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

[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.

[bisonbison]

Having read Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" 15 times in my college career, I feel qualified to speak to this.

People like craft. They like the idea of brushstrokes on the canvas, even if they can't see them, of paint mounding up on the cloth, thin layer on thin layer. The process of creating the thing counts. The personal history of that print hanging on the wall counts in our appreciation of it.

If a photographer has to slave away in her darkroom for hours breathing noxious chemicals in order to produce an effect, it's a better story than someone clicking around on their workstation getting Photoshop to apply its algorithms the right way. And the story matters in art.

[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.

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh? This has absolutely no relevance to the artistic merit of a photograph.

El D,
Like you said it's easy to achieve many of those effects digitally while much harder to achieve them through traditional photo manipulation. People appreciate that, while the effect might be the same, the analog versions took more time and effort to create. Especially to an untrained layperson, part of the mystique of many forms of art is the amount of time that must be put into it.

[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.

[offTopic]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

In this case, I don't really see that much of a difference, though I guess it would make a huge difference for film photography buffs.

I like shooting landscapes (my "people" shots always turn out lousy) while on vacation, and I feel better when a picture comes out "right" where I don't feel compelled to touch it up. If I get a good sunset, but it looks better when I increase the foreground lighting, I feel like I cheated somehow.