We focus on explaining image classifiers, taking the work of Mothilal et al. [2021] (MMTS) as our point of departure. We observe that, although MMTS claim to be using the definition of explanation proposed by Halpern [2016], they do not quite do so. Roughly speaking, Halpern's definition has a necessity clause and a sufficiency clause. MMTS replace the necessity clause by a requirement that, as we show, implies it. Halpern's definition also allows agents to restrict the set of options considered. While these difference may seem minor, as we show, they can have a nontrivial impact on explanations. We also show that, essentially without change, Halpern's definition can handle two issues that have proved difficult for other approaches: explanations of absence (when, for example, an image classifier for tumors outputs "no tumor") and explanations of rare events (such as tumors).