The literature on the analytic philosophy of photography is related to, but distinct from, the literatures on film theory and photography theory. All three revolve around the question of whether images can be importantly divided into the categories of photographic and manugraphic on the basis of their differing etiologies. The first, however, tends to focus on how this question intersects with core areas of philosophical research, while the second and third tend, instead, to look for intersections with larger cultural issues. As well, the first is burdened with methodological considerations, a self-awareness that reflects larger methodological contests that have roiled analytic philosophy over the past century. This article focuses on the first. Arguably the photographic formative process excludes the mentation of photographers in ways that the manugraphic formative process does not exclude the mentation of painters or sketchers. The alleged implications of such photographic objectivity include skepticism about the possibility of photographs functioning as artworks, assertions regarding various epistemic advantages associated with the medium, claims regarding a special phenomenology associated with viewing photographs, concerns that photographic images cannot function as representations, and, finally, special ethical considerations that emerge with photographic subjects that are persons. Methodological considerations divide contributors on the basis of whether they proceed in a traditional philosophical fashion by taking as their starting point ordinary linguistic usage of key terms, such as “art,” “photography,” and “representation,” and then exploring inconsistencies between these, one the one hand, or whether, on the other, they proceed in a naturalistic fashion by taking as their starting point various phenomena associated with viewing photographs and then postulating whatever natural kinds are required in order to explain them.