Dan Connelly wrote:

> The results (top 10) :
>
> Image        AMerit   TMerit   CMerit    Overall
> ========     ======   ======   ======    =======
> strike       16.068   17.386   14.955    16.1364
> ac_vs_eb     14.600   14.889   14.711    14.7333
> afrog        15.378   14.911   13.222    14.5037
> fmenc        14.023   13.750   14.068    13.9470
> 8_forgiv     14.867   13.911   12.711    13.8296
> spider       14.822   14.267   12.356    13.8148
> 13kitty      12.682   14.932   12.750    13.4545
> tbenc01      13.578   14.089   12.667    13.4444
> food101      12.467   12.378   13.978    12.9407
> stonegod     12.886   12.818   12.727    12.8106
>
> ====================================================
>
> I find this very interesting....
>
> The votes on strike.jpg are curious.
>
> I gave it 18-20-13, so clearly artistically and technically I thought it
> was a top image.  I had tbenc01.jpg @ 18-19-14, the two being tied
> for the top score.
>
> The thing I don't understand is how the "concept,originality"
> of strike.jpg was the top of all the images entered.... there
> were certainly more novel interpretations of "first encounter".

I agree, but in a different way.

Again, due to timing, other tasks, etc, I didn't have the chance to vote,
but I did look at all the pics.

I thought the Pearl Harbour pic was the best in terms of Tech merit, and
Concept (not top, but very good), but I wouldn't have given it top honours
for artistic merit.

Ever notice how the top 6 pics almost ALWAYS end up being the top 3 and the
3 honourable mentions? No one gets, say, 20th overall, and the top artistic,
or tech prize.

Also, no one seems to have drastic variation between the 3 categories. There
are no 10, 10, 18 kind of values. Instead, they are all within about 2
points of eachother..

Anyways, I found it odd..

Simon
http://home.istar.ca/~sdevet

Post a reply to this message