photography

Bazin puts forward the idea that "photography and the cinema ... are discoveries that satisfy, once and for all and in its very essence, our obsession with realism." It made me wonder: is that the reason why photography that can be called art (I mean, let's face it... since the accesibility of the camera to the masses, photography became more of a means to capture a moment and isn't necessarily seen as "art" but seen as a way to capture some kind of memorable moment) isn't so much "actual" reality but something more of a "staged" reality? If so, how can photography be separated from a painting, especially if the photographer or painter has painstakingly taken the time to set up their scene and what not?

With the advent of digital cameras, how often to we see photography "in its very essence?" Bazin writes that "only photography derives an advantage from [man's] absence." But most pictures have been "photoshopped" or digitally altered in some way. Even with film cameras as well. When you develop a picture in the dark room, you control how long it stays in the solution. When you take the picture, you control the light, the setting, etc. I guess you can put Polaroids in that "actual" reality category, but as the medium becomes more and more established, "artists" usually find a way to take photography away from "its very essence."