 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The results (top 10) :
Image AMerit TMerit CMerit Overall
======== ====== ====== ====== =======
strike 16.068 17.386 14.955 16.1364
ac_vs_eb 14.600 14.889 14.711 14.7333
afrog 15.378 14.911 13.222 14.5037
fmenc 14.023 13.750 14.068 13.9470
8_forgiv 14.867 13.911 12.711 13.8296
spider 14.822 14.267 12.356 13.8148
13kitty 12.682 14.932 12.750 13.4545
tbenc01 13.578 14.089 12.667 13.4444
food101 12.467 12.378 13.978 12.9407
stonegod 12.886 12.818 12.727 12.8106
====================================================
I find this very interesting....
The votes on strike.jpg are curious.
I gave it 18-20-13, so clearly artistically and technically I thought it
was a top image. I had tbenc01.jpg @ 18-19-14, the two being tied
for the top score.
The thing I don't understand is how the "concept,originality"
of strike.jpg was the top of all the images entered.... there
were certainly more novel interpretations of "first encounter".
Cross-"contamination" of voting categories, perhaps?
Dan
--
http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> was a top image. I had tbenc01.jpg @ 18-19-14, the two being tied
> for the top score.
... thanks for that high scoring on my picture! ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dan Connelly wrote:
> The results (top 10) :
>
> Image AMerit TMerit CMerit Overall
> ======== ====== ====== ====== =======
> strike 16.068 17.386 14.955 16.1364
> ac_vs_eb 14.600 14.889 14.711 14.7333
> afrog 15.378 14.911 13.222 14.5037
> fmenc 14.023 13.750 14.068 13.9470
> 8_forgiv 14.867 13.911 12.711 13.8296
> spider 14.822 14.267 12.356 13.8148
> 13kitty 12.682 14.932 12.750 13.4545
> tbenc01 13.578 14.089 12.667 13.4444
> food101 12.467 12.378 13.978 12.9407
> stonegod 12.886 12.818 12.727 12.8106
>
> ====================================================
>
> I find this very interesting....
>
> The votes on strike.jpg are curious.
>
> I gave it 18-20-13, so clearly artistically and technically I thought it
> was a top image. I had tbenc01.jpg @ 18-19-14, the two being tied
> for the top score.
>
> The thing I don't understand is how the "concept,originality"
> of strike.jpg was the top of all the images entered.... there
> were certainly more novel interpretations of "first encounter".
I agree, but in a different way.
Again, due to timing, other tasks, etc, I didn't have the chance to vote,
but I did look at all the pics.
I thought the Pearl Harbour pic was the best in terms of Tech merit, and
Concept (not top, but very good), but I wouldn't have given it top honours
for artistic merit.
Ever notice how the top 6 pics almost ALWAYS end up being the top 3 and the
3 honourable mentions? No one gets, say, 20th overall, and the top artistic,
or tech prize.
Also, no one seems to have drastic variation between the 3 categories. There
are no 10, 10, 18 kind of values. Instead, they are all within about 2
points of eachother..
Anyways, I found it odd..
Simon
http://home.istar.ca/~sdevet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
: Dan Connelly wrote:
: Cross-"contamination" of voting categories, perhaps?
Simon de Vet <sde### [at] istar ca> wrote:
: Ever notice how the top 6 pics almost ALWAYS end up being the top 3 and the
: 3 honourable mentions? No one gets, say, 20th overall, and the top artistic,
: or tech prize.
: Also, no one seems to have drastic variation between the 3 categories. There
: are no 10, 10, 18 kind of values. Instead, they are all within about 2
: points of eachother..
This is exactly what I have been whining about several times here. As
Dan excellently said it, cross-contamination of voting categories.
A stunning looking image -> High score on each category.
An ugly image -> low score on each category.
The question is: Can we do anything about this?
--
main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
*_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Mika wrote in message <36a21507.0@news.povray.org>...
>
> The question is: Can we do anything about this?
Take a look at "My Voting Philosophy" thread in irtc.general. The objective
part
in the voting process is the technical one. It would be a good idea to set
a range -or
part- of the total to each field, and then divide and assign those points.
To me, such approach
is entirely to everyone, this is, personal. But I think it is a good
idea -to me, again- to unify concepts.
Although such evaluation will be more work and time, it will be worthy
regarding fairness.
Marjorie Graterol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Pedro Graterol wrote:
> Nieminen Mika wrote in message <36a21507.0@news.povray.org>...
> >
> > The question is: Can we do anything about this?
>
> Take a look at "My Voting Philosophy" thread in irtc.general. The objective
> part
> in the voting process is the technical one. It would be a good idea to set
> a range -or
> part- of the total to each field, and then divide and assign those points.
> To me, such approach
> is entirely to everyone, this is, personal. But I think it is a good
> idea -to me, again- to unify concepts.
> Although such evaluation will be more work and time, it will be worthy
> regarding fairness.
>
> Marjorie Graterol
Perhaps the i.r.t.c. newsletter should address these issues. I'm not sure
of how many of the judges are currently monitoring these groups yet,
as they as still fairly new, and the importance if this issue could be
addressed to a larger body of people. Anyboy out there reading this
subsribe to the newsletter ? Who runs it and how does one submit
material to it ? Perhaps a digested collection of the responses to this
and the other similar threads could be sent out as and eduactionl
aid in the fairness and responsibility of being a judge.
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Simon de Vet wrote:
>
> Dan Connelly wrote:
>
> > The votes on strike.jpg are curious.
> >
> > I gave it 18-20-13
> I thought the Pearl Harbour pic was the best in terms of Tech merit, and
> Concept (not top, but very good), but I wouldn't have given it top honours
> for artistic merit.
Interesting.
I gave three 18's in artistic (the top scores on this area) :
strike
tbenc01 ( the fish and the flowers )
2010
The top score I gave for concept was 17, the image receiving
it cbh_fe (the birth image).
strike was the only 20 tech. tbenc01 was the only 19.
For me, tech is "given a sketch of the scene, how well has the artist
rendered the sketch?".
While artistic is "how well was the sketch generated?"
Concept is "how well did the sketch represent the topic?" A 20 concept
would be an award-winning cover on a book with a title of the topic
(in this case, "First Encounter")... it really needs to say something
special about it. Did strike meet this sort of standard? Not
even close. It was above average in concept, though (avg was 11.12,
stdev 3.7).
So I thought strike had all the right artistic elements:
Effective use of foreground and background.
Novel camera viewpoint.
Novel camera orientation.
Careful use of lighting.
Image conveys emotion.
Image conveys a story.
Effective use of color.
(I leave texture to tech.)
It wasn't blow-away incredible artistically... which is why I didn't
give it a 19 or 20.
But technically -- amazing. I was stunned. Nearly perfect -- down to the
historical details. Definitely professional grade stuff.
Dan
http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dan Connelly wrote:
> But technically -- amazing. I was stunned. Nearly perfect -- down to the
> historical details. Definitely professional grade stuff.
>
> Dan
> http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/
Agreed. Had the contest round be titled "First Strike" it would have
had no contenders. But it's relevence to the topic was a bit dubious.
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <36a21507.0@news.povray.org>, Nieminen Mika <war### [at] cctutfi> wrote:
> This is exactly what I have been whining about several times here. As
>Dan excellently said it, cross-contamination of voting categories.
> A stunning looking image -> High score on each category.
> An ugly image -> low score on each category.
>
> The question is: Can we do anything about this?
Probably not. Remember that the artistic and interpretation are going to
depend heavily on the technical merit of the piece simply for natural
reasons; and the interpretation score will depend heavily on the artistic
merit of the piece.
An artist might have a brilliant artistic concept that falls perfectly
within the topic, but unless they have the technical skill to show that
concept to the voters, they're going to get lower artistic and topic
scores. The better they are technically, the better they'll be able to
show us their concept. This means that, given a number of images of
equally good artistic and interpretive merit in the artist's concept,
those whose artists have better technical skills will tend to higher
scores in those categories.
Similarly (but to a lesser extent, I think), an artist who is better at
expressing an artistic concept will also end up being better at fitting
their concepts to a theme. So that there will also be cross-contamination
from the "artistic" score to the "concept" score.
I suppose you could "do something about this" by basing your artistic and
concept scores on the text description, but then you'd be giving higher
scores for the skill of writing :*)
Jerry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jerry Stratton wrote:
>
> In article <36a21507.0@news.povray.org>, Nieminen Mika <war### [at] cctutfi> wrote:
> > This is exactly what I have been whining about several times here. As
> >Dan excellently said it, cross-contamination of voting categories.
> > A stunning looking image -> High score on each category.
> > An ugly image -> low score on each category.
> >
> > The question is: Can we do anything about this?
>
> Probably not. Remember that the artistic and interpretation are going to
> depend heavily on the technical merit of the piece simply for natural
> reasons; and the interpretation score will depend heavily on the artistic
> merit of the piece.
>
> ...
> I suppose you could "do something about this" by basing your artistic and
> concept scores on the text description, but then you'd be giving higher
> scores for the skill of writing :*)
>
> Jerry
While I agree "contamination" is inevitable, and there is a strong correlation
in scores I give between categories, I still assert it is extreme that strike
ranked #1 in this category.
Re writing -- the writing is important. An example was the "PVC Man" image...
with an alien among toy men with a question mark over his head. Many voters
said the alien looked too much like the toys. The obvious interpretation
of this is a lack of "tech"... reusing a model. The author responded in email
that this was intentional -- the alien was confused because he had assumed the
figures, which bore his resemblance, were the most intelligent life forms,
and thus sought to contact them. Unfortunately this wasn't mentioned
in text, so his tech and his concept scores both likely suffered,
as voters assumed the simpler explanation. Knowing what he intended, I now
consider it a novel interpretation of the theme.
Dan
--
http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
