In what ways are photographs NOT merely a copy (or mimesis) of objective reality? In other words, how are photographs subjective?

Photographs are not merely a copy of objective reality for several reasons:

1. Photographer's Perspective: The photographer chooses what to include and exclude from the frame. This choice can drastically change the meaning or interpretation of the photograph. For example, a photograph of a protest could either focus on the large crowd or on a single individual, creating different narratives.

2. Manipulation: With the advent of digital photography and editing software, photographs can be manipulated to change their appearance and meaning. This can range from simple adjustments like brightness and contrast to more complex alterations like removing or adding elements.

3. Interpretation: Even without manipulation, the way a photograph is interpreted can vary greatly from person to person. Factors such as personal experiences, cultural background, and current mood can all influence how a photograph is perceived.

4. Context: The context in which a photograph is presented can also influence its interpretation. For example, a photograph presented in a news article may be interpreted differently than the same photograph presented in an art gallery.

5. Selectivity: The act of taking a photograph is a selective process. The photographer chooses a specific moment to capture, from a specific angle, with specific settings. This selectivity inherently introduces subjectivity.

In conclusion, while photographs can capture a representation of reality, they are far from being a mere copy due to the subjectivity introduced by the photographer's choices, the potential for manipulation, the variability in interpretation, and the influence of context.