Which image and sound editing techniques are acceptable on iNaturalist?

Images and sounds attached to observations are evidence the observer provides to the community for evaluation. They should include evidence of the actual organism (or trace of an organism) at the time of the observation, observed by the user who is uploading the observation.

Because images and sounds are evidence that may be used for research or conservation, they should accurately reflect the organism and the scene. If they do not, the community should vote “No” for the “Evidence accurately depicts organism/scene” section of the Data Quality Assessment. Observations which the community does not believe present accurate evidence will be casual grade.

Here are examples of which kinds of editing and evidence are acceptable, and which are not. These lists are not exhaustive, but are here to guide you in making a determination.

Not Acceptable

• Removing or replacing elements from the organism or the scene

• Use of generative fill

• Replacing the sky or background

• Cloning or stamping, except to remove sensor dust or backscatter

• AI-assisted upscaling

• Adjustments to: contrast, color, saturation, shadows and highlights, white balance, lens distortion and vignetting, sharpness etc., that fall outside of general accuracy (e.g. making the subject much more saturated or vibrant than it naturally appeared)

• Sketches or drawings made from memory

Acceptable

• Cropping

• Blurry photos (identify to the taxonomic level the evidence can support)

• Standard adjustments to: contrast, color, saturation, shadows and highlights, white balance, lens distortion and vignetting, sharpness, noise reduction, etc.

• Focus stacking

• Use of multiple images to increase tonal range within realistic levels (HDR or high dynamic range)

• Removing sensor dust or backscatter

• AI-assisted noise reduction

• The organism or evidence placed in something like a white container or on a white background

• Field sketches made while observing the organism (in limited numbers. If this becomes too common we may need to prohibit it)

• Collages of photos (although single images are preferred)

• Annotations on photos, such as a circle or arrow pointing to a subject or area of interest (although we recommend avoiding them)

• Sound isolation filters, or software that makes sounds detectable to humans (such as bat call software)

If you’re certain that a photo has been edited using a method or methods that are listed under “Not Acceptable”, please vote “No” for the “Evidence accurately depicts organism/scene” section of the Data Quality Assessment, explain why you believe so, and encourage the observer to switch it with an accurate file.

If you’re unsure but believe the evidence has been altered in the ways listed above, asking the observer how they edited the photo or sound may be in order. Please remember to assume others mean well and have a civil discussion. What's deemed acceptable in many photo communities may not be acceptable on iNaturalist.  

If the observer removes the media, please remove your “No” vote.

Many people come to iNaturalist unaware that their photos and sounds are treated as scientific evidence and are unaware that some touch-ups and edits which are accepted in other contexts may not be appropriate here. When interacting with anyone about their images or sounds, please assume they mean well and discuss the situation in a civil manner. Usage of these editing tools is almost always done in good faith.

Smartphones make many automatic enhancements when taking and processing photographs, which the photographer has little to no control over. These generally fall within the realm of acceptability — please don’t vote “No” for observations featuring them unless the evidence has clearly been altered to be inaccurate.

This technology is evolving quickly both in capability and availability, so please remember that the lists above may change as the technology does, or may be outdated. The goal is to evaluate the accuracy of the evidence and whether alterations have meaningfully reduced its accuracy, so please keep this in mind when evaluating evidence.