The digital camera is especially bad at recording what the eye sees, much more so that emulsion films, IMO. I constantly see over-saturated photos with color so vibrant that it doesn't even look real. Of course much of this is from over-zealous post-processing. I've taken digital pictures of parts of my garden, and soil that is dark brown to the eye is white or grey to the camera even without post-exposure processing, and IR & UV filters employed. It's picking-up wavelengths that we don't even see. I think this is a big reason why photographers fancy themselves "artists" for the most part, rather than "historians" or "journalists". Images today aren't faithfully representative of what was really there, they are what the imager can do with the data he/she took. And ultimately it all gets back to the universe only really existing in the minds of those who observe it, interact with it. If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around, does it make a sound? If there is no-one in the universe to wonder at it all, and their place in it, does it even exist?