Realism cannot be art. Art, by definition, is non-realistic. Whenever there has been a realistic movement in the history of art, it was merely a reaction against an extremely non-realistic preceding trend. Art exists to utilize realism and transform it into non-realism. Now, in photography and cinema, there is a provocative issue: both start with utterly realistic elements. Photography describes reality with absolute precision. Thus, realism is its raw material. The effort made by the photographer, who understands this problem, to transcend realism, involves many traps, such as doing something clearly non-realistic, whether with old analog technology or much more easily today with digital technology. This is a mistake because it doesn’t make use of the raw material of photography. Therefore, we must go beyond realism, yet maintaining a silent agreement we have with this medium and our relationship with the viewer: a contract of verisimilitude. Indeed, if we look at a good photograph and are transported live to the scene where it was taken, we will always see that the relationships of the things, the values of the depicted have been altered by the intervention of the photographer. However, there is always this respect for verisimilitude. To put it simply, you cannot alter the colors or shapes of reality to such an extent that the viewer realizes it has ceased to be reality. Thus, there is always a hidden contract of verisimilitude that we must not exceed in our attempt for our photograph to be non-realistic.