How Accurate Are PCGS True Views/Ngc's Photovision?

Any coin is going to look better either in-hand or in a photo. That's all in the lighting and the angle of view.

As for "accuracy", I consider TrueView as a primary source to see the true extent of different degrees of toning -- in the OP example, the darker shade to the right on the obverse and the bluish effect below the date and above the eagle. There are also a couple of spots (to the right of her knee and below the beak) that I would not expect to see in seller photos.

When I'm examining a piece for sale online, TrueView is one of the first things I look for, just for these reasons. It can also serve as a test of authenticity of the coin and trust in the seller -- if the coin in question does not seem to have the same markers in TrueView or the seller's own photos are obviously hiding spots or hits, I'm less inclined to deal with that seller.

It's a night and day comparison in TrueViews favor, IMO.

@Steelers72, since you brought it up, here is my well-formed and oft-expressed opinion on the subject:

Basically anybody who posits that PCGS TrueView photos are juiced honestly knows very little about coin photography. Phil is very skilled, and that has nothing to do with opinion. I think that the whole product is clever and classy: "True, View." It is obvious this label was carefully chosen, and is also appropriate. It is apparent to me that the goal is to capture as much of the surface as possible in the truest color of the surface. Obvious challenges are presented in doing this, since you must have shadow if not highlights. What I expect seems unnatural to people about these photos is that they are pictures of metal without the shiny "hot" white highlights. This is probably the most notable aspect of TrueView photography that enables the photos to capture such a high percentage of the surface color still visible. Go ahead, try snapping a pic of any coin you want without those reflections. I'll wait. I can't believe that so many people don't find it obvious that it is a product intended for use as a tool for collectors for many years to come: high-resolution views of the condition of the coin's surfaces regarding color and topography. Making a coin look pretty is not the goal in this case.

There is no version of a coin portrait that can portray what your first impression of the coin is "in-hand." There are literally hundreds or more versions of that look. It is different for each person. That cannot, therefore, be the goal, am I right?

Standards in coin photography with regard to documentation as well as marketing need to be upheld. Any coin photographer with a goal toward honesty is helping to improve the hobby.

Agreed. That is actually a very pretty representation.

What I meant by "hot spots" was the shiny areas of the metal where the light is most reflective in the photo. All of those white highlights on Liberty technically cover up or block the view of the surfaces beneath. However, your example is a perfect case-in-point:
*On one hand, the TrueView provided an accurate impression of what to expect so that when you first did see the coin, you were not disappointed and there were no surprises; you felt there was full disclosure.
*On another hand, for your collection display you find the "in-hand" view much more satisfying. The TrueView offers a view that is not designed for comfort, but instead for accuracy.

Your preference in this example reflects the general consensus from what I've seen (not that I've seen all that much). So now, what if there actually was a coin photographer with the capability of offering real in-hand images that were accurately attractive?

I actively seek out true-views when considering a coin, and I've had no surprises.