"Philippe Debar" <phi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:392ba4ba@news.povray.org...
>
> "Rune" wrote:
> > If I see a color logo with lots of details and
> > effects, I will not be able to tell how it will
> > look in a simple black and white version.
> > Therefore I would like to *see* the black and
> > white version.
>
> What can I say???

Take Chris Colefax's logo for example. I have some idea what it will look
like in black and white, but I can't tell for sure if it will look nice
before I have seen it.

> No, what I say is: if the author, who was toroughly
> informed, choosed to not include a B/W version, was
> it a good choice? Was he able to show you things
> that are, after viewing them, more important/difficult
> to see/visualise then the B/W version? Or was he
> trying to impress you with effects and to mask his
> logo's lack of substance?
>
> Hence: author responsability.

The point here is that there's a RULE saying the the logos must work in
black and white, and there's a reason that rule were made. Therefore the
voters should be able to see how the logo looks in black and white.

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated April 25: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message