Aerius -- is your monitor calibrated? It looks like it's about to hail in that one. How low was the ceiling that day?

You're assuming that your camera introduces no colorations of its own (the A-to-D), so unless your monitor is calibrated, even you don't know how accurate the picture is to reality. The only thing you can say with certainty is that the entire system -- A-to-D-to-A -- most accurately represents reality.

Meh, I already knew that I couldnt choose the most "real" one so I chose the one I liked the most (between the first and second, warm but detailed)

Aerius -- is your monitor calibrated? It looks like it's about to hail in that one. How low was the ceiling that day?

You're assuming that your camera introduces no colorations of its own (the A-to-D), so unless your monitor is calibrated, even you don't know how accurate the picture is to reality. The only thing you can say with certainty is that the entire system -- A-to-D-to-A -- most accurately represents reality.

My monitor's fully calibrated with the Colorvision Spyder so it's pretty close to dead on. Short of a $13k professional broadcast monitor it's not going to get much more accurate. The camera's a weak link, but if I'm careful with the settings & exposure it's fairly close and any remaining errors for this type of photograph can be removed in Photoshop. This is why I can't shoot the same photo on a sunny day, my camera would be completely unable to handle the contrast and no amount of editing can fix it.

It wasn't hail, it had rained earlier that day and the air in the river valley still wasn't 100% clear. You couldn't see any fog, but if you looked about a mile into the distance everything was visibly soft & washed out. In the photo, the trees were just far enough to get a bit of that effect.

Did you tweak the most "accurate" one at all?

Well maybe I wasn't there when the recording sessions were first recorded but in my limited experience, I know what an upright bass should sound like when it is a live recording and the difference between a Bosendorfer, and a Yamaha. So if the piano in the recording sounds like a real concert grand rather than an upright, the reproduction is good for me. It may be the mike placement, the recording engineer or the playback equipment responsible for the experience, I can't vary the former but I can maximize the synergy of the latter to make me happy.

Goes along with how i audition gear. I use recordings I made myself with equipment I knew very well...

haha I bet one of the reasons why people would guess 1 or 2 is because of their short attention span

on a related topic, there is also a set limit to how much info the human mind can hold in it's head at once,

as well as time allowed for it to be absorbed by the subconscious if applicable

also the idea that the order in which the information is presented influences our conclusion

We really are an impressionable bunch

I guess that goes with how I audition gear,

1)decide everything I own is flawed

2)try sell it

3)if I can't sell it, forget about it, and find myself enjoying it immensely

4)repeat

The other ones look more like paintings to me, washed out ones. I dunno.

Now, what would be interesting is if ALL the pictures had been accurate because they were simply taken at different times of the day (morning, noon, afternoon, twilight, etc).

In that case, there is no right or wrong, just preference. And I would liken audio more to that example, if anything else.

I would have liked it if they were all the same exact picture.

on a related topic, there is also a set limit to how much info the human mind can hold in it's head at once,

This is a situation where tabbed browsers are great. Simply open each image in a separate tab and you can fly through them or directly compare samples very quickly.

The second and third versions are rubbish, the forth pretty bad too IMO regarding color. For me it'd either be the first or fifth and I prefer the first.

But Nate, aerius says that the 3rd one is an exact replica of nature.

It's just not an exciting thing to take pictures of. There's a reason most photographers post process

My monitor's fully calibrated with the Colorvision Spyder so it's pretty close to dead on. Short of a $13k professional broadcast monitor it's not going to get much more accurate.

I have two monitors (from different manufacturers) side by side both calibrated with a Spyder (in a dark room etc) and they are sooooo fucking different. You are kidding yourself.

It's just not an exciting thing to take pictures of. There's a reason most photographers post process

I convert to JPG does that count?

Edited October 29, 200916 yr by Dreadhead

That's a great shot chris, you should post it not tainted by aerius's asshattedness

I have two monitors (from different manufacturers) side by side both calibrated with a Spyder (in a dark room etc) and they are sooooo fucking different. You are kidding yourself.

Are they LCD or CRT monitors? I have 3 CRTs and a pair of LCDs, the only one that's significantly off after calibration is a 10 year old CRT where the tube is pretty much worn out. The other 4 are pretty damn close to each other with the CRTs having the edge in image quality.

I have two monitors (from different manufacturers) side by side both calibrated with a Spyder (in a dark room etc) and they are sooooo fucking different. You are kidding yourself.

Right, I have done the same thing here at work, and they still look worlds apart, to the point that my boss was bitching about it for days. All fairly recent LCDs.