No substitute for the real thing, I agree. But, a facsimile is good enough to get some idea as to your own taste. Many photos in books have induced me to see the real thing. I remember looking at a Van Gogh in a museum and thinking it was a much smaller canvas than I imagined. You had to get close to see it well, but it was roped off too far for that.
I was taught in school that the diagonal of the work is the prime viewing distance. I don't know that's always the case, but I want the chance to look from there. I was also taught that a mat was to be big enough at that distance to block out any peripheral vision. That doesn't happen often.
Even calibrated monitors differ. Most of my prints don't match a monitor image exactly. So yeah, but, for the purpose I proposed Joe exercise, most any good book or monitor is good enough. No monitor will duplicate the color in an oil painting. They are too flat. Paint often has a strong third dimension.
There was a news anchor based in DC who was a good amateur photographer. His apartment window overlooked some often seen part of tourist DC. He set up a camera with a longish lens fixed on that spot. Every morning (early), before going to work, he would take a color shot of the scene if it looked interesting. After a year he had 7-8 really nice pictures of the same scene in different weather, empty and mobbed by tourists, etc. It was sometime ago that I saw those in a magazine, but remember them. They were nicely done and showed something many won't see.
Edit:
I just noticed Raid's "Camera types" thread above this one with 133 posts and 10,000+ views. This thread had 66 posts at the same time with 1,200+ views. That should tell you something about the nature of this forum.
