Shay <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message news:3f5a3f4b@news.povray.org...

> Sounds like your criteria for artistic is very similar to mine for
concept.
> I can't use yours because I often find myself heading for the back button
> on some very beautiful, well done, but to me boring images.lol

Exactly my point.  Pretty colors or highly detailed modeling do not
necessarily equate to art.

>
> Have you gotten to the image yet that the guy rendered with *his* *own*
> ray-tracer?

Yeah, I never know how to score that. It's impressive, but at the same time,
unless his ray-tracer does something unique that no other ray-tracer does it
has nothing to do with the image.


>
> I ignore whether or not I believe the concept fits the topic.
Well, I can't ignore it because if everyone ignored it, why have a topic in
the first place?  I do have degrees of fit though, someone who blatantly
ignored the topic gets slammed, as opposed to an image that maybe I'm simply
not comprehending I give the benefit of the doubt. Good reason to always
give a description :-)

I'm afraid
> that a lot of the non-Dali-like images in this round are going to be
> perceived as non-surrealist by the unaware.

Yes, and I suspect my own is in that category, but at least its my own :-).
On the other hand, despite the high number of stairways, clocks and other
Dali spin-offs, there is enough variety in interpretation evident in the
entries that I'm hopeful of an equally wide variety in judging.  (That is of
course assuming that the less Dali afflicted take the time to vote...)


> > composition, use of color, visual appeal.
>
> Agreed, except that I would substitute visual *effect*.

Thank you, 'appeal' wasn't really what I wanted there. Effect is much
better. Actually, after two more cups of coffee, I think what I was really
looking for was "impact". (Leading back to the artistic point about hitting
the back button... if it doesn't have impact, I won't stick around or come
back for more.)


> > Technical bleeds the least,
A
> technical image to me is one that is shaped by the intrant's intentions
> rather than by his convenience.
hmmmm, definitely sounds like bleed-over from the concept/interpretation
channel ;-)


> This is where I find that basing my comparisions strictly on the other
> entries in the round rather than judging each against my own
interpretation
> is most useful.

Good point. Each round has a flavor of its own. I try to keep my own
interpretation mostly in check.  Actually, my first point of reference is
the definition or description in the topic announcement. After I initially
go through all the images I get a general feel for how others interpreted
that definition, sort of a "definition range". The midrange of that becomes
a "10" and image scores are adjusted up or down from there.


Oh, and I see there is 1 non 3d entry in the round.  I feel much better now.
A round without any rules violations at all would be unnatural.

RG

Post a reply to this message