More on FAQ #338
338. Is the “Guaranteed TCQ” label only for “impressive” photos?
No. There are many cases when “non-impressive” photos would get labeled.
Of course, applying the label to “everyday” photographs in non-trust-driven contexts — for example, labeling as “TCQ” snapshots of your family that you show to friends — is somewhat akin to putting the “Nonfiction” label on your grocery list: a label isn’t inaccurate there, but there’s no pressing “need” for it.
But TCQ photographers should never fret about which photographs are “impressive” enough to warrant labeling:
A. The photographer may be supplying photographs to a news- or information provider where all of the photographs are expected to be TCQ-qualified, including photos of mundane subjects.
B. The photographer may not know or may not want to speculate about which photographs viewers will find impressive (or may not want to convey to viewers the sense that some photos are more awesome than others). In that situation the photographer can just label the possible gems along the likely mehs, letting the viewer decide which photos are “impressive.”
C. The photograph could be intended for a context that requires TCQ photographs to avoid misrepresentation, regardless of how “unimpressive” the photographs are.
D. Rather than have viewers sort out “what’s TCQ,” “what’s impressive-and-apparently-TCQ-but-not-labeled,” “what’s non-TCQ,” etc., it can be simplest to just label as “Guaranteed TCQ” all of one’s qualified photographs in any grouping (website, exhibition, portion of a website, or any grouping in any context)
Note that it is in the interest of any photographer presenting a batch of undoctored photographs to ensure that viewers are confident that there are no doctored photographs in the batch.
(More on the “one bad peach” principle)
More on labeling multiple photos