The example is ridiculous because his stance on photography's claim to veracity is ridiculous. And then he has the intellectual audacity to claim a special purchase on truth for photo-journalists vs. everyone else via the absurd example of an A. Adams photograph. Following his line of reasoning one could just as easily fault the photojournalist for rendering the scene in two dimensions when it's plain to everyone that the actual event being recorded was in three.

I can appreciate subtlety and it is definitely not to be found in this article's misguided premise and in the author's ham-fisted understanding of the nature of photography.