"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:
>I'm sorry you felt insulted by your scores - and looking at them, it may be
>that some cross contamination took place on your concept score (i.e. the
>voter's feelings about the technical and artistic merits of your pic
>affected their voting on the concept score). It would have got at least a 10
>from me, which is the minimum I give to any pic that's on-topic.

A 10 would have made me a lot happier.  And you're likely right about the
cross-contamination, but I think that's why I' m so irritated.

>However, the scores on artistic and technical seem fair enough I'm afraid.

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...)

>Apart from the sun, the textures are very grainy (what is the grail
>reflecting? whatever it is, it doesn't look very nice).

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. 

>IMHO, the pic seems cluttered and unfocused - it might be better if you
>dropped the other objects apart from the grail, and dropped the egg as well.

Well, I originally was thinking of doing it another way, but there would
have been just as many objects in that version. The other objects are
meant to frame the central image. I did do a render without them and the
scene looked empty and barren. Possibly there's a middle ground here that
I could try for, but I'm not sure what. Just the stars in the back was
definitely not enough, IMO.

>The planet at the right is clipped too much by the edge of the picture.

Hmm, really? I thought having it entirely visible made the scene layout
seem artificial (which, er, it is, but...)

>Is there any AA on this? It seems very jaggy, particularily the edge of the
>sun.

You know, I honestly don't remember, although... I /think/ 0.3.

Post a reply to this message