[mbca]

The middle paragraphs are just further proof that talking to a blowhard like Cory Doctorow is a complete waste of time. The "all photos are fake at some level" slippery slope argument is beyond tiresome. The fact that something like white balance introduces a small amount of post-processing into photographs does not mean that all levels of photo manipulation are somehow equal. That's nonsense on its face and should be called out as such. You need a trampoline and a net to make that kind of jump in logic.

[lifeformed]

Well, it depends on his tone. When pondering a question, I feel like it's good to define boundaries and then work your way inwards. He sets the lower bound: all photos are modified in some way. We are okay with that. But we're not okay with this smile edit. At what point in between does it become not okay? It makes you think very specifically about why something makes you feel the way you do.

He might not be saying, "these two things are the same," but rather, "this situation is similar, what makes this one okay but not that one?"

I don't know if that's what he was doing though. But I find my discussions start off similarly. I reframe a question in the context of similar things that I already know how to feel about, and find the intersection points.

[moogleii]

Exactly. If a dog views the same scene as me, and it presumably sees only black and white, did we see a different reality? No, we saw different colors.

[itp]

Off topic, but just so you know -- dogs are colorblind (as compared to us) in that they have a more limited perception of color, but they don't just see black and white (and shades of gray)!

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/200810/can...