Since the last round, I asked for some help to build a scale, an evaluation
scale. As I stated, I needed orientation in the technical aspect or field
because it is the field I know less. Ken Tyler re-posted a Jerry Anning's
point of view, which I support. Since this is personal, I don't want you to
think I am imposing my scale. I only want you to know that this is the scale
I am using. It is easier for me and eliminates a great deal of guessing, and
"liking", in regard to artistic field.
It is still imperfect though. I would have liked to confine every item to an
easy yes or not, but that is impossible.
Artistic
overall/imp 3
This is a compromised judgement, based on how I perceive the image. It has
to do with the background of the viewer and tests the image's strength to
stand and speak by itself, without the help of the text file or description.
Comp/balance 6
Balance of the composition. How many 'planes' does it have? Foreground
and/or background. Elements of the composition, do they have certain
pattern? Is that pattern innovative? Unity and variety, are they balanced?
Is it static, dynamic? How are all the components arranged? The image, is a
whole?
Composition structure (basic elements)
Line 2
How are they determined, do they play any role? If I deleted them, the
images persist? Do they contribute with my perception?
Color 2
Is there any chromatic harmony, no matter the palette? Do they enhance the
image? Do they contribute with my perception?
Light/mass 2
How is the balance between light and shadows? Do they underline the mass and
volume -if any- or on the contrary? Does it have depth? How is that
achieved?
Texture 2
Is texture the result of the above? How is it enhanced? By the way, is the
texture balanced into the composition? Is it important in the image?
Style 3
Stylistic coherence INSIDE the image, not regarding another work. Style can
be certain way to use colors, lines, textures, lights and so on. This can be
very subjective because of the viewer's background again.
Technical
Here I have to read the description file. Working with POV now in my first
year, has been invaluable. It has prompted me to search, research, read,

with a modeler after you know how to read a file in POV.
Originality 4
Obviously, is it original? Why? If not, why do I think it is not original?
How has been the software used to get the effects the artist says are there?
Is that true?
Overall design 8
Can I understand what is the artist talking -writing- about? How is the
design of the image from inside to outside? What kind of tools is used to
get what? Do I understand it? If not, where is the source? Does the
technical design is the bone of what I see?
Rendering 5
How the code is written and executed? Is there any kind of enhancement? How
does it look like? Is everything intended, in the right place? What about
the quality? Is that a wild compression, or an excellent one?
Usage/create 3

they baseless? E.g., is there a macro to display only two objects? Does it
worth? Is there a reason for that? How the artist manages include files, and
resources, to achieve the image?


Topic
originality 6
Is it a copy as far as I know?
It has to do from using a preset from any program and saying, "I made it",
to a copy from another artist. Some people can make an image like Da Vinci,
and that is just that: "like Da Vinci" without adding any personal
intervention, basically because he/she has spent a great deal of time
copying. Copying is a good technique to learn, not to create. I would spend
time trying to copy one of the characters of A Bug's Life just to achieve a
great texture. Many people start drawing with the help of a grid, only to
get frustrated when they cannot put it aside and enjoy the work.
Rules 6
Abiding by the rules simply put. Size and post-processing. If I cross the
street with a red light I am dead, period. So, correct size, no post-process
except signature and compression. Otherwise, nothing.
Express 8
The big one. Expression. What is this? What is the transcendence of this
image, no matter what the artist say? What does this image mean to me? Since
telepathy is not one of my features, the image only has sense regarding my
perception. I won't waste my time thinking about what does the artist want
to express, that's his/her business. Mine is to appreciate and catch a
meaning coming from the image. An artwork talks. Sometimes is a quiet voice;
some other is a scream, who knows? The description file sometimes
contaminates my perception. It is very easy to agree or disagree with the
author regarding what he/she thinks he/she did, and that is contamination.




Notes. Yes, I have changed this time to Winvote. It is the only way to
evaluate and load my little excel scale in the background.

Any comment to enhance  -specially the technical field- is highly
appreciated.

Regards,
Marjorie Graterol




Greg M. Johnson <"gregj;-)56590"@aol.c;-)om> wrote in message
<36e0a20a.0@news.povray.org>...
>I probably gave something like 18-12-10 to an entry in the last round,
>First Encounter.  The entry was a view up into the bottom of some kind
>of mushroom-shaped spacecraft.  The entry had a brilliant collection of
>bright colors.
>
>ARTISTIC:     Wow. That is pretty.  Neat screensaver. Neat T-shirt. Neat
>wall decoration in my living room.
>TECHNICAL: Hmm.  Probably not that hard to make, just lights and
>coloring.
>CONCEPT:     Nah.  A spaceship?  Whoo-peee.
>
>In thinking about cross-contamination more, I think I've both been the
>victim of it badly, and I think that I may be a pepretrator, and I think
>that it's a too easy criticism to make of a rating you disagree with.
>
>Fabien Mosen wrote:
>
>> just curious :
>> could you cite me an image (even from past rounds) that
>> deserves a vote like 20-10-12 or 10-9-16 or anything like that ?
>> I don't remember seeing one, even after 16 months of IRTC.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Fabien.
>

Post a reply to this message