A Clarification to People of Sense: The Claim that Photography Is Mere Reflection Makes No Sense

Many people today claim that photography is nothing but reflection, and that what appears in a photo is just like what is seen in a mirror, and therefore harmless. This is astonishing, and it is one of the most corrupt analogies, because the differences between photographs and mirrors are many.

To clarify, let us consider some basic scientific facts.

First: The Definition of Reflection

Reflection is when light bounces off a reflective surface, such as a mirror or calm water, allowing the object itself to be seen directly on that surface.

Second: Conditions for Reflection

For reflection to exist, two things are required:

• The object itself.
• A reflective surface.

And for the reflection to be visible, a direct line of sight between the eye and the reflective surface is necessary.

Third: Why Photographs Are Not Reflections

Photographs exist independently without fulfilling any of these conditions — a fact so obvious.

For example: suppose you liked a flower outside the house, photographed it with your phone, then went home and showed your brother the picture. Where is the flower? Where is the reflective surface? Where is the direct line between your brother’s eye and the reflective surface? All the conditions of reflection are absent, yet he still sees the picture.

Why? Because you copied the flower’s image with your phone camera. Instead of needing a canvas, paints, and a brush, you used a modern device to reproduce its image.

This is obvious, simple, and clear — and should not require such lengthy explanation.