It seems like you completely misunderstood what I said and decided to take it out of context and throw in a jab on top because none of that contradicts my point

It seems like you completely misunderstood what I said and decided to take it out of context and throw in a jab on top because none of that contradicts my point. What kind of guy does that make you? ;) You are failing to account for how many photos have been used to implicate someone of a crime they did not commit, how many photos have been used to exaggerate or mislead the effects of war (a couple of the most famous photos in all of history were staged war photos), and how many photos suggested measurements and scientific outcomes that turned out to be wrong. Scientists, unlike the general public, are generally aware of all the distortions in time, space, color, etc., and they still misinterpret the results all the time. The context here is what the parent was talking about, about the meaning and truth in casual photography, and your comment has made incorrect assumptions and ignored that context. I wasn’t referring at all to the physical process, I was referring to the interpretation of a photo, because that’s what the parent comment was referring to. Interpretation is not contained in the photo, it’s a process of making assumptions about the image, just like the assumptions you made. Sometimes those assumptions are wrong, even when the photo is nothing more than captured photons.