When Nature Looks Fake

Going through all our pictures from San Francisco (my other half mutate to a Japanese when we were there and we have more than 600 pics!) I came across this one. I am not really sure if I like it or not (is a bit 'sappy' for my taste), but what struck me is the fact that at first sight I thought "It looks as if it was photshopped".

I was there, so I know it is a real picture as I know it took him like 10 takes and some yelling to get the birds flying and get it "right". Still it looks a bit unreal, like a not very well done photoshop work.

What makes me think about how difficult it has become to distinguish "fake" from "real". By the same token, digital cameras are making it easier to shoot, shoot, shoot, until something good comes out... so, it makes you wonder, how would artistic photography continue to evolve? How would photographers be measured in the future? How their technique will be appreciated?

I mean, it is just a matter of evolution. I don't think that digital photography and/or how easy it is now to manipulate images is a bad thing, not at all. I am just wondering what we will consider, 30 years from now, a great photography... would it be more on the side of "abstract" objects? Would pure creativity take over technicality? Would these changes split photography into new 'sub-genres'?

What do you think?