Artist Michael Hanrahan has talked about in length about the limitations of hyper realism. Her arguments are also valid to certain extent.

Hyper realism, she said, seemed to deny her the kind of engagement she wants between artist and spectator, and she intended it as a criticism. It takes a lot of expertise to create a scenario that looks like a photograph, but there are flaws in everything. She claims to have seen a lot of ultra realistic works, and she believes they all have one thing in common, almost like a flaw. They frequently depict settings that are actually quite commonplace, and if they were photographs, they would almost certainly be judged as such.

Knowing that what she sees is a painting does not elevate the image to a higher plane in her thinking. Why? Because, whether it's a painting or a photograph, the image is the image. What makes art and the artist interesting is what the image transmits in terms of meaning. She believes and believes that the greatest artists have another common denominator: they transmitted something that was not visible to the naked eye in the real and natural world.