There is also something else at work here, as syncopath might be getting at...

None of them are real, all of them are representations. Where does the boundary lie between media that reflects the physical world of photons and film stock, and media that reflects the internal world of the mind?

Consider this: all the "real" photos were so easily confused with the "fake" ones because are also artistic representations, alterations on perception, not real but infra-real. The soft focus of the light on the patio furniture, the washes of color for background with the hammer and nails or the glass of wine, the surreal alteration of the golf ball with what seems to be artificial grass, the color sat...

There is also something else at work here, as syncopath might be getting at...

None of them are real, all of them are representations. Where does the boundary lie between media that reflects the physical world of photons and film stock, and media that reflects the internal world of the mind?

Consider this: all the "real" photos were so easily confused with the "fake" ones because are also artistic representations, alterations on perception, not real but infra-real. The soft focus of the light on the patio furniture, the washes of color for background with the hammer and nails or the glass of wine, the surreal alteration of the golf ball with what seems to be artificial grass, the color saturation in all these photos, these are the creation of an artist, not a duplication of the experiential world. Although they may have used physical objects rather than mental ones to create these pictures, they still show us something we can only find through the lens of a camera or the screen of a computer, something beyond the reach of our mundane eyes.

As a photographer, I am always amazed by the transformative effect that the camera lens has on perception. The way that it creates a separate reality through the selective exclusion of the frame and concentrated absorption of the film stock. It allows me to realize that reality has never been the objective of art, otherwise we would find it hopelessly boring.

Oh, but by the way, I got all of them right. Here's how you can spot it:

1. Textures. Digital images don't have the idiosyncratic textures of natural ones. Examples: The Grass and the nose both have anomalously smooth textures.

2. Depth of field. An optical lens has certain limitations that CG does not, meaning some things will be in focus, and other things will not. Compare the bent nails to the cups. The nails have a higher lighting key, but the rear nail is out of focus. The cups are in a lower light key, yet all are in uniform focus, which is basically not possible in the natural world. Also, the scattered nails picture has inconsistencies in its focus.

3. Impractical Geometry. Since ...

Oh, but by the way, I got all of them right. Here's how you can spot it:

1. Textures. Digital images don't have the idiosyncratic textures of natural ones. Examples: The Grass and the nose both have anomalously smooth textures.

2. Depth of field. An optical lens has certain limitations that CG does not, meaning some things will be in focus, and other things will not. Compare the bent nails to the cups. The nails have a higher lighting key, but the rear nail is out of focus. The cups are in a lower light key, yet all are in uniform focus, which is basically not possible in the natural world. Also, the scattered nails picture has inconsistencies in its focus.

3. Impractical Geometry. Since the digital world does not necessarily conform to the real world, the geometry often takes liberties that it would not in reality. For instance, the angles of the fork and spoon are too shallow, and would make them rather inconvenient. The face also has slight irregularities in geometry. (Our minds are very finely tuned when it comes to faces. It's almost impossible to produce an image of a face that won't be immediately recognizable on some level as fake. Even photos. Thats why we always we look different in the mirror than we do in a photo.)

4. Lighting. Often digital photos lack a clear light source, and are lit by unnaturally diffused light. The slightly inconsistent shadows and reflections for the fork and spoon give it away.

5. Color and effervescence. The physics of imaging get in the way. A digital image creates its color by defining a color that will be emitted by the pixels or projected onto the screen. This I call a "positive color impression." On the other hand, real objects reflect and absorb different wave lengths of light, but most produce no light of their own. This is a "negative color impression." Thus CG images will tend to be effervescent, with pure colors, while real objects will seem darker and muddier.

That said, this is pretty impressive software.