Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Eyelight" data-source="post: 423531" data-attributes="member: 24753">I think the sampling was small but the results were actually what would be expected via hindsight.1/3 viewed as too close to call, the rest were spread around the middle ground and no one picked #4 which is likely the least sharp.The crop size was 3398 width, so if we made prints of the full size images, I think we'd get similar results provided no one brought a magnifying glass.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp;[USER=16844]@Lawrence[/USER] I think mentioned the difficulty of the format, but in a way, it made it more realistic by limiting the view-ablity.Not a perfect test, but interesting.Thanks again for all who took a shot.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Eyelight, post: 423531, member: 24753"] I think the sampling was small but the results were actually what would be expected via hindsight. 1/3 viewed as too close to call, the rest were spread around the middle ground and no one picked #4 which is likely the least sharp. The crop size was 3398 width, so if we made prints of the full size images, I think we'd get similar results provided no one brought a magnifying glass.:) [USER=16844]@Lawrence[/USER] I think mentioned the difficulty of the format, but in a way, it made it more realistic by limiting the view-ablity. Not a perfect test, but interesting. Thanks again for all who took a shot. [/QUOTE]

Verification