Clarkie, but there is no challenge now, especially if that image you posted turns out to be a render, because in that case it only goes to prove the point further.  It's as photo-real as it gets so how can there be a challenge left?

There is no challenge for "artistic" licence because it is without limit.  The challenge of photo-realism could have been met, so even if you could click your fingers and magically render something as realistic as that, what did you achieve that has not already been achieved?

Nothing, cause someone already beat you to it with something that was already completely convincing.  You can't get more convinging than 'completely convincing' so people would say wow, well done, but while you created a totally convincing render, so have others already.  I suppose it's a challenge for your skills, but in the end all you'd end up with is photorealism, something we get in an instant using our eyes and cameras.

Render or not, it's a picture of Morgan Freeman so it's "artistic" value is whatever value is put upon a photo of Morgan Freeman.

We know when photorealism has been achieved because we have true reality to campare it to.  That's where artisticness and none photographic stuff differs.  Artistic stuff is entirely a result of an individuals imagination.  If that's a render though, it's not the result of the creators artistic imagination.  It's a demonstration of the skill of the person that recreated it in CG and rendered it.  If Morgan turns out to be a render it is totally incredible, but considering the realm of non-photoreal art is infinite, what is left unturned in the race for photorealism?

Baggins' wisecrack makes at least some sense because to me the only point in this photorealism lark is where the use of a human is needed but not practical.  But your own question is kinda dumb, Clarkie.  If you already know you want it to develop your skills, what's the point of the question?

:-D

If that's what you really want, go develop those skills man, and when you get there, don't forget to cringe when you relise it's "individuality" and "artistic licence" that counts, not skill.  I suppose there needs to be a basic amount of skill to get by in your tool of choice, but no great art, no animation, no movie was ever dismissed on the grounds of it's lack of technical slickness - providing it was good enough where it actually matters.