> Photography is accepted as forensic evidence. Painting is not. This makes photography quite objective.
You've got the causality the wrong way around. Painting is not accepted as evidence because it is not considered objective. Photography is accepted. Whether that's always the right decision though should really be called in question by the OP. Not saying it should be outright refused, but this can be a case-by-case decision to make. You can change photos a lot by framing.
Edit
Found that classic example I wanted to post earlier. First picture here:
You've got the causality the wrong way around. Painting is not accepted as evidence because it is not considered objective. Photography is accepted. Whether that's always the right decision though should really be called in question by the OP. Not saying it should be outright refused, but this can be a case-by-case decision to make. You can change photos a lot by framing.
Edit
Found that classic example I wanted to post earlier. First picture here:
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/ausstellung-in-pasinger...