Some degree of image manipulation is an inherent part of digital, and indeed all, photography. My concern is not with editing itself, but with edits that materially mislead audiences or substantially alter the content of an image, such as adding or removing significant visual elements. I keep post-processing broadly within accepted photojournalism limits. In rare instances where I may exceed them this tend to be visually self-evident, and for a very specific reason, for example anonymising a person or location.

As with photo manipulation, I believe transparency is essential when using AI, particularly generative AI. My use of generative tools is limited and mostly involves it’s use in repetitive tasks (for example formatting) and occasionally to repeat research I have already conducted manually and identify information I may have overlooked. I have only used generative images in one project where its use was clearly signposted, and where there was little danger of the images being misunderstood as true representations of the world.

I regard current UK intellectual property law as increasingly ill-suited to contemporary visual culture, where appropriation, remixing and reuse are commonplace. I do sometimes incorporate copyrighted or copyright-ambigious material into my work, but only where I feel there is a clear artistic, documentary or critical justification for doing so.

Photography plays an important role in shaping how people understand communities, places and events in the world. I try to avoid reinforcing stereotypes or reducing complex issues to simplistic narratives. I do not believe that photographers must belong to a particular community in order to be allowed to represent it, provided they approach the work with care and respect.

I have never created staged images in my practice, although I do not have an ethical objection to staging where it is clearly disclosed and serves a justifiable purpose. I do sometimes ask people to pose for portraits, usually in ways that remain recognisable through their direct engagement with the camera. However this tends only to entail asking people to stand or sit in a particular location, I very rarely direct in terms of how people should present themselves.

Accuracy is fundamental to my practice, and extensive research is key to virtually every project I make. The topics I work on are often complex, and the information available can sometimes be incomplete or provisional. Where this is the case, I try to communicate those uncertainties in the work itself, and where I later find an error, I will always acknowledge and correct these inaccuracies in future iterations of work.

I disclose the principal sources of funding in my projects wherever possible, unless the work has been entirely self-funded. I do not knowingly accept funding from organisations or individuals whose activities I believe cause significant social or environmental harm. This includes, but is not limited to, tobacco companies, arms manufacturers, fossil fuel companies, gambling companies, lobbying organisations, businesses linked to serious human rights abuses, and companies engaged in predatory commercial practices.

Photography and artistic practice carry significant environmental costs that often go unacknowledged by artists and institutions, many of whom also performatively profess concern about the climate crisis. I try to minimise my own impact by traveling by lower-carbon means wherever possible, developing projects that require less travel, and designing exhibitions that can be reused. I am also increasingly exploring more enviromentally friendly publishing options for future book projects.

I recognise both the legal right to privacy and, where appropriate, also a moral right to anonymity. Beyond legal obligations, I believe respecting these principles is central to ethical documentary practice. Protecting participants’ dignity and allowing people to share their experiences without unnecessary exposure helps build trust and minimise potential harms.