> fragile
Sure. But you're still gonna have to open it and turn the pages whatever scanner you use. And the book is open in the photo of it. If the photographer had moved a little closer, I bet you could read the text.
> A phone light may not be healthy
The thing is, you and I have phones in our pockets and can test this theory. It's an overcast day in Seattle. I turned out the room lights. It's too dark for me to read comfortably, in fact, I have to struggle to read. Took out my phone, took a picture (phone light off). I can read the text in the photograph just fine (though it's not as sharp as taking it with more light). I didn't even use a stand, I held the phone in my shaky hand. I only took one snap, not a bunch and select the best.
You and everyone else can do this experiment yourself. But instead, you assumed it wouldn't work.
> pops up to tell you where you're going wrong with D?
Sometimes they're right. How do I feel about it? I feel embarrassed. But it's hard to deny reality, and I accept my lumps and move on.
> Don't assume people are being stupid and you're the only smart one.
Don't assume I'm wrong about the phone camera without trying it yourself. I have tried it myself. I use my phone all the time to make copies of things it is inconvenient or impractical to scan, like oversize scrapbooks.
I challenge you to point your phone at documents you have at your desk and try it.
BTW, the phone camera also works great at literally taking "screenshops" of my computer screen. I do it because it's faster/easier than doing screen grabs.