Actually, the difference between Se and Si in paintings is interesting:
My Mom was an artist, and she always painted realistic reflections of objects. (Se)
She was sensational at painting fruit and flowers. They were so realistic, it was stunning. She captured lighting and shadows to such a degree, you didn't think you were looking at a painting.
There's an old story behind that link.
Sim had insulted an ISTP who claimed to be "looking at the big picture." Sim thought it was funny, as if to suggest SPs couldn't possibly be "big picture" people. That's when I got annoyed with him, since I knew darn well what Linda Berens had written about SPs. That was the link I posted.
This is important:
Last year I was reading poki's posts and I kept picking up an Ni vibe from them. I think I even asked him, "Are you sure you're ISTP?" Well, shouldn't we be asking ourselves why people are making such a big deal in this forum about S and N when according to data I have seen, SPs are the most likely to think they're N? And why should that come as a shock, knowing full well we do not just develop the first two processes? It is very sloppy thinking, indeed, if people don't realize that everyone develops their processes at different rates of speed, and by claiming to prefer S doesn't mean you don't use intuition.
In addition, the biggest problem I see in this forum are people who are still attributing natural skill to the Dom function. Just because someone claims their Dom function is Ni or Ne, doesn't mean they are in any way gifted at "using" it. Frankly, they could be completely inept. So inept, they could actually use that as an excuse to think they're another type. I recall a member using that very line of reasoning for choosing ENFP over ENTP. I sat here thinking, "Did it ever occur to you you're really not an ENFP but an ENTP with poor Ti?"
All food for thought . . .