On 1/23/2012 8:01 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> What you propose is unknown at the start. If all of the first four are
> better than all the rest then the winner will have been chosen on the
> first pass but not recognized until the end. I did it for years. It works.
> On 1/23/2012 9:26 PM, Wayne Harridge wrote:
>> Sorry Chuck, I don't really agree with this selection process !
>> It doesn't make sense to force somebody to select the "best" from each group
>> of 4. What if the first group of 4 are all "better" than any in the other 2
>> groups of 4 ? You've essentially forced the chooser to select 1 good and 2
>> poor images for the final selection.
I think Wayne and the LR developers have it right in theory. I'm pretty sure
I've seen something on finding the optimum
thing. As I recall, comparing duples and discarding the losers was the optimal
Not saying what you do isn't best for you. I think I prefer paired comparisons.
Four almost identical images makes my
brains and eyes tired just thinking about keeping track of the differences and
evaluating which are more important.
My personal favorite means of comparison is layers, being able to switch
between images without moving my eyes. But
that's certainly not practical for the kind of work which is the subject of
Oh! Right! My principal means of comparison in FastStone is using the full
screen viewer and the arrow keys to switch
images without moving my eyes.
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/