Quote Originally Posted by andy_k View Post
He says here the "local naturality," which I think he means to say the (holistically) elemental quality that light has of our inhabited natural environment, like soil, water, air, etc.
Sorry, I'm lost here. What does he mean by that? That light is transformed by our natural habitat? Or that light is as much part of our habitat as rocks, water and air are?
Quote Originally Posted by andy_k View Post
Yeah, for real. I think he does a good job of introducing his ideas on this in the excerpts I included in the OP, and gives extensive treatment to this exact issue throughout the text.
Sorry, but the excerpt from your OP don't say much about these issues. The author seems to be fascinated by modern physics to the point where he assigns ethereal properties to electromagnetic waves. He hangs on to some catch phrases from physics 101 (or the science section of daily newspapers) to derive a very odd theory of what goes on in photography.

Yes, electromagnetic waves connect the cosmos as we know it, but so does gravity which is not recorded by cameras. We have reasonably good eyes well suited for life in the Savannah during daylight, and a brain that can make incredible images out of what we see, but that does not mean "man captures light in a most balanced and integrating manner.". Cameras are certainly no black boxes to those who make or service them, and the fact that case and shutter let only those few photons in that are meant to be recorded does not make a camera "secret and genital". A video camera is quite illuminated inside while it records, BTW.

And that's one of the weird things in many of these "philosophy of photography" tractates. Authors go through great length to derive a very solid train of thoughts, including lingo that is nearly impenetrable to humans not trained in that subject, and then base their whole train on thoughts on a very fuzzy image of modern physics, brain science and aesthetics.