rks, but not exclusively. Although pictures are defined by mind-dependent production, it would be inconsistent to define images by mind-independent production. Pictures are a sub-category of images, not a contrasting category. The idea that photographs are mind-independent begins when we acknowledge that photographs can occur as naturally produced images. Some visual images, such as paintings and drawings, only occur as products of intentional agency. A photograph is a visual image that can occur without a photographer. This is a quick and straightforward route to the idea that mind-independence explains the distinction between photographs and other kinds of image. 7 Savedoff, B. (2000), p. 193. 8 There are a number of theories which defend a highly detailed distinction between images and pictures e.g. Kulvicki, J. (2006). I am using a coarse-grained distinction which I believe has intuitive plausibility, rather than endorsing any particular theory. DAWN M. PHILLIPS 6 The idea that photographs can be produced without a photographer is not itself a dogma, but only the basis for dogma. Epistemic accounts of photography regard the absence of any photographer as a benefit. Photographs, it is claimed, are more objective, reliable and accurate than hand-made pictures precisely because they avoid any potential for error that would be introduced with the involvement of human beliefs. Philosophers present this idea as an explanatory and justificatory thesis: photographs differ from other images in having these special qualities because they are mind-independent. However, once mind-independence is accorded this crucial role, it can assume a normative function. A particular image will count as a photograph strictly insofar as it is mind-independent; for the purposes of philosophical discussion, cases of images which are dependent on intentional states are to be discounted or treated as only partial photographs. Thus the epistemic position is secured by treating mind-independence as a defining feature of photographs. This pa