"Why would-a I want to ruin my picture like-a that?" In fact, I recall an article by a dentist/ dental surgeon, where he analyzed the Dutch Masters' paintings and and said specific medical tooth problems from all that Indies sugar was evident from how accurately the jaws were painted. Because the idea that "realism" is a good thing is extremely recent. The purpose of a portrait was to create an emotional state as well as a likeness. Many of the elements were allegorical and, of course, the likeness was designed to appeal to the person paying for the portrait. If you painted you patron "warts and all," he may decide not to pay you. There's also style. Realism is currently in style and photorealism (which, of course, could not have been conceived without the photograph) is admired. If you did that in the 18th century, it would just look weird to the patron. Not to mention the fact that the photograph changed our perception of what "realistic" is. Several of your examples are realistic portrayals -- they're just not the hyperrealism that you're used to today. You're comparing them to a camera, but in a society where a camera did not exist, they were considered very accurate likenesses. This is yet another example of presentism, where the poster can't understand that people in the past thought differently and looked at things differently than the way we do now. No one in the time frame of the paintings would argue they