Sorry, I'm going to whine a bit again... try to understand :)

  I noticed that at least one person gave to the stills winner image full
20,20,20 points.
  I really don't understand this. Why?
  Technically the image surely deserves all 20 points. Technically it's just
great.
  Artistically... well, it's a nice picture, but I don't think it's SO nice
and SO artistically talented that it deserves full 20 points. Maybe 18 or
something like that. But ok, 20 points may be well argumented.
  But the originality, interpretation of theme... Come on! There is only
a river and some rocks in the image. Where is the originality? I don't think
this part deserves 20 points at all. Something like 10 sounds much better.

  I'm NOT saying that this is not a good winner image, because it is. I'm
just whining about how some people make their votes. 20 points for originality
is not a unprejudiced vote in my opinion. It's more like "Wow! What a great
image! This is absolutely great! I'll give full points!". Seems like some
people don't distinguish between the different voting categories, but
give lots of points for all categories if they just like the image.

  IMHO, if an image is technically excellent, that doesn't mean that it
automatically is also very artistical and original.
  I'm sure that this doesn't work the other way: If an image has a great
concept and it's extremely original, but it's technically awful, it will not
get many points.
  It seems like the technical part of the voting gives 80% of the total points
and the other categories the rest of the 20%.
  This doesn't sound very fair to me.

  (I'm not going to flame anyone disagreeing with me; this is just my opinion)

-- 
                                                           - Warp. -

Post a reply to this message