I'm going with Number 6. <g> Seems to me the point of your exercise is this:
How can I drive myself over the cliff? (Tongue inserted half in cheek.) So you
take a few images, You process them normally. Which one do you like better? GO
WITH THAT ONE AND MOVE ON! Photography is a very subjective form of expression.
There is no right answer to the kinds of questions you pose yourself. But there
is a padded room waiting for you if you pose too many of them. Trust me. I've
seen it. <g>
--Bob
On Mar 27, 2012, at 9:48 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> So, how many of your images are you going to be presenting at pixel level?
>
> That's pretty much the heart of the question. Here are several points to
> ponder:
>
> 1. 100% pixels on the E-1 is about equivalent to Chuck's 33% rule with
> a 16MP sensor. The 33% rule is for OUTPUT considerations, though, not
> componant testing.
>
> 2. If presented at 800 pixel width on the web, the differences between
> the lenses is almost insignificant. There are some differences, but
> you really don't learn about them until you zoom in.
>
> 3. Do I present A-B comparison crops? Or do I just show the sample
> images one ofter another on the Gary Reese Lens Test pages for each
> lens? 100% crop or full-frame? And if full-frame, what width?
>
> 4. The application-centric selection. Do I just show the images that
> represent a typical photograph of flowers with wide to moderate
> apertures to exploit bokeh as much as possible? If so, which ranges?
>
> 5. Do I show the apertures which are exclusive to the more expensive lenses?
>
> 6. If a woodchuck could chuck wood, how much wood could a woodchuck chuck?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|