The devil is in the details (camera question)

[sixty_four]

I must be in bizarro world. I'm the only one who is actually at the location where the picture was taken. I am telling you the one the Pixel took straight out of the camera looked NOTHING like the scene I was looking at. Why would someone actively want a photo to not represent real life? I don't get it. Seems like people are simply being apologists (or have really really bad eyesight).

I'm seeing the same thing as you - saturation and detail look extremely over-exaggerated in the Pixel 2 shot.

Apologists, please get some consistency. When the display is attacked for being dull and lackluster, it's "color accurate and supposed to be that way." When the camera is criticized for oversaturation and oversharpening, it's "who doesn't want a camera that highlights color and detail?"

 

[nelamvr6]

I disagree with the characterization of the Pixel 2 photo as oversaturated. i would instead say that the other photo is deal and washed out.

I wasn't there to see the original scene, but to my eyes the Piixel 2 photo looks MUCH better.

 

[teamnowak]

Having examined the photos more closely I would like to apologize to teamnowak for this comment. It was uncalled for.

I appreciate owning up to this. I was asking a sincere question, and I don't believe I'm one who is prone to exaggeration.

 

[teamnowak]

I disagree with the characterization of the Pixel 2 photo as oversaturated. i would instead say that the other photo is deal and washed out.

I wasn't there to see the original scene, but to my eyes the Piixel 2 photo looks MUCH better.

Perhaps we have different needs. I think the goal of this type of photography should be to represent as close to as possible what I'm actually seeing. That way I can record things in my life that interest me (usually not a dirty table ;-) and share them. You will just have to take my word that the Pixel shot in no way represented real life. Perhaps you are looking or a more artsy shot or something. I prefer to apply art filters myself, not have them thrust upon me by software.

 

[LeoRex]

Perhaps we have different needs. I think the goal of this type of photography should be to represent as close to as possible what I'm actually seeing. That way I can record things in my life that interest me (usually not a dirty table ;-) and share them. You will just have to take my word that the Pixel shot in no way represented real life. Perhaps you are looking or a more artsy shot or something. I prefer to apply art filters myself, not have them thrust upon me by software.

The only issue I would say is that it missed the white point. HDR+ doesn't apply much of any additional noise reduction or sharpening other than what gets refined when it builds the final image from the set.

A bad white point will screw up a shot. And for whatever reason, it seems to get confused with there finish on that table. Try taking the same shot, but toggle the color temp settings and see what pops out.

 

[mwboost]

I get both results depending on light or the situation /object. I can see what you mean though.

 

[Mike Dee]

Maybe it depends on the subject, distance and lighting.

This picture is about as real as it gets