>>3880424Don't attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. I simply missed that one when I was going through and looking for guesses to make the table--his reply was just formatted a little differently and it didn't stand out to me when I was skimming the thread.
I also fucked up and listed a consensus row as incorrect when it was correct, and that wasn't a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the data either.
Here's an updated version of the table.
A few data points I find interesting:
* the strongest agreement was that #3 was a Leica shot (but it wasn't)
* Picture 11 (
>>3879553) is the only shot that made me go "Okay, yeah, those corners look really smeary, maybe there really is something to this" but only got a 4:2 agreement in the consensus (although one of the people who guessed wrong on it was the guy who said he was just guessing, so maybe it should count as 4:1 agreement)
* No one commented on the picture filenames
* The guy from
>>3879573 was wrong, that was a genuine Leica shot using the 7Artisans lens, and while I didn't do any vignetting correction on it (or any of the other photos), I did slightly crop and straighten that one so the fence was straight.
