I have to say that I have a complete disconnect with this statement from
Lodewijk:
"professional
photographers ... can process actually thousands of images per hour - so if
they are
willing to spend a few hours and are helped by the right equipment (jury
tool!) they can process a /lot/." for screening entries for the jury.
Viewing 1 image every 3 seconds would be 1200 images per hour, but with the
inevitable break to keep your eyes from glazing over and your mind from
wondering, it's probably 1,000 per hour on a practical basis. Somebody
yesterday (Mexico?) gave some numbers that suggested more like 100 per
hour, a factor of 10 difference.
Given that there is some computer/connection dependent time involved in
displaying a photo and recording the result, I just don't see how viewing a
photo for 3 seconds gives any real basis for screening.
There are quite obviously some photos that can be screened out very
quickly. I'd say 10% or maybe even 20% of the photos I saw last year, I
wouldn't consider putting in Wikipedia, e.g. highly over-exposed, or very
dark, or my pet peeve - signs - "This way to the Statue of Liberty". These
can be screened out quickly, but others will take some time. I'd also say
that about 20% of the photos in the US last year were quite good, maybe
even "approaching professional quality." Running by these in 3 seconds or
less, it would be impossible to do a quality job of screening. Maybe you
could identify a certain type of lighting, or an obvious wow factor on
many, but I'd think that at least half of deserving photos would be left
behind.
For those countries with more than 10,000 photos to screen the difference
is huge. 10 hours of screening (should be pretty easy to handle) vs. 100
hours (a real organizing challenge and time commitment).
BTW, I don't think the jury tool has been designed to process over 10,000
photos.
Pete
User:Smallbones