This Photo by Giorgos is from his collection on flickr and shows some of his excellent work. The question is - can an image either created completely by an artist of a scene or an adjusted photo or video of a scene be better than the actual unaltered photo when it comes to usefulness to people trying to appreciate the scene?
For instance from a heritage point of view. Is an adjusted photo of the Tower Bridge better than a photo? This is in a sense "hyper-reality" in that it really emphasizes the features of the architecture that might not be visible or as appreciated in the sort of photo that might be now take given particulate matter and pollution.
I think there are many times that emphasized images can be of use and that most photos are tinkered with in some manner since we must chose things like depth of field and exposure as well as focus and lighting to begin with. I do think that it is important to try and keep unaltered images as well as the altered ones though. You wouldn't want to add features that were never there an in fact it probably is useful to actually keep using film cameras for the same reason they try to leave some parts of archaeological sites untouched. In future there may be better ways to glean information from the negatives than we now have.
Digital images only have what bits there are. That is their strength and weakness.
I am experimenting by posting this from flickr's "blog this image" feature so that I can include an image in the post. Otherwise it might be awkward copyright-wise. I think I am in the clear doing it this way. I might have to come back to clean things up to make the post fit a bit better into the Stump.