Originally Posted by Sowelu
While I agree that images can be a bit off depending on a viewer's individual monitor settings (and the translation to digital images), it won't be by much.
Logically speaking, if someone's own monitor settings would make the Dell's panel on the right look like it has more contrast, it would do the same for the Sony on the left, etc. So, what you see above would be a good benchmark even if not 100% exact as in person.
My point to all this is that cameras (and monitors) are quite limited in the dynamic range that they can capture (or show) compared to your own eyes. Depending on how you have captured the scene with your camera, you may have properly exposed for the darker areas to capture more detail and contrast in those areas, while "washing out" the brighter areas. In reality, those brighter areas can contain wonderful color and contrast that you can see with your own eyes but just don't see in the picture because of the limited dynamic range that can be captured by the camera. On the other hand, you can set your camera to properly expose for the lighter areas, but now you lose some detail and contrast in the darker areas.
I bet that all one has to do to make the pictures of the Sony display look better than the Dell's is to meter (or set the exposure level) for the brighter areas, and then most people will be thinking "Wow, that Dell looks so dark, you can hardly make out any of the details, while the Sony looks so much more vibrant and rich with colors". The fact is a lot of people are quick to judge based on what they see in pictures, and they base their decisions on these impressions without digging deeper, as evidenced by many of the comments made since those pictures were posted.
Bottom line - there's no way to really tell which screen truly has better contrast or deeper, richer colors from pictures alone -- you need to see the actual screens with your own eyes in an environment where you would normally use it.