oke well enough without mentioning that it is a 'mind-independent' causal phenomenon. To draw attention to this fact, even though true, would be an unnecessary distraction. In the context of the painting process, what is most salient to us is that the final image – the painting – will not exist unless a painter is responsible. We are satisfied that the painted image would not have existed without the intentionally guided activity of the painter. The status of the brush-stroke is accorded no bearing on the status of the image. Mind-independence as a feature of the transfer of paint to the canvas would not lead us to claim that the image is not a picture; and to say that the image is a picture we do not need to insist that the causal transfer of paint is mind-dependent. If we compare the painting process with the photographic process, we notice an important difference. A brush-stroke produces a mark, but the individual mark caused by a brush-stroke is not sufficient to display a visual image.22 By comparison when the record from an individual photographic event is used to produce a photo-object, it 22 Japanese calligraphy might count as an interesting exception. DAWN M. PHILLIPS 16 can already display a visual image. This makes a significant difference to the status of the two kinds of image. In the case of painting, it is not possible for a final image to exist unless a painter is responsible. In the case of photography, it is possible for a final image to exist even if no photographer is responsible. I believe that this difference suffices to explain why photographs are a distinct category of image. Painted images are defined by mind-dependence. But, importantly, we do not need to define photographs as mind-independent in order to distinguish the types of image. The significant difference lies in the fact that the image is produced by a different kind of process. The photographic process is mind-independent but that fact isn't what makes a photo-image different from a painted image. I believe that philosopher