FAQ 7 - Subject Manipulation

  • 701. How does TTG define “subject manipulation”?

    “Subject manipulation” is defined as broadly as possible on this website.

    The term refers to any human-related action — intentional or accidental — that affects in any way the subject depicted in a photograph, whether that action is performed by the photographer, by the subject, or by someone else, regardless of whether the manipulation is “for the camera” or not.

    Basically, almost everything other than open ocean, virgin wilderness, and contrail-free/satellite-free skies could qualify as “subject-manipulated” under the definition that TTG uses.

  • 702. Why does this website use such a broad definition of “subject manipulation”?

    Because it isn’t worth fussing over the nuances of individual differences in definition.

    Viewers care about not being deceived by “inapparent circumstances” more than they care about small differences in how the term “subject manipulation” is defined.

    Photograph and manipulation are also defined broadly on this website.

  • 703. Is it correct to say that no photograph is ever disqualified from TTG because of what was done to the subject?

    Yes, that is correct.

    No photograph of any three-dimensional subject is ever disqualified from TTG because of how the subject was manipulated, controlled, posed, guided, or directed.

    Seen another way, a TTG-eligible photograph can be made of any three-dimensional subject that can be photographed, regardless of what was done to the subject.

    (Remember, TTG is about showing the viewer an undoctored record of “what the camera lens saw” — whatever that may be.)

    Of course, TTG is also about not deceiving viewers, so viewers often may need to be alerted when the subject was manipulated in a way that the viewer would want to know about but is not immediately apparent to the viewer. (P8 means that some photos may not qualify as TTG without such an alert.)

  • 704. Does P8 mean that every photograph that meets P1–P7 can qualify as TTG if it is explained well enough to viewers?

    Yes, every photograph that isn’t TTG-ineligible and that meets P1 through P7 can be explained well enough to meet P8.

    If the photo goes on to meet P9, the photo can qualify for the TTG label.

  • 705. How does a TTG photographer alert viewers to inapparent circumstances?

    At a minimum, with an “IC” alert (as explained in P8), often fleshed out with additional description or explanation.

    Guide to “IC” alerts

  • 706. Why doesn’t TTG simply disqualify photographs in which the subject was manipulated in any way?

    Because that would not be realistic, especially when “subject manipulation” is defined as broadly as it is on this website (see #701).

    More

  • 707. Does TTG's broad definition of “subject manipulation” mean that many news and information-reportage photographs have undergone subject manipulation as TTG defines it?

    Yes it does (although the subjects were not necessarily manipulated “for the camera” per se).

    As it says in #701 above, almost everything other than (1) open ocean, (2) virgin wilderness, and (3) contrail-free/satellite-free skies could qualify as “subject-manipulated” under the broad definition that TTG uses

    . . . and most news and information-reportage photos are of subjects other than these three things.

    More

  • 708. Can’t a distinction be made between subjects that were manipulated “for the camera” and subjects that were not?

    No, it’s often impossible to make that distinction in the 21st century, because there is much more awareness than before that almost any subject anywhere might be photographed anytime.

    In other words, countless things we see every day were deliberately manipulated to improve the way they look, and there's a good chance that many of those things will be photographed.

  • 709. But why are attitudes toward subject manipulation different in the 21st century than in earlier times?

    Because there weren’t cameras everywhere in the past.

    More

  • 710. What about “subject manipulation” when the “subject” is people? Does every photograph I take of someone who posed for the camera require an “IC” alert?

    No, an “IC” alert is usually not necessary for most pictures of people “posing” for the camera, including group photos and photos of any human subjects who were obviously “directed” by the person taking the photo.

    Anytime viewers can immediately see that a photograph was “posed,” then the photo doesn’t need an “IC” alert (unless there’s something else about the photo that warrants an “IC”).

    The test for “IC” alerts is always whether there are “inapparent circumstances” that viewers would want to know about.

    That's why “staged” photos in which the set-up nature of the photo is not immediately apparent to the viewer DO require an “IC” alert.

    Are selfies eligible for the TTG label?

  • 711. What is the difference between “posed” and “staged” photos if “posed” photos do not need an IC alert but “staged” photos do need an IC alert?

    Both kinds of photos are “set up” for the camera, but on this website:

    “Posed” — Viewers can immediately see that the subject was set up for the camera, and the photo does not need an “IC” alert (unless there’s something else about the photo that warrants an “IC”).

    “Staged” — Viewers cannot immediately see what they would want to know about how the subject was set up before it was photographed, and the photo does need an “IC” alert (which is easy to add).

 

The numbering of the FAQ questions will not change — any new questions are added at the bottom and given new numbers — so users can safely make a link to any specific question.