From an un-scientific point of view: Tabloids and magazines do cover "art". The pick a story, decide on a point of view, find a photo that will quickly convey the point of view, and "enhance" whatever they're trying to say. Angelina is a princess? Find red carpet photo, apply filters, touch up any imperfections. Angelina is a demon? Get that 'alien neck' shot, and increase the contrast. They have less than 10 seconds to grab your attention and convey a basic message.

You have to applaud Britain for taking issue with models who are digitally made to look like human skeletons or airbrushed to impossible perfection, though.

And then there is perception. I'll be brave and pick car renders. We expect deep, highly reflective paint on those, and anything less doesn't look "real". I spent 6 hours in a car dealership yesterday, and even with the showroom lighting, none of those cars looked like the ads on TV. So which is real? The normal daylight/can lights at the dealers, or the huge, blinding lights in a studio?