Ken wrote:

> Matt Giwer wrote:

> >         Looks like another round of fanciful images that are incredible
> > because the creater says they are incredible.

>  I was particularly impressed with the social commentary imparted by
> Nathan's entry this time. Now a day after having seen it I am still
> chuckling at it's content. Reminds me I am going to have to send him
> a note thanking him for brightening my day.

	I don't know the regulars by name yet, which is his image? 

	Other than that my standard comment this time is going to be
"Just another fantasy image." I am not going to deny I finesed it
with the description of the image being incredible given the
image, but still I have a problem. Perhaps the description of the
topic should EXCLUDE certain images. 

	After my first "defeat" in Jan-Feb I have been more or less just
playing with the rules. That is a very bad habit. With
terrain?.jpg I did ALL the interesting work outside of any
rendered and simply showed it. If that is legal then I complied. 

	Anyway, I can see why the folks giving the prises being slow to
comply given the winners they are getting the "right" to
reproduce. Not saying they are bad, by two my top 12 have
included the top six. They just are nto showing the variety and
creativity needed to sell a product. 

	There is just something wrong with the competition that is hard
to put a finger on. 

	Right now, the new one, Monuments, fine BUT the write-up
permitted the "blue fire hydrant" anf that destroyed any limits
on restrictions as as sure as there is cider in my ear there will
be blue fire hydrants. 


-- 
<blink>-------please--don't-----------------</blink>

http://www.giwersworld.org/artii/
http://www.giwersworld.org/artiii/

Finally up on 99/06/22 updated 06/30

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)