Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Foliage in web images [was Mud Season in Maine]

Subject: Re: [OM] Foliage in web images [was Mud Season in Maine]
From: usher99@xxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:29:29 -0400
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/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz