Your interpretation of "painterly" was exactly as I meant it---it was
my way of taking those images out of the running as not revealing
details in the leaves. The renditon was not unpleasant, however, and
might serve quite nicely in another context; but as you point out, not
what Moose was after. I don't trust myself to judge things
objectively with a single comparison as the comparison image
undoubtedly will affect the results. If the single pair-wise
comparisons are randomized for each observer and many people pass
judgment, then it should all come out in the wash if the N (# people
choosing) is large enough. The ball is in Moose's court.
Mike
Also, I meant to point out earlier that I didn't consider "painterly"
to be a valid part of the judging criteria unless I misunderstand the
word. Moose was specifically looking for an image that best displayed a
notion of detail in the leaves. My notion of "painterly" is what we see
on an artists canvas which, while it may be beautiful, never represents
the detail one sees even in a not very sharp photograph.
I think, given the limited judging criteria, that one can rank the
images with N-1 comparisons.
Chuck Norcutt
usher99 [at] aol.com wrote:
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
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|