Lights and reflections are still a bit off rom reality for pictures. A bit of training allows to tells the differences. But every year it gets harder and harder to tell what is CG and what is not.

For CG objects in motion, I can no longer identified the fakes from real ones since 2003/2004 for big budget movies. The time to detect incorrect lights or reflections is too short now (if possible to detect due to motion blur masking the defects).

ps: I got a score of 9 on 10. :P

8 out of 10

I can't believe the image with the car and buildings in the background is CGI. Amazing what can be done today.

7 as well.

9 out of 10, but I found it hard. Was worried when I pressed the button, because I couldn't really analyse or articulate what was wrong with the CG images; just gut feel that they were "off" somehow. I actually found the BMW the easiest and most obvious.

Comment by David Buck

I find it more amazing how they can create real pictures that look like computer renderings than the other way around. Computer graphics is really good at the shiny polished look with reflections. If you want to make it a real challenge, add in people (especially faces) close-up with a natural scene in the background. Then you'll be stretching what computer graphics can do.

Check out the following pictures to see what POVRay can do these days.

http://hof.povray.org/Boreal_big.html

http://hof.povray.org/warm_up.html

http://hof.povray.org/balanza.html

And I'd like to see computer graphics generate pictures like these (picked at random form Google Image):

http://www.wth.net/images/sportsplus/playground high.jpg

http://www.villagecamps.org/lookback/LEYSIN1/Climbing/images/climbing-resized-at-1200.jpg

http://www.backward-running-backward.com/images/RRSuza.jpg

When you can produce pictures like that with computer graphics, you can really say you've achieved photorealism.