yeah, I was using "light received by the camera" as shorthand for "objective truth". No photograph perfectly reflects the reality it is trying to capture, of co

yeah, I was using "light received by the camera" as shorthand for "objective truth". No photograph perfectly reflects the reality it is trying to capture, of course, because the process itself introduces distortions. But that's an expected margin of error. My distinction is about how far the photo is from what I'd see if I were looking with my own eyes. If a photo is enhanced in a way that makes the image different, then it's photo-based art and not really a "photograph" anymore. That resulting photo-based art may express some sort of truth that just the image doesn't, but that doesn't mean it's not a piece of art rather than a plain recording of reality. As a more extreme example of the sort of thing I mean, look at the Samsung "super zoom" functionality a couple of years ago where the camera was straight-up replacing the moon in photos with a fake moon image that looked better. That clearly makes the "photo" no longer an accurate representation of reality.