Review sites (was FZ20 v's S2)
In article <J6GPe.firstname.lastname@example.org et>,
"Cordovero" <email@example.com> wrote:
> I think the most
> useful feature are comparison photos, but very often they are not really
> comparable, because the pictures are taken on different days from different
> spots (for the outside photos -- is it that hard to find a spot on the
> ground that you always use for the tripod?) and there are even variables in
> the inside shots.
Agreed. I worked in the Consumer Products Evaluation industry and some
of the reviews make me cringe. For comparisons you MUST have consistent
conditions. They might get away with outside shots in California or
Nevada, with pretty regular weather, but even that might require waiting
a day or three for cloud cover, sun angle, etc to return to their
designated baseline. It probably wouldn't be worth it for anyone running
a web site.
Even interiors could be tricky to do consistently, unless they were
always shot at night with wholly artificial lighting. About the only
thing they can really get consistently are the still-life arrays. I
would like to see a page of fine-print text included amount the Mickey
|All times are GMT. The time now is 06:09 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.