=Bob= wrote:

> Then you might not have not judged fairly. I would believe judges
> should be aware of the rules, from irtc:
> 
> =======================================================
> Images must not be enhanced or altered ('post-processed') by use of
> paint programs such as PhotoShop(tm) etc. There are exceptions to
> this rule:
> 
> You may convert images to JPEG format.
> 
> You may add text information (name, title, email address, copyright.
> etc...) to your image.
> 
> You may gamma-correct and contrast/brightness adjust the image.
> =======================================================
> 
> =Bob=

While this is permitted by the rules, there is still a "spirit" or 
"intent" to those rules.

I certainly don't have a problem with someone making a 5% adjustment of 
brightness, which can be simply correcting the difference as seen on 2 
different monitors. That is clearly a "normal correction", and well 
within the intent of the rules. (And one I wish I had made on my "Great 
Inventions" entry which looked great on my girlfriend's LCD when I 
submitted it, but was WAY darker on my CRT when I viewed it at home...)

On the other hand, a 50% brightness combined with a 65% contrast would 
be completely changing the rendered image and goes well beyond what I 
would perceive as the intent of the rules.

Probably (fortunately) not a common occurance, but there was an entry in 
one round (surreal maybe, I forget which) that looked like it was a 
fairly simple image that had been heavily tweaked with contrast to get a 
very striking effect, and I remember marking it down because there just 
didn't seem to be any way it could have been rendered like that. I also 
recall it getting a few comments about not explaining in the .txtfile 
how that was done, so I guess I'm not the only one who thought so.

I guess its all pretty subjective how people score those. Where is the 
line between normal corrective adjustments and artistic tweaking? If I 
had made the adjustment on my "Great Inventions" entry would anyone have 
known the difference? Especially since I later re-rendered the image 
myself with a .1 difference in assumed_gamma and got pretty much the 
same thing, so it could be done in the renderer.

RG

Post a reply to this message