I like the simplicity/efficiency of that approach but I am not sure it
will properly rank the images or pick a
valid winner unless there is a UCLA dynasty caliber image among the
choices. Sudden death elimination may be too harsh for a carefully
crafted image alternative. As pointed out the comparrison image may
influence the choice.
Sooo, a spunky underdog Gonzaga image may be eliminated in an early
round due to an unfortunate pairing early on.
I would favor the pair-wise comparison with a multiplicative factor of
1 to 3 , with 3 representing a marked difference in favor of the
winning
image in the pair--then add up the points. I think with another
10-15min of study I could determine a final four but as you correctly
point out,though I could ascertain nuanced differences among the
images, proper articulation of that is beyond my abilities.
Getting too close to the monitor can make processing artifacts more
apparent and is likely not fair. I think viewing from a standard
distance should help.
Soo, let the Moose March Madness begin.
Mike
I didn't see the situation as such a big combinatorial problem if you
could (as I mentioned earlier) pick a base image and a comparison image
and have them overlaid as Moose does sometimes to simplify comparison
of
the pair. Choose image #1 as the base and #2 as the comparison. If
the
base is better leave the base at #1 and move the comparison image to
#3.
If the comparison image is better move the base to #2 and then the
comparison to #3. This way there are only N-1 paired comparisons or 10
vs. 55. This assumes, of course, that you do not change your judging
criteria mid-way through the process (eg; "edgiest" vs "most
painterly") :-)
Chuck Norcutt
usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Wow,
> Finished up relatively early at work, but this is a tough
> determination. Difficult form a processing vantagepoint and for
> experimental design in picking a favorite. Should be 55 pair-wise
> comparisons (11 items taken 2 at a time) The adjacent image seems to
> influence the impression as well. 2 seems the the brightest and
> "edgiest"--perhaps more LCE + sharpening? 4 and 9 seem more
painterly
> with 4 clearly different than all the others. The latter two have
less
> texture (?microcontrast) but not unpleasant. I wouldn't pick them as
> my favorite unless I am right on top of the screen.
>
> I can't keep the nuances straight on all the choices w/o much study
> at this hour--so can't pick a clear winner.
>
> MMM (mostly manual focus, Mike)
>
>
> Today I decided to try some different approaches to the problem.
Anyone
>> with sharp eyes is invited to peruse a bunch of alternatives and
give
> me
>> their opinions. Those who can't MF focus anymore may see little
>> difference between some (most?) of them.
>> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Foliage/DownTexture.htm>
>>
>> Any help appreciated.
>>
--
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|