "We all have different [ethical] standards. I certainly don't want to be told by somebody else what I should be doing.") These photographers' tune changes, however, when they realize that--for realistic-looking photographs, at least--their commercial or professional success depends _entirely_ on the viewer's faith and trust in their images. Without viewers' high expectations (including their presumption of reasonably-high ethical standards), realistic-looking photographs wouldn't have any credibility at all. Photographers who never show any photographs to anyone need not concern themselves with viewer expectations; all others need to understand the perspective of their viewing audience, no matter how small that audience may be. So what are viewers expectations? Viewers of photographs are like readers of books: they want to know if what they're seeing--or reading--is fiction or nonfiction. (They may appreciate both equally, but they still want to know which is which.) The viewing public expects realistic-looking photographs to depict the things that the camera recorded at the scene when shutter was clicked. Knowing of this expectation, every photographer who presents realistic-looking photographs is counting on viewers to trust the photographs. The result of this exchange between photographer and viewer is a universal, unspoken mutual understanding or _covenant_: that realistic-looking photographs, unless identified or presented otherwise, depict the forms and shapes that were recorded by the camera the moment the shutter was clicked. This "covenant" explains why a photographer can't pass off a synthesized or composite image as a single-click photograph and reasonably claim that "it shouldn't matter to the viewer how it was made." That photographer is breaking the covenant with the viewer, asking for the viewer's trust while secretly betraying that trust. (See also question D-6.) E-5. Why should photographers care about upholding their covenant with the viewer? Response: Because it is in photography's interest to do so. When viewers discover that what they believed to be a single-click photograph is in fact an artificial synthesis or composite, they start to lose faith in the reliability of _all_ photographs. The many negative effects of this practice on the credibility of photography in general are self-evident. To destroy the viewer's trust in realistic-looking photographs would be a fundamental loss and would discard what many people consider to be the medium's most precious and distinctive characteristic. It's tantamount to killing the goose that lays the golden eggs: every photographer who creates realistic-looking images profits from the credibility that viewers ascribe to realistic-looking photographs. To destroy that credibility is to ruin _all_ photographers' chances of making images that benefit from it. (See question D-1.) If the trustworthiness of photographs is worth preserving--and FoundView proponents feel that it is--photographers must do all they can to ensure that the viewing public doesn't start to mistrust _all_ photographs. More conscientious photographers will lead to a better-informed viewing public, and a better-informed public will keep photographers (and photography) honest. The public still believes in photography's unparalleled capacity for conveying reality. Whether the medium maintains this credibility is entirely in the hands of its practitioners. E-6. Don't all photographs lie? Response: No. People who claim all photographs lie usually point to the use of such photographic techniques as perspective variances, cropping, or selective focus. But these effects aren't unique to photography; if they qualified as lying, then all human seeing would be lies as well. With respect to perspective variances, for example, our perspective on scenes we see in daily life is constantly varying. We just don't notice it because our brains--unlike the fixed perspective of a photograph--continuously compensate for the varying relative size of objects in our field of view as we move around. (What people call perspective "distortion" in photographs is often merely a function of viewing distance; see question F-18.) With respect to cropping, if you turn your head so that you don't see someone standing at your side, are your eyes lying? As for selective focus, our eyes function just as do other kinds of lenses: simply studying a hand held in front of one's face and noting the out-of-focus background reveals that humans do not see everything simultaneously in focus (this is contrary to popular belief; see note GE-6). In most respects, in fact, FoundView photography merely follows the same rules as human seeing. Of course, perspective, cropping, and focus _can_--like all photographic tools--be used deceptively. But that's quite different from concluding that "all photographs lie." Sometimes it is claimed that all photographs lie because they can depict a scene or an event from only one perspective. But then of course one must also put into the "Lies" category not only photography but also all news reportage, all historical writing, all documentary journalism, all videotape footage, all eyewitness accounts, all personal recollections--indeed, all portrayals of anything, because no portrayal can ever convey every conceivable perspective. The universal human limitation that we can only experience one perspective at a time (whether in physical presence at a scene or in viewing the scene through some other medium) can by no means be automatically equated with a "lie." E-7. Isn't all image manipulation equal, whether cutting and pasting or burning and dodging? Response: No. There is a huge difference between changing the _tone_ of a photograph (by varying contrast, brightness, intensity, and hue--including burning and dodging) and changing its _content_ (by, say, cutting and pasting in a full moon to rescue a bland picture or putting in an embrace two celebrities who have never met). (Of course, when changes in tone become excessive, they can affect content. See, for example, questions F-10 and F-13.) Viewers aren't stupid. Most viewers have taken a photograph at some point in their lives, and they know that while some pictures will come out lighter and some darker, every last snapshot they've ever taken records the things in the scene at the moment the shutter was clicked (unless they left on the lens cap). The only time their photographs would ever show anything else would be if someone went in and manipulated the elements in the picture _after_ the shutter was clicked. This personal experience with having made a photograph (or watching a family member make one) is usually the basis for viewers' expectations when they look at a realistic-looking photograph. But FoundView photography even meets the logical expectations of those who have never taken a photograph, because it basically follows the same rules as human seeing. Everybody knows that squinting our eyes makes a scene appear darker, for example, but no matter how hard we squint we can't magically introduce nonpresent forms and shapes. Similarly, if ten people are standing together looking at, say, a row of five stone pillars, the quality of the light (contrast, brightness, intensity, and hue) will probably be described a bit differently by each viewer, but the list of what forms and shapes are present (how many stone pillars) is not something any of the ten viewers can change without creating a fiction. So it is with FoundView photography. E-8. What is so sacrosanct about "forms and shapes" that they can't be altered but tones can? After all, the appearance of a picture can be drastically changed by altering tones and only changed a little bit by minor alteration of forms and shapes. Response: The alteration of forms and shapes may change the _appearance_ of a picture "only a little bit," perhaps, but it _always_ affects content--and the distinction is important. FoundView advocates--and most viewers--believe this question speaks to a difference in kind (tone vs. content) that outweighs any differences of degree. With respect to tonal variations, the vast majority either are not extensive enough to alter the content or are so immediately apparent (e.g., kelly-green skies, purple horses, blue bananas) that the viewer is unlikely to feel deceived. Tonal manipulations are most likely to be deceptive when they are both (a) extensive or related to content _and_ (b) and unknowable to the typical viewer. Examples of this would include a daytime picture printed darkly so that it looks like night (see question F-13), a night cityscape in which the light visible in various windows was darkened, or a photograph of a bird whose plumage color was digitally changed so that the bird is not recognizable as its own species (see question F-10). Any images that have undergone major tonal manipulations or misrepresent the content of what the camera recorded at the scene do not qualify as FoundView. (See also question C-3.) However, when it comes to alterations in content (especially manipulation of forms and shapes), even changes that the photographer may claim are "minor" are likely to seem much more "major" to the viewer. (See also question C-1.) Photographers know that viewers are likely to object to any undisclosed manipulation of forms and shapes. Thus it has lately become fashionable in some photographic circles to rationalize these manipulations by arguing that a composite scene "could have happened." Proponents of this approach argue, for example, that because a particular species of bird has been spotted at least once, sometime, somewhere in a particular region of the world, there's nothing wrong with inserting an image of such a bird into an especially attractive little scene photographed in that same geographic region, because "it could have happened." Sometimes it is even argued that the sky's the limit with this kind of manipulation as long as the image isn't "a hard news picture." (See note GE-8a.) Viewers easily grasp the shortcomings of this reasoning. A quick look at two of the most famous photographs of the twentieth century illustrates the importance that viewers place on seeing the forms and shapes that the camera actually recorded at the moment that the shutter was clicked. In Ansel Adams's _Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico_, most viewers don't seem to mind when informed that Adams darkened the sky to make the moon more prominent and increased the contrast in the foreground so that the sunlit grave markers would be easier to see. But if Adams had admitted that he had actually photographed a vacant lot on a cloudy day, then inserted the grave markers in the ground and the full moon in the sky, neither the image nor the photographer would have had any credibility at all with viewers--no matter how much he'd argued that "it could have happened." (See also note GE-6b.) Similarly for Henri Cartier-Bresson's _Behind the Gare St. Lazare_, the legendary 1932 image of the man trying to jump over a puddle in Paris: if the photographer had photographed a plain puddle, then later inserted an image of a man jumping, and tossed a relevant circus poster in the background for good measure--justifying all of this manipulation because "it could have happened"--the image would have been a trifle rather than a knockout. Neither of these great photographs is anything close to a "hard news picture" (indeed, each is in its own way the antithesis of one) yet essentially the same viewer expectations apply. Although purveyors of undisclosed composites may wish otherwise, the fact is that viewers of photographs which appear to depict reality want to see what the camera actually recorded when the shutter was clicked, not what "could have" happened. (See also questions E-10, F-1, F-2.) E-9. Didn't some of the greatest masters of straight photography manipulate content in ways indiscernible to the viewer? Response: Yes, although it was apparently extremely rare and in most cases the photographers voluntarily disclosed the manipulations to viewers. Edward Steichen's powerful portrait _Rodin--The Thinker_ was actually a composite of two photographs. Ansel Adams retouched over a prominent graffito in his famous _Winter Sunrise_. Paul Strand routinely retouched forms and shapes in his very early photographs, sometimes deleting an entire person (as in _Wall Street_). W. Eugene Smith superimposed a silhouette in the corner of a photograph of Albert Schweitzer. These manipulations are documentably true. There are at least three FoundView-related lessons to be learned from these examples: 1. It pays to be forthright about manipulations and disclose them to viewers. When photographers who manipulate forms and shapes engage in full disclosure (Steichen was apparently pleased with his solution for a confined portrait setting, for instance, and Adams never made any secret about his "correction" of the graffito, nor Strand of his deletions), they suffer far less damage to their reputation than when viewers discover the manipulation later (as was the case with Smith; see note GE-9) and wonder, "How many other photographs by this person were manipulated?" (This also explains why it's in any photographer's interest to draw a clear line between his or her FoundView and non-FoundView images; see questions C-5 and C-6.) 2. For these photographers and their mostly FoundView-compatible bodies of work, the manipulated exceptions proved the unmanipulated rule: the fact that we can rattle off the name of a single photograph out of tens of thousands produced several decades ago by someone we never met means that we must hold these photographers in remarkably high regard for their integrity! Indeed, when proponents of undisclosed content manipulation want to rationalize their actions by citing content manipulations done by "the masters" of straight photography, they often trot out one of the four examples listed above because there simply aren't very many others. 3. Other great photographers with other chosen specialties have repeatedly established beyond a doubt that being an accomplished photographer is not dependent on doing FoundView-type work so much as it is on doing images with integrity and respect for one's audience. Many great photographers have specialized--and are specializing--in heavily manipulated photography involving portraiture, fashion, and landscape. As long as this work is presented, identified, or immediately apparent to the typical viewer as manipulated, FoundView is not an issue. E-10. Is it true that some visual effects, if set up in the camera or at the scene _prior to_ clicking the shutter, meet the FoundView standard--but if manipulations that simulate these visual effects are performed on the photograph _after_ clicking the shutter, the image cannot qualify as FoundView? Response: Yes. FoundView celebrates this distinction and encourages all photographers to do so as well. For perspective, shutter speed, camera position, lens choice, depth of field, composition, weather conditions, when to click the shutter, time of day, season, and many other aspects of taking a photograph, FoundView sanctions choices made at the scene before the shutter is clicked--but disqualifies post-shutter manipulations that simulate the effect of having made those choices. In matters of content, for any realistic-looking photograph FoundView always privileges what the camera recorded at the scene over what was done to an image in subsequent days or weeks after the shutter was clicked. There are two reasons for this: 1. Post-shutter manipulations can only guess at the effect of what would have been recorded by the camera had a particular effect been selected "at the scene" before the shutter was clicked. For example, anything in a photograph--say, a tree--can be digitally moved or removed to simulate having taken the picture from a different camera position. However, once that tree is moved aside in the image, whoever is manipulating the image must fill in the space left by the tree. The manipulator can't know what it really looked like behind the tree's former position, so he or she can only guess at, and then fabricate, the portion of the scene that had been behind the tree. This post-shutter conjecture of what was behind the tree clearly would not look the same as having actually photographed that area of the scene in the first place. Because they rely on guesswork, speculation, and fabrication, post-shutter simulations of pre-shutter visual effects can never equal the real thing--and cannot qualify as FoundView. The above tree example illustrates only one of the flaws of post-shutter effects simulations. The many complex changes to the relationships _between_ subjects in a photograph are even less likely to be realistically fabricated with post-shutter manipulations. For example, it is easy to delete from a photograph one of four birds flying together, but it is impossible to know how the other three birds would be positioned if they were actually flying without the fourth. Many real-world subjects constantly respond to their surroundings: tree branches in the wind, cars in traffic, flowers and plants growing in groups, pedestrians in the city, animals in a pack or flock or herd. Post-shutter alterations to one portion of such scenes invariably upset this hidden equilibrium in countless ways that are unknowable to the person doing the image manipulation. (See also the paragraph beginning with "Re: changing" in the answer to question C-1.) 2. Whether or not they were present at the original scene, viewers depend on realistic-looking photographs to convey precisely the elements that the camera recorded at the scene at the specific moment when the shutter was clicked. (This is as true for a batch of family snapshots as it is for photographs seen in an art museum; see question D-2.) In other words, unmanipulated photographs depict, with a quality unmatched by any other medium and with unparalleled clarity and detail, a unique perspective of a unique slice of the world at a unique moment. Each such photograph can have only one perspective, can be taken at only one moment in time, and can incorporate only one arrangement of objects in the scene. The viewer knows about this unique quality and values it, which is why viewers want to know whether the content of a realistic-looking photograph was or was not manipulated after the shutter was clicked. For viewers, the _ends_ never render irrelevant the _means_ when it comes to realistic-looking photographs; how the image was made is of great importance to viewers of any realistic-looking photograph. (See question D-6.) Those who don't understand the distinction in E-10 don't see what is so special about that one particular moment when the shutter is clicked. Why, they ask, don't manipulations done to a photograph _after_ the shutter was clicked "equal" decisions made in the moments _before_ the shutter was clicked? The answer, of course, is that just because the shutter is clicked in only one brief instant in the whole span of history doesn't make that moment random or arbitrary--quite the opposite! It is instead a "decisive" moment, because the photographer has _decided_ that the scene he or she wants to convey to the viewer is right there, at that place, at that unrepeatable moment. The photographer _chooses_ that moment over all other moments in history, just as he or she chooses that perspective over all other perspectives available (see questions F-1 and F-3). Subsequent manipulations to the content of an image can override what was recorded by the camera the moment the shutter was clicked . . . but never without ruining the value of that decisive moment. (See also question E-12.) Each click of the shutter creates an intact whole--a particular visual arrangement decided upon by the photographer at the scene--which is accordingly valued by the viewer. The content of this unique whole is either left untouched--intact--or it is not; one cannot break it up "a little bit" (through post-shutter manipulations) any more than a woman can be "a little bit" pregnant. Once _any_ forms or shapes are changed in a photograph, it no longer depicts the arrangement that the camera recorded at the decisive moment. Any photographer is free to either adopt or reject "decisive moment" photography, but it is self-contradictory to extol the virtues of this kind of photography and then proceed (through post-shutter content manipulations) to nullify the value of decisions made at the moment the shutter was clicked. No realistic-looking photograph can be both genuine and synthesized; as Howard Chapnick put it, "Retouched reality is an oxymoron." Bottom line: Viewers prize a realistic photograph because it shows them what one photographer saw at one special moment. That's not to say that synthesized or composite photos, like oil paintings or charcoal sketches, don't have their own unique value as artistically-created images--only that they are very different from photographs that capture a decisive, unrepeatable moment. The viewer, needless to say, wants to know which is which. (See also question C-1.) E-11. What about pre-shutter manipulations of the subject? Response: FoundView does not spell out specific guidelines for pre-shutter manipulations to the subject the way it does for post-shutter manipulations to the photograph. 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. There has never been a widely accepted label to disclose to viewers what happened to the subject _before_ the shutter was clicked, and there may never be one. Although people occasionally try to devise a system for labeling pre-shutter manipulations, apparently there are simply too many real-world variables to make any such system workable. We live in a world filled with human imprints, and to disqualify all scenes that included any human influence on the subject would bar all but the most pristine, stumbled-upon wilderness photos. Beyond that, it would be impossible in many cases to define which manipulations to the subject were done "for the camera" and which would have been done anyway (for example, if a senator combs her hair shortly before being photographed for a newspaper interview, would that qualify as something that might have been done anyway or would it constitute "excessive pre-shutter manipulation to the subject"?). The difficulties of designing a labeling system that addresses the infinite variety of pre-shutter manipulations are obvious--and probably insurmountable. Thus, when it comes to judging the validity or deceptiveness of various pre-shutter manipulations, FoundView simply encourages the photographer to use his or her discretion, applying the "Would the typical viewer feel deceived?" test (see question C-3) to judge whether such changes cross the line and become deceptive. The test may not eliminate _all_ deceptive pre-shutter manipulations, but it certainly makes the photographer far more accountable than he or she would be if the photograph was not put to any test at all. (See also questions F-23 and F-24.) E-12. Why does FoundView put so much emphasis on "the decisive moment"? Response: Because it is at the foundation of realistic photography. Taking realistic photographs is frequently a matter of capturing an unrepeatable moment, thinking on one's feet, coping with varying conditions and elements in the field, reaching into what is often a deep personal well of experience and wisdom right there _at the scene_ in order to create an unforgettable image. To quote photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson, who coined the term "the decisive moment" a half-century ago: "To take photographs means to recognize--simultaneously and within a fraction of a second--both the fact itself and the rigorous organization of visually perceived forms that give it meaning. It is putting one's head, one's eye, and one's heart on the same axis. . . . To take photographs is to hold one's breath when all faculties converge in the face of fleeing reality. It is at that moment that mastering an image becomes a great physical and intellectual joy." FoundView proponents regard "photograph" as not merely a noun ("a photograph") but also a verb ("_to_ photograph"). For them, "photography" is not merely about the physical _object_--a "drawing of light"--but also about the intensely personal mental, emotional, and physical _act_--"drawing with light." Recent technologies have provided the ability to alter the interrelationship, appearance, and presence of elements in a photograph long after the shutter was clicked, but these practices emphasize only the physical object--the photograph (the noun)--at the expense of the deliberate and demanding act of photographing (the verb). Most photographers agree that the most difficult challenge of their art is to isolate such rare things as beauty, order, and meaning amidst the infinitely crowded and chaotic human and natural landscape and then to capture these--in one breathless moment--for the viewer, eloquently, powerfully, within the hard boundaries of a single frame. To fabricate--long after the shutter was clicked--an image that has the convincing appearance of having done all of this is its own sophisticated art, but it isn't the same as to have _photographed_ something with a single click of the shutter. To FoundView proponents, a synthesized image should never be presented as a single-click photograph because it bypasses what is for them the most important component of this kind of photography: the response of the photographer to the elements of the scene before him or her at the time the shutter was clicked. To suggest that post-shutter manipulations can be harmlessly substituted for choices made by the photographer at the scene--and the result presented as their equal--is to argue that the decisive moment isn't important in photography. Such an argument unfairly diminishes and even negates the role of experience, wisdom, talent, timing, reflexes, and--most of all--"a good eye" when clicking the shutter. Note: In homage to the phrase's inventor (Cartier-Bresson), "decisive-moment photography" has often referred to urban "street" photography. FoundView proponents, however, apply the principle to a wide variety of subject matter. For the sports photographer, the decisive moment could be the apex of the athlete's jump or the despairing player's realization that the championship has been lost; for the landscape photographer, the crash of the surf or the "right" arrangement of clouds; for the wildlife photographer, the pounce of the predator or the flight of the prey; for the architectural photographer, the position of the sun and the patterns of shadows; and for the portraitist, the fleeting expression of delight or the twinkle of an eye. "The decisive moment" is not necessarily the height of action so much as it is the coming together of elements in the scene the way the photographer wants to record them. For the nature photographer, for example, the decisive moment could simply be the lull in the breeze that stills a swaying blossom. (See also note G-3.) E-13. If realism is often the goal, why does FoundView sanction any manipulation at all, of tones or anything else? Response: Because there's no such thing as a completely unaltered photograph. The tones always change. From variations introduced by the kind of glass in the lens, the saturation or contrast of the film, or the setup of the capturing device, to numerous variables at the time of processing, printing, output, reproduction, and viewing, tones never remain unaffected during the journey from real-life scene to final photograph. Most photographers know that they'll get noticeably different tones and colors by choosing Fuji film over Kodak, by developing their film for seven minutes instead of nine, by exposing a print in the enlarger for 20 seconds instead of 15, or by switching from one kind of computer printer to another. The process of photography does not allow life's enveloping colored light to be perfectly conveyed by a flat piece of paper (or celluloid) or by a computer screen. Understanding, controlling, and creatively using variations in tone is a central challenge of photography. In addition to accommodating the inevitable changes in tones inherent in the photographic process (see above), photographers--those who "draw with light" (from the Greek _graphein_ + _photos_)--rely on variations in tone for personal expression. Publishers often need to alter tones for printing-press needs. In many cases a photographer or publisher adjusts the tonality of a photograph simply to make the tones in the image more true to the tones that were seen at the scene. Thus attaching the FoundView checkmark to an image does not mean that "no manipulation took place" but rather that "any post-shutter manipulation was limited to variations in tone" (contrast, brightness, intensity, and hue). Forms and shapes in a FoundView photograph remain as they were recorded by the camera the moment the shutter was clicked. (See also question F-10.) E-14. Why doesn't FoundView spell out exactly what to do in every situation? Response: This question has been asked surprisingly often. Apparently a fair number of photographers out there are troubled by any gray areas and wish FoundView could provide detailed directions for every conceivable situation. The reason FoundView doesn't spell out directions for every situation, of course, is that it would be impossible to imagine or anticipate every possible combination of factors and circumstances facing every photographer everywhere and every day. Even if the ethical choices involved in every imaginable photographic situation _could_ be anticipated--and they can't--the resulting guidelines would be unthinkably long and complex. This is why FoundView provides simple definitions and guidelines that are easy to remember and clear enough to make just about every manipulation-disclosure decision a no-brainer. For photographs where manipulations were limited to tones and yet some question might remain, FoundView suggests performing a simple test (asking "Would the typical viewer feel deceived?") which, when applied with a modicum of maturity and honesty, easily covers any situation. (See question C-3.) E-15. What about the argument that post-shutter manipulation of forms and shapes "levels the playing field" in photography because it allows those who don't have the skills, experience, creativity, reflexes, energy, or patience required to capture remarkable images in the field to instead generate such images at home, on a computer? Response: Except in cases where such manipulations are clearly disclosed, this argument completely ignores the expectations of viewers of realistic-looking photographs. The reasoning is akin to helicoptering "climbers" to within a hundred feet of a mountain's summit so that they need not go through the hassle of actually struggling up the entire mountain before they can brag that they "climbed to the peak." The reason nobody buys the "level playing field" argument is that it completely disregards two realities, the reality of what was actually recorded by the camera when the shutter was clicked and the reality of viewers' expectations. When shown a realistic-looking photograph, viewers want to see what the camera actually recorded, not what _could have_ happened. They want to know what the photographer _did_ capture with that single click of the shutter, not what the photographer _wishes_ he had captured at the scene if only he had gotten out of bed an hour earlier, had quicker reflexes, or had a better eye for composition (see also questions E-12 and F-1). Unless the images are clearly identified as synthesized, viewers believe, realistic-looking photographs are for presenting reality, not wishful thinking. (See also question C-6.) Again, FoundView has no quarrel with post-shutter manipulation of forms and shapes--to do this well can take considerable skill and effort--but merely with efforts to foist off onto unknowing viewers these manipulations as single-click photographs. Artists are freer than ever before to create whatever kinds of images and fantasies they wish. FoundView is simply based on the philosophy that in any medium that implies veracity--as do photographs that appear to have been made with a single click of the shutter--artists must be honest with viewers or the credibility of the entire medium will be jeopardized. (See also questions D-6 and E-10.) End of Section E) ***************** F. FoundView in the Real World (Practical Applications) How do working photographers use FoundView? Many of the most common situations are covered in this section, although of course it's impossible to anticipate every conceivable photographic scenario. For situations not covered here--or for the many cases in this section where the answer is "It depends"--the creator of a given photograph should apply both of the two basic FoundView tests: 1. Has there been any post-shutter manipulation of any forms or shapes? If so, the photograph cannot qualify as FoundView 2. Would the typical viewer feel deceived? If so, the photograph cannot qualify as FoundView. Note that the photograph must pass BOTH tests, not just one or the other. It may also be useful to read the other sections of this web site in order to better understand the logic underlying FoundView, for example the primacy given to decisions made at "the decisive moment" as opposed to changes made after the shutter is clicked. (See question E-10.) ***************** F-1. What about using post-shutter manipulations to move or remove things in the photograph in order to simulate what the photographer could have achieved at the scene had he noticed them before clicking the shutter? F-2. What about post-shutter correction of undesirable elements in the image that the photographer saw at the scene but were beyond his or her control? F-3. What about using post-shutter effects to simulate a view that could have easily been achieved initially had a different lens been used or had the photographer moved the camera higher or lower or to the side? What about post-shutter perspective correction? F-4. What about manipulating reflections? F-5. What about polarizing filters? F-6. What about graduated neutral density filters? F-7. What about special-effects filters attached to the camera before the shutter is clicked? F-8. What about manipulating shadows? F-9. What about removing surface flaws such as scratches, fingerprints, or lint on an image? F-10. What about changing the colors of things in a photograph? F-11. What about black-and-white? F-12. What about when elements are rendered illegible due to darkening or lightening all or part of the photograph? F-13. What about changing day into night? F-14. What about the moon? F-15. What about post-shutter sharpening and blur (softening)? F-16. What about adding fog, rain, mist, haze, or snow effects to a photograph? F-17. What about shutter speeds so slow that they blur (or fail to record) objects in motion? F-18. What about the use of wide-angle lenses that appear to stretch out perspective? What about long telephoto lenses that appear to compress perspective? F-19. What about the use of fisheye lenses? F-20. What about combining two identical--but differently exposed--negatives, altering no forms or shapes, to create an image that is identical in content to both negatives? F-21. What about "stitching" and composite panoramas? F-22. What about double or multiple exposures? F-23. What about arranged scenes and still lifes? F-24. What about photos that look spontaneous but actually were staged, faked, or posed? What about photographs of tame or trained animals that are passed off as "wild"? ***************** F-1. What about using post-shutter manipulations to move or remove things in the photograph in order to simulate what the photographer could have achieved at the scene had he noticed them before clicking the shutter? _The issue_: It is possible through post-shutter manipulations to move or remove from the image distracting elements that the photographer could have captured differently with a simple change in camera position or by clicking the shutter at a different moment. This kind of manipulation is understandably tempting, because it "corrects" oversights or shortcomings of the photographer. Can the results qualify as FoundView? _The resolution_: Never. Any manipulation of forms and shapes after the shutter is clicked, for whatever reason, disqualifies an image as FoundView. Driven as it is by viewer expectations, the FoundView standard is met only when images depict what was recorded by the camera at the moment the shutter was clicked, not what "could have happened." This refers not merely to "what could have happened" regarding the subject, but also "what could have happened" regarding decisions the photographer wishes he or she had made at the scene. If the scene pictured truly "could have happened," the viewer asks, why didn't the photographer just photograph it that way in the first place (instead of later guessing at what it might have looked like)? (See point #1 of the answer to question E-10.) Failure to photograph a scene the way he later wants it to look doesn't give a photographer license to trick viewers into thinking that he _did_ photograph it that way. Yes, he can manipulate the elements in the photograph to simulate what he wishes he had arranged in the camera's viewfinder at the scene, but the result cannot be labeled FoundView. Proponents of undislosed manipulation assert that post-shutter manipulations can "level the playing field" by helping inept photographers produce images that look as good as those made by skilled photographers (see question E-15). But neither personal nor technical limitations are a valid excuse for passing off undisclosed manipulations of content. Regardless of the photographer's motivation, viewers _always_ regard content manipulations to realistic-looking photographs as deceptive unless the manipulations are clearly disclosed. (See also questions D-6, E-8, E-12, F-3, F-18.) F-2. What about post-shutter correction of undesirable elements in the image that the photographer saw at the scene but were beyond his or her control? _The issue_: With computer manipulation, it is possible to compensate for external factors that were beyond the photographer's control when the shutter was clicked (for example, photographers can digitally remove items that were planted in the middle of the original scene and thus were unavoidable no matter what the camera perspective: power lines, traffic signs, parked cars, or even a bystander who wouldn't budge). Can these corrections qualify as FoundView? _The resolution_: No. Any manipulation of forms and shapes, for whatever reason, disqualifies an image as FoundView. If an image doesn't precisely depict all of the forms and shapes that were recorded by the camera the moment the shutter was clicked, it isn't FoundView. (See question F-17 for presentation of images in which the time is so long between when the shutter is clicked _open_ and when it is clicked _closed_ that moving objects in the scene are not recorded by the camera.) Ever since photography began, photographers all over the world have wished they could eliminate or move various immovable items in their field of view before they clicked the shutter. But even new technologies that permit seamless post-shutter alterations to objects in photographs can't change the reality of what is at the scene when the shutter is clicked. The world is as it is--and that's precisely what viewers of realistic-looking photographs expect to see. F-3. What about using post-shutter effects to simulate a view that could have easily been achieved initially had a different lens been used or had the photographer moved the camera higher or lower or to the side? What about post-shutter perspective correction? _The issue_: With computer manipulation, it is possible to reshape, resize, and rearrange elements in an image to simulate perspectives that for whatever reason were not chosen prior to clicking the shutter. Post-shutter manipulations can simulate what the image would have looked like had the camera been positioned in a different spot or had a different focal-length lens been used (such as a wide-angle instead of a normal). It is also possible to make post-shutter perspective alterations to an image that simulate the effect of having used a view camera to take the photograph. (For example, through computer manipulations or by tilting the baseboard and negative stage during enlarging, converging vertical lines on tall buildings can be rendered as parallel. This manipulation is traditionally called "perspective correction.") Can images that have undergone post-shutter perspective alterations qualify as FoundView? _The resolution_: These examples clearly constitute post-shutter manipulations of "forms and shapes" and thus cannot qualify as FoundView. This is one of those cases where even a well-executed post-shutter simulation of a pre-shutter effect is nonetheless still merely a simulation (see point #1 in the answer to question E-10). If the photographer wanted to record the forms and shapes before him a particular way at the decisive moment, he should have photographed them that way (see question E-12 and F-1). If he _didn't_ (or couldn't) record them that way when he clicked the shutter, he's certainly welcome to later reshape the elements in the picture--but the result can't qualify as FoundView (because it doesn't depict the forms and shapes as they were recorded by the camera when the shutter was clicked). The FoundView checkmark can only be applied to photographs that depict the perspective selected by the photographer at the decisive moment--no exceptions. It's difficult for some photographers to accept this at first, perhaps because some kinds of post-shutter perspective alterations were practiced long before the digital era. However, manipulations of any kind that otherwise contradict FoundView cannot be sanctioned simply because they're "darkroom" instead of "digital" or "traditional" instead of "new." The standard must be applied consistently or not at all. F-4. What about manipulating reflections? _The issue_: Can reflections be manipulated in a photograph without disqualifying the image as FoundView? In other words, do reflections depicted in photographs count as "tones" or as "forms and shapes"? _The resolution_: Reflections themselves may be made of light and tones, but once they are depicted in photographs reflections are obviously are forms and shapes. Thus adding or deleting any reflections in a photograph--or moving them, or changing their shape--disqualifies the photograph as FoundView (see also question F-5, below). For example, digital technology makes it easy to invert a copy of an object that is adjacent to (or on) a body of water so that the water looks like it is reflecting the object. A photograph incorporating this technique can never qualify as FoundView. However, the tone of reflections may be lightened or darkened without disqualifying an image as FoundView--providing that the lightening or darkening isn't so extensive that the typical viewer would find it deceptive. F-5. What about polarizing filters? _At issue_: If reflections in photographs are forms and shapes (see question F-4), is a photograph disqualified from FoundView if it was made with a polarizing filter that reduces or eliminates reflections? And can a photograph qualify as FoundView if a polarizer isn't used when the photo is taken but its effect is simulated by post-shutter manipulations? _The resolution_: There is an important distinction to be made here. Reflections in the real world are made of light (some of which can be blocked by a polarizing filter before it reaches the film or CCD). Once reflections are pictured in a photograph, however, they are forms and shapes, the presence or shape of which cannot be altered without disqualifying an image as FoundView. Viewers rarely find deceptive the use of a polarizing filter to reduce the glare or reflection from a subject, and a photograph made with a polarizing filter certainly can qualify as FoundView. And, as noted in F-4 (above), photographs that underwent post-shutter manipulations of tone to lighten or darken reflections can qualify as FoundView. However, post-shutter manipulations that simulate having used a polarizer disqualify a photograph as FoundView if they alter forms and shapes--i.e., if they require speculation, guesswork, or redrawing of areas of the scene that were obscured by glare or reflection. For example, using a polarizing filter to reduce the reflections on a store window is not generally considered deceptive, but post-shutter fabrication of the forms and shapes that would have been visible _through_ the store window clearly involves guesswork, speculation, and manipulation of content (see point #1 in the answer to question E-10). Such an image would not qualify as FoundView. F-6. What about graduated neutral density filters? _At issue_: To darken overly bright portions of a scene (most often, the sky) photographers often attach to their cameras a "graduated" filter that blocks light in only one portion of the scene. Because film records light differently than does the human eye, these filters are often necessary to make the image more closely reflect what was seen at the scene. Without the use of a graduated filter in landscape photography, for example, it is often impossible to accurately record on film both the ground and the sky. _The resolution_: Darkening or lightening a portion of a scene or image (including the sky) qualifies as manipulations of tone. Thus, photographs made this way can qualify as FoundView regardless of whether these kinds of manipulations of tone are performed before or after the shutter is clicked--assuming that the typical viewer would not find them deceptive. Note, though, that any manipulation (even a purely tonal one) can be used to excess, and if in doubt, the photographer should always ask whether a typical viewer would feel deceived by such manipulations. F-7. What about special-effects filters attached to the camera before the shutter is clicked? _At issue_: Does the use of multiple image ("kaleidoscope" or "prism") filters, blurred-motion filters, dense-fog filters, and the like disqualify an image as FoundView? _The resolution_: Usually. Anytime any device or technique is used to artificially simulate in a photograph a real-world occurrence (in lieu of having actually photographed the phenomenon pictured), the resulting photograph should not be labeled FoundView. (See also question F-15.) Needless to say, if use of a particular _pre_-shutter simulated effect disqualifies an image as FoundView, use of a _post_-shutter manipulation that simulates that effect certainly would disqualify any resulting images as well. (See also question F-16.) F-8. What about manipulating shadows? _At issue_: Can shadows be manipulated in a photograph without disqualifying the image as FoundView? In other words, do shadows depicted in photographs count as "tones" or as "forms and shapes"? _The resolution_: Shadows depicted in photographs obviously are forms and shapes--often very important ones. Thus adding or deleting shadows in a photograph--or moving them, or changing their shape--disqualifies the photograph as FoundView. However, the tone of shadows (and correspondingly, objects in shadowed areas) may be lightened or darkened without disqualifying an image as FoundView--providing that the lightening or darkening isn't of a nature that the typical viewer would find deceptive. F-9. What about removing surface flaws such as scratches, fingerprints, or lint on an image? _The issue_: Correcting surface flaws on a negative, transparency, or print--"spotting"--can be done with ink, paint, or computer manipulations. Do these corrections disqualify an image as FoundView? _The resolution_: No problem here. Because these types of technical flaws weren't part of the scene recorded by the camera at the moment the shutter was clicked, removing them doesn't disqualify an image as FoundView. (Any retouching that alters content, of course, would disqualify an image as FoundView.) F-10. What about changing the colors of things in a photograph? _The issue_: If tones can be manipulated under FoundView guidelines, is there any limit to how much colors can be changed? Photographers have been altering tones since the advent of photography and altering color values since the advent of color film. Each of the four main aspects of tonality--contrast, brightness, intensity, and hue--can be altered in an almost infinite variety of ways using different tools. Filters, highly-saturated films, darkroom techniques, and computer manipulations each offer ways to significantly alter these values. The issue is complicated by the difficulty of defining whether a color has been accentuated, punched up, exaggerated, or changed: when does a pink become red, or vermillion, or magenta, or purple? The color chart is a continuum of millions of colors, not a small palette of only a distinct handful. _The resolution_: Yes, there is a limit to how much colors can be changed, but it depends on the nature of the change; there are a lot of shades of gray on the color issue. Often the photographer will need to apply the "Would the typical viewer feel deceived?" test (see question C-3). Many tonal manipulations--whether done in the camera, in the darkroom, or on a computer (see question C-2)--are not deceptive. Images with extensive tonal changes may not qualify, however; the fact that FoundView allows for tonal manipulations certainly doesn't mean that all photographs that underwent tonal manipulations qualify as FoundView. Viewers are less likely to object to moderate changes in contrast, brightness, and intensity than they are to changes in hue (perhaps because from childhood on people identify objects by "what color" they are rather than "how highly-saturated" they are or what the "contrast levels" might be). Thus rather than overtly changing hues in their photographs, photographers seeking more "impact" often increase the saturation (intensity) of colors instead. Because it's impossible to universally define how much saturation is too much, the FoundView label will inevitably be applied to miraculously colorful sunset photographs and cartoonishly oversaturated landscape scenes (where every area of ground cover is bright green, every autumn leaf is fiery orange or red, and every sky is cobalt blue). There's simply no way to spell out detailed guidelines for saturation--because each situation is unique--but at least the transgressions are more often aesthetic than ethical. Changes in hue are more likely to be deceptive because they more often affect content. A gray overcast sky converted to a warm post-sunset glow, for example, would not qualify as FoundView, nor would radical manipulations of color (purple horses, kelly-green skies, blue bananas). However, even moderate changes can be deceptive when the color of a subject is closely tied to the picture's content and the viewer is unable to discern the manipulation. Examples of this would include changing a person's skin or hair color so they weren't recognizable or changing the color of a bird's plumage so that the bird is not recognizable as its own species. Bottom line: With millions of colors and billions of photographs, it's unrealistic to do any more than outline general guidelines. For any photographs that have undergone extensive tonal manipulations (or even moderate changes in hue), the photographer or publisher should apply the "Would the typical viewer feel deceived?" test. Images that fail this test for whatever reason cannot qualify as FoundView. F-11. What about black-and-white? _The issue_: Do black-and-white photographs of color scenes qualify as FoundView? _The resolution_: Just as photographs in which the color intensity (saturation) has been _increased_ can qualify as FoundView (see question F-10), so too can photographs in which the color intensity has been _decreased_--which is what black-and-white images effectively are. To viewers of typical black-and-white photographs, deception is neither implied nor inferred: the photographer is not trying to sneak the use of black-and-white past the viewer, and rarely do color pictures or scenes become undecipherable or deceptive when simply converted to black-and-white. Note, however, that _partial_ desaturation of colors--i.e., turning vivid hues into pastels--can be deceptive, depending on the nature of the subject and the change. And, of course, it is possible to use black-and-white deceptively. Examples include reversing the tonal relationships between light and dark subjects, using black-and-white in only selective portions of a color picture, or grossly exaggerating overall tones to misrepresent the time of day (see question F-13). Images which have undergone such effects should not be labeled FoundView. F-12. What about when elements are rendered illegible due to darkening or lightening all or part of the photograph? _The issue_: When all or part of a photograph is lightened (e.g., a featureless light gray sky) or darkened (e.g., an area of the scene that is in the shade) elements in lightened or darkened areas can disappear from view both in original prints and particularly in published versions of photographs (printing presses often cannot reproduce all of the subtleties of the original print). The issue is more complicated than it first seems because in practice the enlarger light source, paper-developer combinations, contrast choice, reproduction method, publication quality, paper surface, and viewing conditions of the final image can all affect the visibility of highlight or shadow detail. Details that disappear with one combination of these factors may remain visible under another combination. In addition, elements and textures that are visible in the original print often are not visible in published reproductions of it (Zone II areas might be reproduced as Zone I, for example, or Zone XIII areas can become Zone IX; see note GF-12). Finally, major elements of the photograph are not always completely eliminated; there are degrees of reduction in visibility, and it can be more a case of reducing texture to the point of illegibility than wholesale removal of forms and shapes. How do these factors affect such images' qualification for FoundView? _The resolution_: First, FoundView makes no distinction between intended and unintended deceptions. If a manipulation of a photograph is deceptive to the viewer--for whatever reason--it doesn't matter to the viewer whether the deception was introduced deliberately or inadvertently (see question C-3). Thus, from FoundView's perspective, it doesn't matter whether elements became illegible _in the course of_ lightening or darkening, or whether the lightening or darkening was performed _in order to_ render those elements illegible. The effect is the same. That said, selective elimination (e.g., deleting only one or some of several similarly illuminated objects in a photograph, through whatever means) clearly disqualifies an image as FoundView under any circumstances. Similarly disqualified from FoundView--without exception--would be elimination of objects in a manner inconsistent with human seeing, such as reversing tones between dark and light so that they blend into their region of the image (examples of this would be deleting dark tree branches against snow or a light sky, darkening interior-illuminated windows in a night cityscape, and eliminating bright highlights or reflections in dark areas of the scene). On the other hand, if the elimination of texture or elements is caused by making an entire region of the photograph at or near "full black" or "paper white," and assuming that this is an accentuation (and not a reversal) of the tones recorded by the camera, the image may still qualify as FoundView. Obviously, for these "entire region" cases the "Would the typical viewer feel deceived?" test must be applied; each situation is unique. Consideration of the nature of human seeing is a useful guide in these issues (for example, if a person squinted so as to make the whole scene darker, would the element in question likely disappear from view?), and common sense usually reveals what kinds of manipulations would seem deceptive to the typical viewer. F-13. What about changing day into night? _The issue_: Through appropriate filtering and darker printing in the darkroom or on the computer, it's possible to make some daytime scenes look like night scenes. It is also possible, through long exposures and lightened printing, to make some night scenes appear to be daytime scenes. _The resolution_: These examples would be deceptive to the typical viewer. They should not be labeled FoundView. F-14. What about the moon? _The issue_: Probably far fewer than 1 in 100 photographs incorporating a full moon are single-shot photographs (the rest are darkroom sandwiches, multiple exposures, or computer composites). Photographers can easily take a picture of the moon and then superimpose it on top of a moonless scene to make a single, somewhat realistic-looking image. The superimposed moon is usually enlarged in proportion to the rest of the scene (if photographed with a normal or wide-angle lens--as most landscapes are--a full moon isn't much larger than a pinhead on film). Can any image with an altered moon qualify as FoundView? _The resolution_: No photograph ever qualifies as FoundView if it depicts a moon that was inserted, deleted, enlarged, reduced, moved, or reshaped (i.e., making the moon appear to be in a different phase than it actually was when the shutter was clicked). The only permissible alterations consist solely of adjusting the tones (color and brightness) of the moon. Any images that undergo post-shutter manipulations of forms or shapes are disqualified from FoundView, and the moon is clearly a "form or shape." Thus making the moon larger in proportion to the rest of the scene disqualifies an image as FoundView, as does moving the moon to a more pleasing location, putting it where it would have been had the sky not been cloudy or polluted, inserting it where it would have been in the sky at a different hour or on a different day, etc. A FoundView photograph is a record of the precise forms and shapes recorded by the camera at the moment the shutter was clicked, and none of these manipulations would meet that standard. F-15. What about post-shutter sharpening and blur (softening)? _The issue_: Post-shutter manipulations can be used to make an image or part of an image appear "sharper" (with better edge definition) and more in focus. In the other direction, computer blur effects and some darkroom techniques can be used to "soften" distracting elements in photographs or to simulate the softening effect of soft-focus lenses, antique lenses, softening filters, and view camera movements. _The resolution_: Slight _overall_ sharpening (as opposed to _selective_ sharpening) is generally considered acceptable under FoundView principles, especially when used to compensate for sharpness lost during scanning or enlarging. Similarly, slight overall softening (as opposed to selective softening) is not considered deceptive by most viewers, whether the effect is achieved through use of antique lenses, a lens-mounted filter, darkroom techniques, or computer effects. Like almost any tool, however, overall sharpening or blur (softening) becomes deceptive when used to excess. When the use of either tool is so extensive that it results in redrawing forms or shapes, the image cannot qualify as FoundView. Note, too, that if the use of blur or softening implies to the viewer that the photograph was taken in atmospheric fog when it actually wasn't, the image should not be labeled FoundView; see question F-16, below. Anytime any device or technique--whether pre- or post-shutter--is used to artificially simulate in a photograph a real-world occurrence (in lieu of having actually photographed the phenomenon pictured), the resulting photograph should not be labeled FoundView. The use of _selective_ sharpening or blur/softening (as opposed to overall use of these tools) always disqualifies an image as FoundView. Selective sharpening can be used to make a subject appear to be in sharper focus than it was when the shutter was clicked; selective blur (softening) can isolate a subject from a busy background by "defocusing" distracting forms and shapes. But if the photographer wishes to portray a particular depth of field or to render something in the scene in clear focus (or out of focus), he should take the photograph that way in the first place. If for whatever reason he fails to do so (whether due to incompetence, bad luck, inexperience, slow reflexes, equipment limitations, or simply an error in judgment; see questions E-15 and F-1), or if the desired depth of field is optically impossible (e.g., isolating from busy backgrounds subjects requiring great depth of field, or selectively focusing on subjects situated at or near infinity focus), that does not give him license to alter the apparent depth of field through post-shutter manipulations and then present the photograph as unmanipulated. Visually simplifying a complex arrangement in the real world is one of the toughest challenges in photography (see the paragraph beginning with "Re: deleting" in the answer to question C-1). Post-shutter softening of distracting elements in the picture (simulating a smaller depth of field) may give the _appearance_ of having photographed a complex or busy scene simply, but it is not the same as actually having done so--and should not presented as such. The same holds true for another common photographic challenge, that of "keeping everything in focus." Post-shutter manipulations (including sharpening) cannot be used to simulate greater depth of field without disqualifying an image as FoundView. Some of the most important decisions the photographer makes before clicking the shutter involve camera position, focal length, aperture, plane of focus, and other choices affecting depth of field. These decisions must be respected. Like it or not, the relative apparent focus of various subjects in the scene pictured cannot be changed by post-shutter manipulations without overriding the depth of field recorded by the camera when the shutter was clicked (and often overriding the laws of physics as well). Photographs that do not preserve the depth-of-field choices made by the photographer when the shutter was clicked should not be labeled as FoundView. (See also question F-3 regarding post-shutter perspective alterations.) Note that just because FoundView privileges choices made prior to "the decisive moment" when the shutter is clicked doesn't mean that anything goes with respect to pre-shutter manipulations. (See also question F-7.) F-16. What about adding fog, rain, mist, haze, or snow effects to a photograph? _The issue_: New digital tools make it possible to add (post-shutter) very convincing atmospheric effects, including making near objects less hazy than distant objects. Haze and fog effects can also be added through filters mounted on the lens before the shutter is clicked. Do the images resulting from any of these special effects qualify as FoundView? _The resolution_: The simulation of having photographed these atmospheric and weather effects always disqualifies an image as FoundView, for three reasons. First, they each involve manipulation of forms and shapes (the particulates or precipitation that we see as fog, mist, haze, rain, or snow may be very tiny but they are nonetheless forms and shapes--as are the clouds that they form). Second, all of these constitute artificial _simulations_ of an effect rather than a record of the actual phenomenon that causes it (see also question F-7). Thus they fail the "Would the typical viewer feel deceived?" test; viewers would certainly find deceptive the addition of mysterious pea-soup fog or swirling snowflakes to a scene photographed on a clear day. Third, any post-shutter atmospheric simulations can only guess at what the photograph would have looked like had the meteorological phenomenon been recorded by the camera when the shutter was clicked; the simulation wouldn't look the same as having actually photographed the scene under those conditions (see question E-10). Note that traditional pre-shutter "haze" and "fog" filters, to the degree their effect is convincing, are also disqualified under the "Would the typical viewer feel deceived?" test, but the effect that these filters supply is often quite unrealistic: they render objects nearer to the camera no clearer than distant objects, unlike objects photographed in genuine atmospheric haze. When use of these filters gives the illusion of fog rather than merely overall softness, the resulting images should not be labeled FoundView. F-17. What about shutter speeds so slow that they blur (or fail to record) objects in motion? _At issue_: Does use of a shutter speed too slow to "freeze" a moving object disqualify an image as FoundView? What about shutter speeds so slow that objects moving around in the scene are not recorded at all by the camera? _The resolution_: Use of blur in photography is not itself deceptive to viewers (except when applied to stationary objects). Indeed, there are many subjects (falling rain, swirling snow, a waterfall, an auto race) for which the blur produced by a slower shutter speed can more closely correspond to the way people actually see these subjects in real life than would a 1/8000-second "freeze" image of these subjects. Thus, assuming that the other FoundView requirements are met (including non-deception of the viewer), use of slow shutter speeds that blur moving objects does not disqualify an image as FoundView. Post-shutter simulations of blur, however, do not qualify as FoundView, because they involve post-shutter manipulations of forms and shapes, they can only guess at how much blur the camera would have actually recorded when the shutter was clicked, and they can only speculate about what the background seen through the blur would have actually looked like (see question E-10). View camera users in particular have asked FoundView about time exposures so long that moving objects--cars, people, bunnies--don't get recorded on film. If subjects that were seen by the camera when the shutter was opened have moved elsewhere by the time the shutter is closed, which shutter click counts? In these cases, the "Would the typical viewer feel deceived?" test (see question C-3) is recommended. The photographer should either consider not labeling the image FoundView or--if no other manipulations are involved--the omission of moving objects should be noted. Reasonable judgment and common sense should be sufficient in resolving such cases. Note, however, that photographs in which any objects--including moving cars, people, and bunnies--are deleted via _post_-shutter manipulations can never qualify as FoundView (see point #1 of the answer to question E-10). F-18. What about the use of wide-angle lenses that appear to stretch out perspective? What about long telephoto lenses that appear to compress perspective? _The issue_: These pre-shutter choices visibly affect the appearance of the subject. Do they qualify as FoundView? _The resolution_: Perspective choices (e.g., wide-angles, telephotos, tripod placement and height) made at the time of exposure do not by themselves generally disqualify an image from being FoundView. FoundView places a very high value on judgments made in anticipation of "the decisive moment" when the shutter is clicked (as opposed to _after_ that moment), including choices relating to perspective and timing. Deciding where to position the camera, how to compose a scene, what shutter speed is optimal, which lens to use for the desired perspective, and precisely when to click the shutter, it can be argued, are the very essence of "decisive moment" photography (see also questions E-10 and E-12). Note that oftimes what people call perspective "distortion" in photographs is caused by something over which the photographer has little or no control: the distance at which the photograph is viewed. For example, a wide-angle photograph that looks "stretched out" at arm's length will look more natural up close, just as a telephoto image viewed too closely can look more natural when seen from a greater viewing distance (see note GF-18). It is certainly possible to perform pre-shutter perspective-related distortions that would be deemed deceptive by the typical viewer (for example, using the movements on a view camera to render as vertical the walls of a building that were in reality caving inward.) Needless to say, such images would not qualify as FoundView. (Note also that as explained in F-3, any perspective alterations performed _after_ the shutter was clicked disqualify an image as FoundView.) F-19. What about the use of fisheye lenses? _At issue_: If the use of a wide-angle lens doesn't by itself disqualify an image as FoundView, what about the widest of the wide-angle lenses--fisheye lenses? (Fisheye lenses are also available in longer focal lengths.) Can images made with fisheye lenses qualify as FoundView? _The resolution_: Fisheye photographs distort the shape of objects in a manner that can be deceptive to viewers, and the resulting photographs do not qualify as FoundView. Most wide-angle lenses are "rectilinear"--that is, they record as straight any lines that are straight in the actual scene. But fisheye lenses curve formerly straight lines and distort the appearance of virtually all objects in a photograph (lines passing through the axis of the lens can remain straight, but all other lines bend around the center). Unlike photographs made with normal (rectilinear) wide-angle lenses, fisheye distortion is unrelated to viewing distance: the perspective rendered by a fisheye lens is not going to match viewers' real-life experience no matter _how_ close they put their noses to the photograph. It is difficult to determine the true appearance of even familiar subjects photographed with a fisheye lens, and with unfamiliar subjects the viewer cannot discern which curves depicted in the photograph were inherent in the subject and which were caused by the lens. Images made with fisheye lenses should not be labeled FoundView. F-20. What about combining two identical--but differently exposed--negatives, altering no forms or shapes, to create an image that is identical in content to both negatives? _The issue_: For more than a century, photographers have in some situations exposed multiple negatives that are identical except for exposure and combined them to make a color print or a better-exposed one. Film is unable to record anywhere near the range of light and dark that the human eye can see, but photographers now can expose one negative for the bright areas of a scene (e.g., the sky) and another for the darker areas (e.g., the ground) and readily mask and combine the two to make a well-exposed image indiscernible in content from either original negative. Do the results qualify as FoundView? _The resolution_: If, and only if, the negatives are identical down to every last grain except for tones (in other words, if every speck of every "form and shape" lines up _exactly_ on the two photographs being combined), then the viewer probably would not feel deceived. Thus in these cases the results could qualify as FoundView. Allowing that it can be "FoundView" to ever combine two photographs, even those that are absolutely identical except for exposure, admittedly leaves room for abuse. But FoundView is based on what does or did happen to an image, not on what _could_ happen, and it is driven by viewer expectations rather than by worst-case fears. This is a clear case where the photographer must be trusted: if he or she vouches that the forms and shapes in the two negatives were identical down to every last grain or pixel, then that has to be accepted. Needless to say, the closer in time that the two negatives are exposed, the less likely it is that viewers will regard them as deceptive; fractions of a second are optimum. Otherwise, one conceivably could photograph, for example, a dark-colored building when a white VW Beetle(r) drives in front of it, then wait for a puffy white cloud to pass overhead (to visually echo the car) before making another exposure, the negative from which would then be merged with the first. Of course, any changes at all in the scene between the first exposure and the second would produce nonidentical negatives, meaning the result obviously would not qualify as FoundView. F-21. What about "stitching" and composite panoramas? _The issue_: Computer programs make it possible to easily do what formerly took great effort in the darkroom: to seamlessly "stitch" or join together multiple photographs, eliminating the seams where edges of the photos are joined, making one wide-view image that can look very realistic. Can these qualify as FoundView? _The resolution_: Regardless of whether they were created on a computer or in a darkroom (and no matter how realistic they may look), "stitched" and composite-panorama images cannot qualify as FoundView. Any image resulting from the addition of forms or shapes to a single-click photograph is disqualified as FoundView, and "stitched" and composite-panorama images are clearly in this category. At first it may seem that F-20 (above) contradicts F-21; the former says that two negatives can be combined into one FoundView image, while the latter says they can't. But there's no contradiction at all; the difference is the role of FoundView's primary litmus test, "forms and shapes." If the photographs or negatives that are to be combined are identical except in exposure--i.e., the forms and shapes line up exactly, down to every last grain or pixel, when placed on top of each other (as in F-20, above)--then the result certainly can be FoundView, as no forms and shapes have been altered. However, if every single form and shape--every grain and pixel--in the photographs being combined does _not_ precisely line up (and they certainly would not do so when "stitching" or overlapping photographs), the result cannot qualify as FoundView. No matter how realistic-looking the "stitched" or composite-panorama image may be, it is still nonetheless a post-shutter fabrication of what the scene _may have_ looked like (see also question E-10). A "stitched" or composite-panorama image does not show the viewer what FoundView requires, that is, the exact forms and shapes that the camera recorded during that one unrepeatable moment when the shutter was clicked--no more, and no less (see also question E-12). F-22. What about double or multiple exposures? _The issue_: Two or more photographs can be combined--in the camera, in the darkroom, or on a computer--to produce a realistic-looking scene. Can these qualify as FoundView? _The resolution_: Combining photographs--with any tools--is _never_ FoundView unless the photographs being combined are identical down to every last grain (see questions F-20 and F-21). No multiple exposures that add new elements ("forms and shapes") into the picture can qualify as FoundView. To cite a common example, if a double exposure is made in order to put a moon into a scene where there wasn't one, the result obviously cannot qualify as FoundView (because "forms and shapes" were changed in the original picture; see also question F-14.) On the other hand, in studio or architectural contexts photographers often make a photograph with multiple "pops" of the strobe because a single pop does not cast sufficient light on the subject or scene. If nothing changes in the scene between pops of the strobe, these images can qualify for FoundView (assuming the other requirements are met, including no post-shutter content manipulation and no deception of the viewer). Bottom line: The only time two or more pictures can ever be combined and still qualify as FoundView is when the only difference between them is in the tonal values; forms and shapes must be absolutely identical in the photographs being combined. F-23. What about arranged scenes and still lifes? _The issue_: Can scenes that weren't simply "found" be FoundView? _The resolution_: Still lifes and other arranged scenes can qualify as FoundView, but only if (like all FoundView photographs) they do not deceive the viewer. This non-deception requirement means that still lifes and other arranged or orchestrated scenes can qualify for FoundView only if they _look_ arranged or orchestrated. If the scene depicted was arranged or orchestrated but the photograph makes it look like it was spontaneous, then the image would be deceptive to the viewer and the photograph cannot be labeled FoundView (see question F-24, below). FoundView photography requires the non-deceptive depiction of all forms and shapes that were recorded by the camera when the shutter was clicked, a requirement that applies whether the scene depicted was "arranged" or not. As discussed in E-11, it is often impossible to determine whether a particular pre-shutter manipulation to the subject was done "for the camera" or whether it would have been done anyway. Thus, rather than trying to draw endless distinctions about "how arranged" a scene was (from wilderness scenes at one end of the spectrum to, say, fashion photographs at the other), FoundView asks, simply, "Would the typical viewer feel deceived?" FoundView does not disqualify photographs of any scenes that have undergone pre-shutter orchestration of the subject _as long as_ the orchestrated nature of the scene is readily apparent to the viewer (and as long as the image did not undergo any post-shutter manipulations of content). FoundView was created to help prevent deception of viewers. Most people know that flowers don't naturally grow perfectly arranged in vases, sand on the beach doesn't accidentally form itself into elaborate sand castles, and women don't lounge about looking like Victoria's Secret(r) models all the time. Most viewers are unlikely to feel shocked or deceived upon learning that subjects like these underwent "pre-shutter manipulations" before being photographed under obviously orchestrated circumstances. (See also note GF-23 for more on this topic.) F-24. What about photos that look spontaneous but actually were staged, faked, or posed? What about photographs of tame or trained animals that are passed off as "wild"? _The issue_: If arranged scenes (see question F-23) can qualify as FoundView, can these other types of orchestrations qualify as well? _The resolution_: No. Even assuming that they have not have undergone any post-shutter "form-and-shape" manipulations (which would instantly disqualify them), these examples of orchestrated images do not make clear to the viewer their orchestrated origins. To qualify as FoundView, any staged, set-up, faked, posed, or arranged photograph has to clearly _look_ or be presented as orchestrated (not "spontaneous" or "wild"); otherwise it is deceptive. In other words, unlike most still lifes (in which viewers can immediately see that the scene was staged), these examples clearly would be deceptive to the typical viewer. None of them would qualify as FoundView. (End of Section F) ***************** G. Notes to Sections A-F General Notes G-1. The usages of two verbs that refer to clicking the shutter have undergone some changes in recent years. There has long been a minor debate about whether it's more appropriate to say that a photographer "takes" a photograph or "makes" a photograph. In any situation (like FoundView) where "captured" photographs are being compared to "synthesized" ones, the debate obviously takes on new meaning. To reflect the "captured by the camera when the shutter was clicked" nature of decisive-moment photography, in this web site "take" is used for the clicking of the shutter, and "make" refers to post-shutter manipulations (of whatever kind) on the way to the final photograph. G-2. This web site makes frequent reference to "single-click photographs" and "a single photograph made with a single click of the shutter." Although to minimize awkward and distracting grammatical structure it is not explained with each usage, these phrases can also refer to photographs made with multiple clicks of the shutter in cases when the content of the subject being photographed remains unchanged ("down to every last grain or pixel") between clicks of the shutter. (See questions F-22, F-20, and F-21 for further amplification.) G-3. The term "moment," used frequently in this web site to refer to when the shutter is clicked, obviously can include exposures that last longer than a fraction of a second. View camera photographers often make exposures of several minutes or more, and in fact the term "moment" can refer even to _years_ (e.g., "The U.S. is, at this moment in history, the most affluent country in the world"). It is generally agreed in photography that "the decisive moment" (discussed especially in E-10 and E-12) is the instant when the photographer decides to click the shutter and record the scene with the camera--whether the exposure itself lasts a fraction of a second or many minutes. G-4. All brand names and product names mentioned on this web site signaled by "(r)" are registered trademarks of their respective owners. ***************** Specific notes Opening page: The William Langenheim quote was incorporated in a daguerrotype exhibit at the Getty Museum in Los Angeles, May 1998. The Francis Bacon quote is from Dorothea Lange's _Photographs of a Lifetime_ (Aperture/Viking Penguin, 1982). GA-5: Note that the distinction outlined in A-5 (manipulating "tones" vs. manipulating "forms and shapes") is subscribed to by both those who manipulate content in photographs and those who don't. For example, nature columnists Tim Davis and Renee Lynn, advocates of digital manipulation, write that they "always clearly label as composited or manipulated" images that have been manipulated "more than simple lightening, darkening, burning, or dodging" (_Popular Photography_, May 1999). (See also question E-7.) GB-1a: An example of how digital manipulation is pitched to amateur photographers: "Unfortunately, photographers frequently don't notice distracting elements in their shots when they're taking the pictures . . . The best way to get rid of distracting elements once they're in a composition is digitally. Prior to digital imaging, only skilled airbrush artists were able to remove most distracting elements. That often took hours of tedious work. But times have changed. With the wide assortment of sophisticated [digital] image-editing applications available today, even beginners have the necessary tools to quickly eliminate many of the distracting elements of a shot. . . . It's a simple procedure." -Wendell Benedetti, "Digital Editing: How to Remove Distracting Elements in a Composition," _Petersen's Photographic_, March 1999 issue. The article makes no mention of alerting the viewer that the realistic-looking photographs shown and discussed in the article have undergone manipulations of content. GB-1b: The quote that the digital revolution "eliminates our trust" in photographs is by Tim Fitzharris in his book _Virtual Wilderness_ (Amphoto Books, 1998). GB-2 (also refers to E-13): The Greek root of the word "photography"--_graphein_ + _photos_ ("drawing with light")--is from _Encyclopdia Britannica_. GB-3: The _New York Times_' policies on photographic manipulation were provided at FoundView's request in March 1999. The Associated Press statement on image manipulation was issued by the organization's Executive Photo Editor in November 1990 and is reprinted in _Truth Needs No Ally_ by Howard Chapnick (University of Missouri Press, 1994). _Newsweek_'s policy on altering tones but not subject matter was printed in the December 8, 1997 edition of _Newsweek_ as a "clarification" after the controversy over the magazine's digital straightening of the teeth of Bobbi McCaughey, the Iowa mother who gave birth to septuplets. _Newsweek_'s full statement read as follows: "In an attempt to lighten shadows on last week's cover photograph of Mr. and Mrs. Kenny McCaughey, our photo technicians altered the appearance of Bobbi McCaughey's teeth. While we often correct color values and contrast levels in pictures we use, it is not _Newsweek_'s policy to change or misrepresent the subject matter in any way. We regret the error." GB-5: The _National Geographic_ "pyramid" cover was dated February 1982; the _Time_ magazine "O.J. Simpson" cover was dated June 27, 1994; the _Newsweek_ "septuplets' mother" cover was dated December 1, 1997. Note that the _Time_ "O.J." cover was not an indisputable case of undisclosed manipulations to a realistic-looking photograph: on the Contents page of that issue, the cover image was clearly credited as a "photo-illustration." This distinction was lost on many readers, who apparently believed that the cover was an unaltered photograph, and _Time_'s managing editor later said that "if there was anything wrong with the cover, in my view, it was that it was not immediately apparent that this was a photo-illustration rather than an unaltered photograph; to know that, a reader had to turn to our contents page or see the original [undarkened] mug shot on the opening page of the story." (See "To our Readers," _Time_, July 4, 1994.) Even five years later, the phrase "photo-illustration" is not in the common vernacular, and many members of the viewing public do not understand that "photo-illustration" often means "a realistic-looking photograph in which content was manipulated." This confusion probably stems from newsmagazines' universal use of photos _as_ illustrations, rendering the combination phrase more redundant than enlightening. A clearer term for these kinds of images would be helpful to viewers and readers. As the _Time_ controversy makes clear, the term "photo-illustration" by itself is not sufficient to prevent deception of viewers, and FoundView does not consider the term a satisfactory "alert" to viewers that content has been manipulated in a realistic-looking photograph. (As an aside, the Simpson-cover controversy was further fueled by the debate over whether _Time_ and/or its critics were implying that "blacker is more sinister." Also, for the record, the highly acclaimed artist who created the Simpson cover image for _Time_, Matt Mahurin, was not involved in the magazine's presentation of it. FoundView-related issues often involve publishers as much as they do photographers.) GB-8: The original inspiration for the idea of FoundView was sparked by the article "When Is Seeing Believing?" by William J. Mitchell, in _Scientific American_, February 1994, and again by Mitchell's March 1994 Chicago lecture (at the Art Institute of Chicago) on photographic manipulation in the digital age. The motivation for FoundView came not so much from what was in Mitchell's _Scientific American_ article but from what was _not_; as a professor at MIT writing for a scientific publication, Mitchell understandably dealt to a much greater extent than FoundView does with technical aspects of digital image manipulation and detection and spent relatively little time addressing ethical concerns. GC-1: In the paragraph on "changing" elements, the quotation about "wrong direction" is by photographer Art Wolfe. Wolfe is discussed extensively in Kenneth Brower's excellent article "Photography in an Age of Falsification," published in the May 1998 issue of the _Atlantic Monthly_. Viewers who aren't professional photographers or critics rarely write about their expectations of photographs; Brower's article is a noteworthy exception. GC-2: Technically speaking, with digital technology even radical photographic manipulations often are, at the microscopic level, merely changes in "tone" to individual pixels. Needless to say, when distinguishing between "changing tones" and "changing forms and shapes" in photographs, viewers care only about what is readily visible to the unaided eye. GC-15a: The estimate of 50 billion photographs per year is from Galen Rowell in _Outdoor Photographer_, March 1999. This figure can be expected to rise significantly with increased use of digital cameras, which record images on reuseable media and require no expenditure on film or film processing. GC-15b: The quotation by Henri Cartier-Bresson ("greatest respect") is from _Dialogue with Photography_ by Paul Hill and Thomas Cooper (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1979; recently back in print). GD-2: Every once in awhile someone takes issue with the statement "It's much easier to create a remarkable image with post-shutter manipulations than it is with a decisive single click of the shutter." But if the statement wasn't true, someone, somewhere, sometime certainly would have tried to pass off a single-click photograph as a content-manipulated image. In reality, of course, only the reverse happens: countless content-manipulated images are passed off as single-click photographs. (See also question B-1.) GD-4a: The quotation "There is an intended deception" (in the the answer to question D-4, in the paragraph beginning with "Regarding the first question") is by photographer Bruce Barnbaum in his book _The Art of Photography_ (Kendall-Hunt Publishing, 1994). GD-4b: An example of a lost stock sale, as alluded to in the paragraph beginning with "A competitive advantage," was related by prominent adventure photographer Galen Rowell in his book _Galen Rowell's Vision_, (Sierra Club Books, 1993): "An environmental organization discovered a power line in one of my transparencies selected for use in a calendar of wilderness scenes without human artifacts. They asked if I would consent to digital retouching to eliminate the wires. When I declined, they showed me an image printed in a previous calendar in which wires were removed. Unlike the photographer who had consented to the manipulation, I stood my ground and lost the sale." GD-4c: The quotation "If you sold the picture to a calendar company. . . " (in the answer to question D-4, in the paragraph beginning with "A competitive advantage") is by photographer Tim Fitzharris, in "Give Your Nature Photos a Helping Hand," _Popular Photography_, February 1998. See also note GE-8a, below. GE-4a: The quotation by Ansel Adams ("There are always two people in my photographs") in the answer to E-4 is from Robert Werling's a _Way of Seeing_ (Berman, 1997). GE-4b: The quotation "We all have different standards . . . " in the answer to E-4 is by Art Wolfe, quoted in Kenneth Brower's article "Photography in the Age of Falsification" in the _Atlantic Monthly_, May 1998. GE-6: That humans can see very near and far objects simultaneously in focus is a common misconception. For example: "If you focus on a subject close to the camera with a long lens, the background is rendered out of focus. This isn't what your eyes see." (Jim Zuckerman, "Photography and the Computer," _Petersen's Photographic_, January 1997) As the hand-in-front-of-the-face example in E-6 proves, this _is_ what your eyes see. GE-8a: _Popular Photography_ reported the perspective of photographer Tim Fitzharris, a proponent of the "it-could-have-happened" school of manipulation (in the interestingly-titled article, "Give Your Nature Photos a Helping Hand," _Popular Photography_, February 1998): "What Tim [Fitzharris] takes issue with is the widely held notion that nature pictures must be held to the same criteria as hard news pictures. . . . He feels that the goals of artistic expression and documentary statement need not be diametrically opposed _so long as the end result is an image that looks natural or could possibly have been made in a single unaltered shot_." (Italics added; see question D-2 for more on "art" vs. "documentary" photographs.) Fitzharris himself asserts in the same article: "If you take the image of a wolf and place it in the middle of the Sahara desert, the result may be an interesting work of art, but it isn't really a nature picture. However, if you take the same wolf image and combine it with a scenic vista of an area where wolves of the same type are indigenous, I think it _is_ a valid nature picture." FoundView proponents, on the other hand, affirm the "widely held notion" that "valid nature pictures" must depict nature scenes the way _nature_ arranges them, not the way the photographer wishes they were arranged (see the paragraph beginning with "Re: changing" in the answer to question C-1). There is no way any human can ever presume to know why a wolf in the wild might walk even an _inch_ to one side or the other, and to fabricate an image that puts the wolf anywhere other than exactly where it was photographed is not reality but rather a mere guess (see E-10)--and the viewer should be alerted accordingly. In other words, if an image "could have been made in a single unaltered shot," the photographer should simply make it that way in the first place (see question F-1). If for whatever reason the photographer can't do so, that doesn't give him license to fabricate an image and then trick viewers into thinking that he _did_ make it "in a single unaltered shot" (see question E-15). Yes, photographers have the artistic right to superimpose a wolf image on whatever background they choose: Sahara desert, north woods, downtown New York City. However, if the resulting photograph looks like a single unaltered nature shot, viewers will invariably want to be told if they are seeing the photographer's arrangement instead of nature's arrangement (they know it can't be both). Such an image is a deception, pure and simple, if it is presented as "a single unaltered shot" but does not show the wolf _precisely_ where it was actually photographed (and that means down to the last twig, not merely in the same hemisphere, country, or "area" where such wolves have been seen). See also questions A-4 and E-4. (Note that _Popular Photography_ was not explicitly endorsing Fitzharris's perspective--only reporting it--and that the magazine itself is scrupulous about disclosing manipulations of content in the photographs it publishes.) a similar "could-have-happened" example of manipulation was presented by photographer Art Wolfe, who, when criticized by zoologists for cutting and pasting five additional cubs into his photograph of a cheetah mother originally photographed with only one cub, cited literature stating that cheetah litters could theoretically be as large as eight. (See Kenneth Brower's article "Photography in the Age of Falsification" in the _Atlantic Monthly_, May 1998.) GE-8b: This discussion of Ansel Adams' _Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico_ refers to the vintage prints, Adams' earliest (and thus most valuable) expressions of his famous 1941 photograph. In his later prints of _Moonrise_, Adams darkened the sky so much that some wispy clouds high in the sky on the original negative are not visible--at least not in published versions of the image. Even wispy clouds count as "forms and shapes," deletion of which would seem to instantly disqualify these later prints of _Moonrise_ from FoundView. On the other hand, tonal variations in photographs are often integral to artistic expression, elements in darker areas of photographs can become illegible when darkening entire regions of the print (see questions F-12 and E-13), and visual information (especially shadow detail) often gets lost during the journey from photograph to printed page. Bottom line: reasonable people differ on whether the later _Moonrise_ prints would qualify as FoundView, which is why the earlier prints are the basis for the discussion in E-8. Adams discusses his various struggles with the photograph in _Examples_ (Little, Brown, 1983); the image appears in that book and in a number of other Adams books published by Little, Brown. A detailed account of the last darkroom session at which Adams printed the _Moonrise_ negative (on February 21, 1980) appears in Mary Street Alinder's _Ansel Adams: A Biography_ (Henry Holt and Co., 1996). GE-9: Few people regard W. Eugene Smith as an unfailing paradigm for FoundView-style photography because of his occasional post-shutter manipulations of content and his penchant for pre-shutter manipulations that exceed the typical viewer's standard for non-deception (e.g., paying actors to pose as rural villagers, or having subjects repeat over and over again for his camera actions that Smith later presented as spontaneous). Many of Smith's greatest photographs clearly would qualify as FoundView, but others would not. For a revealing look at Smith's manipulation techniques (which he characterized as "rearranging for the truth of actuality") see the essay "W. Eugene Smith: His Techniques and Process" by Paul T. Hill in _W. Eugene Smith: Photographs 1934-1975_ (Harry Abrams, 1998). GE-10: The observation that "Retouched reality is an oxymoron" is from Howard Chapnick's book, _Truth Needs No Ally_ (University of Missouri Press, 1994), which contains numerous excellent discussions of photographic ethics. GE-12: The quotation by Henri Cartier-Bresson ("great physical and intellectual joy") is from _Dialogue with Photography_ by Paul Hill and Thomas Cooper (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1979; recently back in print). GF-12: The "Zone" references allude to the "Zone System" of photographic exposure and development co-developed and popularized by photographer Ansel Adams. For details, see Adams' book _The Negative_ (first published in 1981, reprinted 1998, by Little, Brown) or any of the many other books on the Zone System. The tones in scenes (and in black-and-white photographs) are numbered in 11 steps ("zones") from "0" (black) through a range of progressively lighter grays to "X" [ten] (white). Regarding the tones cited in the answer to question F-12, _The Negative_ describes a Zone II tone as "First suggestion of texture. Deep tonalities, representing the darkest part of the image in which some slight detail is required"; a Zone I tone is characterized as "First step above complete black in print, with slight tonality but no texture." At the other end of the tonal spectrum, a Zone XIII tone is described as "Whites with textures and delicate values; textured snow; highlights on Caucasian skin," and a Zone IX tone is "White with texture approaching pure white, thus comparable to Zone I in its slight tonality with no texture." GF-18: For more on the relationship between focal length, enlargement size, viewing distance, cropping, and apparent perspective, see chapters 7.13 and 7.14 in Leslie Stroebel's ageless book _View Camera Techniques_ (7th edition published in 1999 by Butterworth-Heinemann; previous editions were published by Butterworth's Focal Press division). GF-23: The question of whether a pre-shutter manipulation of the subject was done "for the camera" or whether "it would have been done anyway" was deemed an unacceptable litmus test for FoundView because it is too complex and ambiguous. For example, suppose a group of 12 elected officials attend a meeting. Only seven of the 12 know that the meeting will be photographed for the newspapers; the other five don't think that cameras are allowed in the conference room. Ten of the 12 attendees comb their hair and touch up their makeup or straighten their neckties before the meeting. When determining whether the subject of the group's photograph was manipulated, does their grooming count as being done "for the camera" or--since some of the ten didn't know they'd be photographed--does it qualify as "something they would have done anyway"? Would a photograph of the entire group count as FoundView, or only photographs showing those who didn't know they were going to be photographed and those who didn't spiff themselves up before the meeting? Before attaching the FoundView checkmark to the photograph, should the photographer have to ask each attendee whether they spruced themselves up for the camera? That raises another issue: whose word would count in such scenarios? Suppose that the president went to visit an ordinary citizen's home somewhere out in America's heartland. Would news photographs of the visit contain "excessive manipulation of the subject" if the homeowner had painted the house the week before the press corps arrived? If so, what if the homeowner insisted that he had been planning to paint the house that week anyway? Or what if the homeowner mowed the lawn before the cameras arrived; would it matter with respect to determining "excessive manipulation" if the lawn was mowed a day ahead of schedule so it would look neater in the photographs? Or what if the beat-up family car was pulled into the garage instead of left in the driveway? The homeowner and the photographer wanting to label the resulting picture as FoundView might contend that the old car is usually in the garage anyway (so the action was not done expressly "for the camera"), but what if the neighbors claimed it was usually in the driveway? Many scenes that we see every day, in real life or in realistic photographs, are to at least some degree arranged or orchestrated: press conferences, portraits, gardens, parades, sports events, still-lifes, protest rallies, military maneuvers, art galleries, museums, classrooms, campaign speeches, operas, plays, dancing, dance performances, concerts, air shows, historical re-enactments, ice sculptures, sand castles. Rather than trying to ascertain the degree of human orchestration of these activities--or trying to define how much of the orchestration was done "for the camera"--it's much simpler to ask "Would the typical viewer feel deceived?" If the answer is "Yes" or "Maybe," the photograph should not be labeled FoundView. (End of Section G) ***************** H. A Word to the Skeptical "If you're still not convinced . . . ." For those who aren't fully persuaded that FoundView is necessary even after they've read everything on this web site, we recommend asking two basic questions: 1) Should viewers of realistic-looking photographs be informed about which photographs have undergone manipulations of content and which have not? Imagine if a photographer of the bombed Federal building in Oklahoma City had seamlessly cut-and-pasted into his photos convincing images of what appeared to be likely suspects running from the bomb scene, privately justifying the manipulation to himself as "art" but not disclosing the manipulation to viewers of the photographs. Would viewers want to be made aware of this manipulation? If you don't feel that any disclosure will ever be necessary for these sorts of manipulations, then, no, FoundView will not be convincing to you. However, if you see cause for concern in the increasing number of undisclosed manipulations passed off as single-click photographs, then ask: 2) Where should the line be drawn? Imagine that it's a decade hence--the year 2010--and you have to write up the rules for a nationwide photo contest. Unfortunately, you can't simply divide entries into either "film-based" or "digital" the way you could back in 1997: most serious photographers who formerly used 35mm and roll film are now using digital cameras, tweaking their images on computers, and outputting them with super-high-resolution digital printers. Thus, the categories that your contest used back in the late 1990s--Nature, People, Humor, and Computer Enhanced (Digital)--are now useless, because almost _all_ of the entries are now digitally produced. So, assuming that both kinds of entries look equally realistic, how do you draw the line between images that simply underwent minor color correction and those (like the Oklahoma City example in #1 above) in which various elements were cut and pasted into the image? What should the rules be? (Note: if you're tempted to use the phrase "manipulation of minor elements" please see question C-1; if you think a distinction can be drawn between "art photographs" and "documentary photographs" please see question D-2; if you think viewers only care about photographs' trustworthiness when it comes to "hard news pictures," please see question E-8.) FoundView, of course, was designed with this kind of use in mind (those who actually _do_ have to write up contest rules should click on Section K, "FoundView in Publications, Contests, and Exhibits"). FoundView lends itself well to such applications because it deals only with the presentation of images, putting no limits whatsoever on artistic expression. Obviously anyone who hopes to pass off synthesized images as authentic photographs will find any disclosure system--including FoundView--threatening. But there aren't many people willing to answer "No" to #1 above; since FoundView was born in early 1997, only a few photographers have written to us arguing that "there should be no manipulation disclosure standard at all, ever." To those who answer "Yes" to #1 above, our response is always the same: "Don't dismiss FoundView unless you can propose a better alternative." No one has yet seriously suggested a better place to draw the line. * * * * Photography is at a crossroad. The fate of its trustworthiness is in the hands of its practitioners. Its integrity and unique position among the arts should not be discarded lightly. (End of Section H) ***************** J. FoundView's Internet policy In the past, designated spokespersons for FoundView occasionally participated in online photography discussion forums. As of September, 1998, they no longer do so. Part of the reason for this change in policy is sheerly logistical: when FoundView is being discussed in multiple, unlinked forums, there's no way to keep on top of them--and even if there were, there's little more we can say to expand on the 35,000 words on this web site. Reasoned, thorough contributions to such forums take considerable time to compose, and there is rarely time to write and post a thoughtful response in an online forum before the discussion has moved on to a different topic. A second reason for the policy is tied to an inherent limitation of Internet forums. Photography forums on the Internet are excellent sources (often, the best) of quick, useful _information_ about equipment, materials, techniques, locations, regulations, business practices, and so on. But the same format that makes these forums ideal for exchanging information shortchanges them when it comes to _philosophical_ discussions, i.e., logical progressions of thought, with carefully reasoned arguments eloquently put forth from a variety of well-considered viewpoints without rancor or name-calling. When it comes to online "threads" (single-topic discussions) on philosophical or ethical matters, all too often a small minority will dominate the discussion, while countless others who might have something thoughtful to contribute stay on the sidelines (perhaps because they've learned that the forum format doesn't encourage their brand of thoughtfulness--or because they simply don't have _time_). Threads on divisive or unresolvable subjects quickly outline the major disagreements, then after a day or two inevitably devolve into heated exchanges of name-calling between a handful of people. The "discussion" steadily spirals downward until everyone but the last two or three combatants has turned out the lights and left the room. A third reason for FoundView's abstention from online forums is that the perspective of "the typical viewer" (i.e., the layperson who knows little or nothing about how photographs are made) is by definition rarely represented there. While discussions between practicing photographers may be ideal for exchanging information about equipment and technique, FoundView has from the beginning been influenced by, designed for, and premised on the needs and expectations of the viewer as much as the photographer. To have the perspective of at least half of our constituency left out of the conversation would inevitably affect the chances of balance in such a discussion. Finally, the forums tend not to incorporate the views of another huge portion of the FoundView constituency: women. Although (or perhaps because) the photographer who initially conceived FoundView was male, we have striven to give reasonably equal balance to the views of men and women. Participants in online photography forums, probably because of the attention these forums give to equipment and technical topics, tend to be overwhelmingly male--often well over 90 percent. Again, that's fine when it comes to informational threads--most photography equipment is purchased by men--but it is not the same as a democratic representation of the breadth of people who benefit from FoundView, including viewers. * * * * At FoundView we continue, of course, to depend on photographers' input, and we encourage thoughtful discussion about FoundView in any arena. (When FoundView is discussed in online forums, the increasing number of photographers who are using FoundView can speak on its behalf. FoundView has always reflected a consensus based on a wide variety of influences, precedents, and experiences, and the more that new FoundView proponents discuss its role in their work, the more wide-ranging and appealing the standard will become. We confidently trust this diverse group to carry the FoundView flag in any discussion.) We also welcome direct correspondence (see http://www.vad1.com/photo/foundview/about.html ), to which we respond as we have the resources for doing so and to the degree it is worthwhile to do so (i.e., we do not wish to argue with the merely contentious or those who see no need for any standard; such exchanges waste both parties' time). We feel a need to declare this policy only because contributors to online forums occasionally try to portray our noninvolvement in their favorite forum--our apparent "silence"--as a sure sign that we have no rejoinder to the brilliant points they are making there. That assertion is, as we hope this web site makes clear, patently false. (End of Section J) ***************** K. FoundView in Publications, Contests, and Exhibits FoundView has obvious appeal for newspapers, magazines, journals, and books wishing to uphold the highest standards of integrity and credibility. Regardless of circulation or press run, there is no registration process and no licensing fee for using the FoundView standard and checkmark. The FoundView checkmark and the following summary statement from section C-9 usually need be reproduced only once, on the copyright page or publisher-information page: "The presence of the FoundView checkmark on this page guarantees that every photograph in [this newspaper/magazine/journal/book] [or _Name 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 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." Please see questions C-9 and C-10 for details, including how to handle non-FoundView photographs. Publications are also welcome to e-mail FoundView directly (see http://www.vad1.com/photo/foundview/about.html ) with questions. FoundView encourages publications to make use of the FoundView standard not merely for staff-generated photographs but also for submissions from non-staff photographers. Publications and organizations can easily make provision for photographers who wish to use the FoundView standard and attach the FoundView checkmark to photographs submitted for publications, contests, and exhibits. For the sake of clarity and to prevent misunderstanding, we strongly recommend that submission guidelines for publications, contests, and exhibits incorporate the following four paragraphs: "Each FoundView-checkmarked photograph submitted must both: "A. Depict all forms and shapes as recorded by the camera when the shutter was clicked, meaning that no forms or shapes in the photograph were moved, added, deleted (except by cropping), reshaped, resized, combined, or otherwise altered (except tonally) after the shutter was clicked, AND "B. Not be in any way deceptive to the typical viewer (to the best judgment of the photographer--and of the submitter, if they are two different parties). This non-deception rule includes all pre-shutter and post-shutter considerations. "No photograph is eligible for the FoundView checkmark unless *both* of the above requirements have been met. In attaching the FoundView checkmark to a submitted photograph, the photographer (and submitter, if they are two different parties) is/are thereby attesting to familiarity with, understanding of, and adherence to the FoundView standard (printed in its entirety at (see http://www.vad1.com/photo/foundview/ ). Questions about the FoundView standard should be submitted directly to FoundView at (see http://www.vad1.com/photo/foundview/about.html ), not to [_Name of publication or sponsoring organization_]. Note, however, that the FoundView organization plays no supervisory or adjudicatory role with respect to photographs submitted to [_Name of publication or sponsoring organization_]." (End of submission guidelines) (End of Section K) (End of file)