Why are "real" pictures better?

[El Diablo]

The picture thread someone posted today reminded me of this question that has been bothering me for a while.

I'm talking specifically of artistic pictures here, things that we look at and appreciate because they are beautiful/interesting/whatever to look at.

Over the past couple of years, I've seen a number of exhibitions of pictures where a big part of the appeal of the pictures is that there has been no digital manipulation of the shots. No Photoshopping, etc.

However, different chemicals, exposures, filters, lenses, and all sorts of stuff are used to create different types of effects on the final printed image.

Quite a few of these effects that are tough to achieve with photography are pretty easy to achieve for good Photoshoppers. However, if you put a bunch of the exact same printed images side-by-side and reveal that one set is "real" while the other set is Photoshopped, in my experience people tend to appreciate the "real" set far, far, far more than the Photoshopped ones.

So, given all of that, why is that? I mean, what is it that makes us appreciate the non-digitally-altered representation of something so much more, even though the image has been altered by the use of various techniques?

[WillMagic]

I think it's the same reason that people appreciate sporting achievements by people who haven't taken steroids. There's a natural human bias towards integrity. Similar to your example athletes have all sorts of methods to improve their performance short of taking steroids, but no one blinks at them.

[fish2plus2]

Post deleted by fish2plus2

[Dementia]

I find "real" women much more attractive. Not photoshopped liposuction, anorexic runway models bludgeoned to death by their makeup artists. The average, every day Jane is much more respectable than a pretty face caked with makeup for the flashing lights imo.

[onthebutton]

I would guess that most here would have a hard time distinguishing between a photo taken with a high quality dSLR and a 35mm camera.

I would agree with El D that there is something more appealing about an image that's "undoctored", however. Even digital images fall into this category, for me. I have no idea why, but maybe it's that when we see something we can at some level tell the difference between a direct representation of what our eye would see and a processed version of what someone thinks our eye SHOULD see.

[Oatdyke McFluff]

Cause when you're boning a chick, she looks like:



not

[siccjay]

Oatdyke,

That chick in the KY shirt is awesome. Hook me up.

[Five-Star]

[ QUOTE ]
Cause when you're boning a chick, she looks like:




[/ QUOTE ]

would so hit this and hard

[Dids]

Same slightly stale reasoning that values most forms of music over hip-hop/electronica?

I think people are reticent to admit that there's an artist element to digitial manipulation of audio/pictures of whatever. There's a very strong and violently incorrect perception that anybody with training can do the same thing that the digital artist can. Seems to me that no matter the medium, there's still an artistic eye or ear that comes into play and those will it will be able to make something that's really impressive.

Shorter answer:

Technology just pulls everybody up so that mediocre is easier, but good still takes skill.

[JPinAZ]

From what I understand a good quality 35mm camera is equivalent to around a 20 megapixel digital camera. I'm sure the equipment & technique of a professional photographer will raise that number.