How Do You Rate Your Image Quality ?

[Guy Parsons]

I downloaded and looked at the file with JASC Animation Shop. Just 34 frames with delay 3 on each frame and set to repeat forever, no tricks.

So if seeing one direction "permanently" then that's the dominant side of the brain.

Usually I just look away or blink and she randomly reverses. Again it always seems to settle on 50/50 right/left.

As I jump around pages etc and come back to the image she always seems to start going clockwise, never anti-clockwise first up. That's a worry as I thought I was a super logical person and she should start the other way, maybe I'm an old artistic softie who cries in movies after all.

Regards............ Guy

silent tim wrote:

She span clockwise for me, I tried to concentrate and reverse it but nada - noticed her spinning anti clockwise after I changed focus away, and couldn't get her back to clockwise again.

Saved the gif to desktop and ran the loop through photoshop, exact same result, so the sudden reversal is not trickery on the website!

Saved and watched the animated GIF, too. It appears that (somehow) the direction of the playing of the "cine-loop" is reversed (via the GIF itself) in non-regular time intervals - probably a table in the GIF animation instructions that includes some random number time intervals (after which the direction of the playing of the "cine-loop" is reversed) ...

However, it is very clear which direction the figure is spinning in when they are spinning in that clockwise (or counter-clockwise) rotation.

Seems like a joke to me - it is not my "mind". It's very clear what the direction is !!! ...

 

[MooCows]

If I ever get a #5 on my scale, I'll certainly come running through
the forum door like a kid with a C+ average on his report card.

Yes, it's good to think of images in the camera club terms of 1 to 5 scoring.

My simplified look at the scoring method when getting a "judge" to score images is...

Score 1. Waste of time and effort, should be discarded. Technical mistakes.

Score 2. Could do better, something went a bit wrong with technicalities or artistic content.

Score 3. Good average work, basically the keepers, all round competent shot, nothing particularly wrong with it.

Score 4. Better than average, technically spot on, does hold the attention somewhat, suitable to print for the wall.

Score 5. Wish that I had taken that, a brilliant result. Very few usually found.

I tend to discard the 1. stuff and keep the rest as you never know what may be needed in future. If making a slide show then selections from 3 to 5 included. Maybe crops from 2 if need some detail not elsewhere.

If printing then they are selected from the 4 group, or 5 group if I have any, very rare indeed.

As an aside.... thinking along those lines I once had to re-judge hundreds of images in a major inter-club competition after a stuff-up with real judge availability and late delivery of some items. To see how I stood as an untrained judge I analysed the judging style of the other official judges involved (4 I think at the time) and I came in with very similar results to the toughest judge in the group. I then realised that I did seem to know what I was looking at when evaluating images - I just couldn't talk the arty talk if I were to be asked to make artistic comments.

Regards....... Guy

PS. As for my own stuff....

Score 1. = Occasional, not many really.
Score 2. = Quite a few. Usually when experimenting with ideas.
Score 3. = Lots.
Score 4. = A significant but smaller than 4 group quantity.
Score 5. = Rare, cause for a celebration. Fireworks optional.

Check my personal scale once again........
It goes from 1 to 10......... Not 1 to 5
As mentioned, I'm lucky to be a No. 2 on the scale.
Score 5 in my opinion is something that I may one day achieve in showing
but one great image. Other than that, I would most likely be relegated
to at the best, once again a No. 2...maybe 3 on a good day.

But boy howdy...I sure as heck enjoy seeing the 7, 8's and 9's here
from the great kids that make this forum the best place that it is!!!!!!!

Granted, a 1 to 5 scale is something that now deserves to be rated
at a much more critical level.
On that note, I would have to say that I am not even worthy of
grasping the lowest spot on the scale.

Thanks
Kim
--
Shoot first and ask questions later!

 

[Guy Parsons]

I showed that GIF to my daughter who is visiting for the weekend, and she said it pops up in self improvement courses and suchlike and always causes fights about which way the girl rotates. Some see it always CW, some see it always CCW, some have it randomly reverse like I do, some can make it reverse at will.

Here's the other classic one that they show http://www.moillusions.com/2006/05/young-lady-or-old-hag.html - I always see the young lady.

Regards.......... Guy

 

[bondiblue]

In this digital era I think far too many people go crazy with the shutter button, rather than taking the time to pause and think about the composition of the shot - and apply what you are supposed to know.

My father - with an old 1950's voigtlander - had a very high percentage of 'keepers' as he had a gift for composition and took his time - because every shot cost money to process.

 

[Detail Man]

Nemo Turds ...

 

[rkhndjr]

It just struck me that this could be taken two ways. One would be answered like-"Poorly or anyway I like". Has this been brought up? I didn't feel like going over all of them again)

On numerous occasions I have revealed that out of every 100 shots that I take with my cameras, my average rate of what I judge to be "keepers" is 2 (2% of total shots), and my average rate of what I judge to be "gems" is 1 (1% of total shots). Independent of camera used, and experience.

Will you join me in the spirit of full disclosure and reveal your own true photographic success-rate ?

Bear in mind this sobering clue surrounding how people judge their own "IQ":

One of the main effects of illusory superiority in IQ is the Downing effect. This describes the tendency of people with a below average IQ to overestimate their IQ, and of people with an above average IQ to underestimate their IQ .

Also bear in mind this sobering clue surrounding how people judge other people's "IQ":

His studies also evidenced that the ability to accurately estimate others' IQ was proportional to one's own IQ. This means that the lower the IQ of an individual, the less capable they are of appreciating and accurately appraising others' IQ. Therefore individuals with a lower IQ are more likely to rate themselves as having a higher IQ than those around them. Conversely, people with a higher IQ, while better at appraising others' IQ overall, are still likely to rate people of similar IQ as themselves as having higher IQs .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#IQ

Thus, it appears that the lower that you report your own-success rate to be, the better a photographer you are ! So, let's see who dares to claim the lowest success-rate! ...

--



Time, that aged nurse,
rocked me to patience.