Actually, this was exactly my point (or at least
part of it...;-). Another part: a photograph
consists of more than "a subject" - the whole
area enclosed by the border (of whatever sort)
is "the subject", only part of which may
mistakenly be recognized by some to be of
greater importance in the image...

>This isn't exactly the point you were making, but your statements bring to
>mind another aspect of this subject.
>
>In news photography, we often see an unflattering photo of someone that was
>made while they were speaking. It seems that in forming words we must
>contort our faces into somewhat un-natural shapes. I have seen photos of
>perfectly nice people with what looks like a menacing scowl on their face.
>They may have been giving a light-hearted speech, but that 1/60th of a
>second they looked like the Grinch who stole Christmas. Of course, this
>photo is the one the news channel uses if they do not happen to care for
>this person's views.

"Neuman - Ruether" wrote in message
news:3dc1a8e5.4676967@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>
>> I might add to this that, except under VERY rare
>> and unusual conditions, it is impossible to exactly
>> duplicate anything at all photographically - and the
>> generally held opinion that photography is an accurate
>> recording medium is demonstrably false, and most
>> photographs lie to those who believe that they record
>> anything accurately.