>>4461773
If we define "fake shit" as something that looks unnatural, or now how we humans see it through our eyes, then you could say a huge portion of photography is "fake shit". Human eyes can't really render a shallow depth of field, they can't see really far away compressed objects up close like you can with a telephoto lens, you can't see super super wide like you can with a circular fisheye. I don't think something looking fake inherently makes it shit, so long as the photographer can explain it and accommodate it into their coherent artistic vision for the photo.