Tina wrote:
> 
> Well, as I said elsewhere, I'm not really bitching about the technical,
> since it's only about a point lower than I'd expected. But artistic 7?
> That bothers me. It bothers me more in the face of what scores above mine
> (a couple naked stone tits is prettier than my image? greaaat...)
> 

I'm also sometimes quite astonished about how certain pictures are rated,
especially in technical category.  IMO artistic merit is quite subjective
and probably a more abstract picture like yours is less appealing to most
voters.  In general I would find it better if voting would focus more on
how much work and consideration is put into a scene, but that's just my
personal opinion.  

I had a look at your entry in the 'horror' round and saw that it is much
less abstract and also gained a much higher score.

> 
> Mostly the light sources (there are two, of which one is the visible
> sun). Some of what may look like reflection is probably the piece of the
> egg that is in front of the Grail.
> 
> I have been thinking about the texture of the egg and possibly something
> smoother would have been better. I wanted it to be possible to see through
> the egg but still have the egg have 'substance'. And it can't be outright
> cracked open; the birth hasn't happened yet.

That's probably the most problematic thing of your picture.  Your problem
is quite understandable, but the grainy transparency has two effects:

- it reduces the 3-dimensionality of the scene
- it does not make clear whether the egg is actually enclosing the objects

Some things that would make this particular picture more appealing IMO:

- making the egg semi-transparent and adding a specular finish to get a
highlight (maybe a bit like a glass egg or a soap bubble).
- a more obvious lighting situation, meaning everything is lit by one
light source (sun) and the planets and objects having clear shadowed
parts.  
- as others mentioned antialiasing which of course is problematic for the
star background.
- rotating the objects in the egg a bit so their 3dimensionality is better
visible.  

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message