Pro Photo Show aims to publish photography, imaging and creative technology coverage that is accurate, useful and clear about the evidence behind its conclusions. No publication can guarantee that every detail will be correct on first publication. Specifications change, software is updated, sources may contain errors, and new information can alter the understanding of a product or event. When we identify a material error, we aim to assess it promptly, correct the record and make significant changes transparent to readers.
This policy explains how readers can report a possible error, how we assess reports, the distinctions we make between corrections and other editorial updates, and how we communicate material changes. It applies to editorial pages, reviews, guides, explainers and other material published by Pro Photo Show. It should be read alongside our Editorial Standards & Ethics, Research & Testing Methodology and Sources & References.
Our commitment to accuracy
We take reasonable care to verify factual claims before publication. Depending on the subject, this may involve checking manufacturer documentation, consulting technical standards, reviewing product materials, testing equipment or software, comparing independent sources and seeking clarification from relevant organisations. Our approach is described in more detail in the Research & Testing Methodology.
Accuracy is an ongoing responsibility rather than a one-time publication check. A camera firmware update may change a feature, a software vendor may revise its pricing, a product may be discontinued, or an official specification may be corrected. We therefore distinguish between an error that existed when an article was published and a later development that makes previously accurate information out of date. Both may justify an update, but they are not necessarily the same editorial event.
We do not change factual conclusions simply because a company, contributor or reader dislikes them. We assess the evidence, the wording and the context. Where a claim is demonstrably wrong or materially misleading, we will consider an appropriate correction. Where a disagreement concerns interpretation, preference or opinion, we may explain the distinction without changing a properly presented opinion.
How to report a possible error
Readers are encouraged to tell us when they believe a page contains an inaccurate, incomplete or misleading statement. Reports are most useful when they identify the exact page and passage, explain what appears to be wrong, and provide reliable supporting evidence. A manufacturer specification page, product manual, software release note, standards document or other primary source is generally more useful than an unsupported assertion.
Please use our Contact page to submit a correction request. Include the page URL, the relevant heading or quotation, the proposed correction and links or documents that support it. If the issue concerns a time-sensitive product detail, include the relevant model, region, firmware or software version and the date on which the information was checked, where known.
You do not need to write a formal complaint. A concise explanation is sufficient. Please avoid sending passwords, payment details or other sensitive personal information. We may ask follow-up questions where the evidence or the precise claim is unclear. Submitting a report does not guarantee that a change will be made, but we will assess specific, evidence-based reports in good faith.
How we assess reports
We first identify the exact statement being challenged and determine whether it is factual, interpretive, opinion-based or time-sensitive. We then review the evidence available to us. This may include checking the original source, comparing independent documentation, reviewing our testing notes, checking the publication date and examining whether the page already contains a qualification that changes the meaning of the passage.
Where a report concerns a product specification or compatibility claim, we may compare the manufacturer’s current documentation with archived or earlier material where available. For software coverage, we may need to distinguish between versions, operating systems, subscription tiers, regional availability and staged releases. For image-related claims, we may review the original image, its caption, its source and any licensing or attribution information.
We consider the significance of the issue, not simply the number of people reporting it. A single well-supported report can reveal a serious error. Conversely, repeated requests do not establish that a statement is incorrect if the evidence does not support the requested change. We may contact a manufacturer, author, contributor or other relevant party for clarification, but an interested party’s response is evidence to assess, not an instruction to follow.
We aim to review reports within a reasonable period. The time required depends on the complexity of the issue, the availability of primary evidence and whether specialist verification is needed. We do not promise a fixed response time or guarantee an individual reply to every submission. Urgent safety-related or materially consequential factual concerns will be treated with appropriate priority.
Correction, clarification, update or retraction?
Not every editorial change is a correction. We use the type of change that best describes what happened, so readers are not misled about the reason for an amendment.
Correction
A correction is appropriate when a published factual statement is wrong or materially inaccurate. Examples may include an incorrect camera resolution, a mistaken lens mount, a wrong release date, an inaccurate price presented as current at publication, a misidentified image subject or a false statement about a software feature. Where the error is material, we will amend the relevant passage and add a correction note explaining the nature of the change.
Clarification
A clarification may be appropriate when wording is ambiguous, incomplete or capable of creating a materially misleading impression, even if no single fact is plainly false. We may rewrite the passage, add context or explain a limitation so that readers can understand the point accurately. Where the clarification changes the substance of the article, we will identify that change.
Update
An update records new information that has emerged since publication or reflects a changing product, service or market. Examples include a new firmware release, revised software pricing, a product launch, a discontinued model or a change in availability. We will not describe an ordinary later development as an original error unless the earlier article was inaccurate at the time it was published.
Retraction or removal
In exceptional circumstances, a page or a substantial part of it may need to be withdrawn or replaced. This may be considered where the central premise cannot be supported, the material is seriously misleading, publication involved a significant rights or attribution problem, or a reliable correction cannot adequately repair the problem. We assess such cases individually and, where practicable, explain why material has been withdrawn. Removal is not used simply to avoid criticism or an unfavourable conclusion.
How significant corrections are displayed
For a material factual correction, we aim to amend the incorrect information and add a note near the relevant content or at another clear point on the page. The note should explain what was changed and, where appropriate, when the correction was made. We seek to preserve enough context for readers to understand the original issue without leaving the incorrect claim presented as current fact.
Minor typographical, grammatical or formatting changes that do not alter meaning may be made without a separate correction note. The same generally applies to routine link maintenance and small readability edits. If a seemingly minor edit changes a technical meaning, comparison, recommendation or conclusion, we will treat it as potentially material rather than relying on its size or appearance.
We do not silently rewrite a significant factual error in a way that conceals the fact that the page was previously wrong. Where a correction affects a recommendation, rating, buying decision or central conclusion, the explanation should make the practical significance understandable. We may also revise a headline, summary, image caption or metadata if those elements repeat or amplify the error.
Reviews, testing and technical information
Photography equipment and imaging software can be unusually dependent on exact model and version details. A feature may be available only on a particular firmware release, in a specific region, with a compatible accessory or under certain settings. We will take those distinctions into account when reviewing a report and correcting a technical passage.
If a review describes a test result incorrectly, we may revisit the underlying notes, test conditions and relevant measurements. If the original test cannot be reproduced, we will avoid presenting an unverified result as though it has been newly confirmed. Where a product or software update changes performance after publication, we may add an update explaining the new circumstances rather than implying that the original test was conducted on the later version.
A correction to a specification does not automatically require a change to an overall assessment. We will consider whether the corrected fact affects the review’s reasoning or conclusion. If it does, we will revisit the relevant analysis and make any necessary consequential changes clear.
Images, captions, credits and permissions
Images are central to photography coverage, so accuracy and attribution matter. If a photograph, illustration, screenshot or other visual is incorrectly identified, credited or captioned, we will assess the report and make an appropriate amendment where supported. If an image has been used without the necessary permission or with an incorrect rights statement, we will review the matter and may replace or remove it while the issue is assessed.
Where an image is illustrative rather than documentary, its caption or surrounding text should not imply that it depicts a specific product, event or test when it does not. If an image has been materially altered, generated or otherwise presented in a way that could mislead readers, we will consider whether further disclosure or replacement is necessary under our editorial standards.
Sources, links and attribution
A broken link is not always a factual error, but it can prevent readers from checking the evidence behind an article. We may replace a broken or moved link with a current authoritative source where the replacement supports the same claim. We will not substitute a source that changes the meaning of the original reference without reviewing the associated text.
If a source has been misquoted, misattributed or represented inaccurately, we will assess the original material and correct the passage where required. Our Sources & References page explains the principles we use to evaluate and attribute supporting material. If a correction involves the research process or test evidence, our methodology page provides further context.
Opinions, reviews and contested conclusions
Reviews necessarily include informed judgement. Two photographers may reach different conclusions about ergonomics, image character, workflow or value while relying on the same specifications and test results. A difference of opinion is not, by itself, evidence of an error.
We will correct factual statements that underpin an opinion when those statements are shown to be wrong. We may then reconsider whether the conclusion remains justified. However, we do not promise to change a review merely because a reader, manufacturer or contributor disagrees with its assessment. Our Editorial Standards & Ethics explain our approach to independence, evidence and editorial judgement.
Artificial intelligence and automated content
AI-assisted tools can introduce errors, including fabricated details, incorrect summaries, misleading image descriptions and references that do not support the claims attributed to them. Material produced or assisted by automated systems remains subject to editorial review. If a reader identifies a factual error in AI-assisted material, we assess it using the same evidence-based process described in this policy. The use of an automated tool does not reduce our responsibility to correct material errors.
Where a correction concerns an image or other synthetic media, we will also consider whether the way it was labelled or presented could have caused readers to mistake it for an authentic photograph, screenshot or record of an event.
Independence and external requests
Companies, public relations representatives, advertisers, contributors and readers may all identify issues or request changes. We welcome credible evidence from any source, but editorial decisions remain independent. A commercial relationship, product loan, review sample, sponsorship proposal or advertising enquiry does not entitle an organisation to control our findings or prevent a justified correction.
We will not remove accurate criticism solely because it is unwelcome, nor will we change a factual statement to secure a commercial benefit. Requests that include supporting documentation will be assessed on the merits of that evidence. Our Contributor Guidelines set out related expectations for authors and contributors.
Transparency and accountability
Our aim is to make significant changes understandable to readers while keeping pages usable. We may retain internal notes about reported issues, evidence reviewed and amendments made so that editorial decisions can be understood and checked. This policy does not promise a public, comprehensive correction log or a particular format for every correction. The method of disclosure will depend on the significance and nature of the change.
If a report is not accepted, the reason may be that the available evidence does not establish an error, that the passage is clearly presented as opinion, or that the requested change would make the article less accurate. Where appropriate, we may add context without adopting the proposed wording. We may decline to engage with abusive, repetitive or unsupported demands, while remaining open to new evidence.
Contact us about a correction
To report a possible inaccuracy, use the Pro Photo Show contact page. Please provide the page address, the exact passage, a concise explanation and supporting evidence. If you are reporting a technical issue, include relevant model and version information. We may use the information you provide to investigate the report and communicate with you about it.
Pro Photo Show will review credible correction requests carefully and make changes where the evidence warrants them. Our objective is not to suggest that errors never occur, but to respond responsibly when they do, distinguish corrections from later updates, and give readers a reliable account of the information on which our coverage is based.
External editorial reference
For additional context on accuracy and corrections in journalism, readers may consult the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice. This is an external reference and does not imply that Pro Photo Show is regulated by or affiliated with IPSO.
The correction workflow
Our handling of a credible report follows a proportionate editorial sequence. We identify the exact page and statement, classify the concern, determine what evidence is needed, assess the significance of any error, and decide whether a correction, clarification, update, retraction or no change is appropriate. We then amend the page where justified and add a clear note when the change is material.
This process is designed to avoid two opposite failures: leaving a consequential error unaddressed, and changing accurate coverage simply because an interested party objects. A request is assessed on evidence and context, not on the identity or status of the person making it. If evidence is inconclusive, we may explain the uncertainty rather than publish a definitive correction unsupported by the facts.
What a useful correction note should tell readers
A correction note should identify the general nature of the error, indicate what has been amended and include the date when that helps readers understand the change. It should not disclose confidential sources or turn the correction into a defensive statement. If the change affects a recommendation or the interpretation of a test, the note should make that consequence clear.
Corrections are part of a wider editorial system. Our Editorial Standards & Ethics set the accuracy and independence principles; the Research & Testing Methodology describes how claims and results are assessed; and Sources & References explains how supporting material is selected. Contributors are also accountable to the Contributor Guidelines. To submit a report, use the Contact page and provide the specific passage and evidence.