Tina <you### [at] foadorg> wrote:

> Geoff Wedig <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote:
>>You actually downplayed the work you did, saying that some things were
>>simple and easy.  Anyone reading that is going to think "Well, if *she*
>>didn't think it was difficult, why should I?"  That'll lower your scores a
>>bit.

> The only score this /should/ lower is technical, and I should be clearer
> that I wasn't outright insulted by my technical score, although it was a
> bit lower than I thought it might be. It was the conceptual and artistic
> scores I had a problem with. I don't ever expect to get particularly high
> technical scores simply because I know my images are not technically
> intricate, and they'll likely never be. And I don't mind if I end up
> simply average on the other scores, since they're both very subjective,
> and I enter more for the feedback then anything else.

Well, yes, that's the only one that it should decrease, but it's a well
recognized fact that one score leaks into another, especially the artistic
into the other two categories, simple because if someone sees somethign as
attractive, they'll give it high marks for the others simply because they
like it.  There's very little that can be done about this.

> The rest of your comments are appreciated, although I do have to say that
> I don't understand what about my textures you felt were poor. The symbols'
> textures are simple because such things generally are, and of course,
> they're marred slightly by being behind another texture. I suppose I could
> have made the objects ornate but I didn't -want- ornate objects.  As
> beautiful as the very intricate Grail cup entry was, I suspect that if 
> the Grail exists it will turn out to be quite plain. How would you have
> done it differently, if you don't mind my asking?

Hard to say.  Maybe a bit of reflection in the grail, perhaps on the others
as well.  They're all pretty uniformly yellow except for the grail.  I'd
make them either more like the grail, or less like each other.  Having the
grail and the others all of a piece might be nice, and with reflections,
it'd get more of an 'ooh' upon first seeing.

I'd probably also scale everything up, and make them the center of the
image.  This would require some reworking of the CSG, as there are errors
(others have mentioned) that would be too noticable at a larger scale.  I'd
also get rid of or smooth out the egg thing, because right now it hampers
seeing the shapes.

Others have taken on the stars and the earth and such, so I'll not cover
them here.

> As to posting my stuff, if I can ever find a Windows-based newsreader I
> like, that will probably be my alternative to IRTC entries, since all I
> care about is the feedback. Unfortunately it's a little tricky to handle
> the binaries groups with a text-based newsreader. :) I'm currently
> evaluating Forte Agent, I may just buy that and use it.

I use a text reader for reading the posts, and use netscape for posting
images.  I don't like using netscape for reading (I like threaded
newsreaders!), so I only use it when needed.  my text reader will pipe
images to munpack, so I can look at images from it.  Would something like
that work for you, perhaps?

Another option is, if you have webspace, to put them up on the site and post
the URL.  This has the advantage of not cluttering up the newsgroups, though
it has the disadvantage of leaving broken links for newbies if you ever take
the pictures down.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message