I have a problem with giants.jpg. It seems to me that it breaks an important
IRTC rule :

> 5. Image file
>
>	e. (...) You may not use an image that you created in the past. (...)

I had the feeling that I already saw this image somewhere. On some web
site I would not remember the name, perhaps? No! After checking, it
appears the very same image was submitted in 1998 november-december
round, under the name dpcgiants.jpg.

This, in fact, is not exactly the same image, when you come to look closely.
But the overall composition of the image is the very same. This is an improved
version, no a new one using previous work. And this is what the author says in
his accompanying text file.

So, I post this message in order to warn all who vote this round.
("Take what you think are appropriate measures")

This, by the way, raises a question : does anyone read the text
files? Okay, I know you do, so how does it come no one over a 10-day period
noticed the "This is a rework of an image I did two years ago" sentence?

Happy voting,


							Adrien

Post a reply to this message

Adrien Beau <adr### [at] freefr> wrote:
: I have a problem with giants.jpg. It seems to me that it breaks an important
: IRTC rule :

  I remembered that image and searched it in the previous rounds and found
it. I voted 1-1-1 (giving explanation).

: This, by the way, raises a question : does anyone read the text
: files? Okay, I know you do, so how does it come no one over a 10-day period
: noticed the "This is a rework of an image I did two years ago" sentence?

  I read that too (and it helped me finding the other image).
  However, I think, usually people do not pay much attention to this kind
of sentence.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

"Adrien Beau" <adr### [at] freefr> wrote in message
news:396B9874.C5CE2BC4@free.fr...
> I have a problem with giants.jpg. It seems to me that it breaks an
important
> IRTC rule :
>
> > 5. Image file
> >
> > e. (...) You may not use an image that you created in the past. (...)
>
> I had the feeling that I already saw this image somewhere. On some web
> site I would not remember the name, perhaps? No! After checking, it
> appears the very same image was submitted in 1998 november-december
> round, under the name dpcgiants.jpg.
>

I recognised it as well, but gave the author the benefit of the doubt. I'd
assumed it had cropped up in binaries.images. I'd have been a lot harsher if
I'd realised it had been submitted to a previous irtc round. Oh, well. I
didn't give it a massive score. Western civilisation is probably safe ;)

Post a reply to this message

Adrien Beau <adr### [at] freefr> wrote...
> This, in fact, is not exactly the same image, when you come to look
closely.
> But the overall composition of the image is the very same. This is an
improved
> version, no a new one using previous work. And this is what the author
says in
> his accompanying text file.

I also noticed the similarity right away.  However, although I feel that
this was a very poor choice on the part of the artist, I don't think that it
breaks the rules.  The artist seems to indicate that the image was re-done
completely from scratch.  Only a review of the source code for the two
images could confirm or deny that.  If much of the image components are
re-used, than this would definatly be bad.  But, if the image is a
completely new image, then I don't see a problem, other than the fact that
we've seen it before so now the "concept" is less interesting.

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] koppcom> wrote:
: I also noticed the similarity right away.  However, although I feel that
: this was a very poor choice on the part of the artist, I don't think that it
: breaks the rules.  The artist seems to indicate that the image was re-done
: completely from scratch.  Only a review of the source code for the two
: images could confirm or deny that.  If much of the image components are
: re-used, than this would definatly be bad.  But, if the image is a
: completely new image, then I don't see a problem, other than the fact that
: we've seen it before so now the "concept" is less interesting.

  Compare the two images side by side. If you ignore texturing and lighting
they are almost identical. I can't believe the new one is made completely
from the scratch.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

> The artist seems to indicate that the image was re-done
> completely from scratch.

And this is true. If you compare the two images (thanks to
the IRTC CDs), you'll notice that in fact everything is new.
He redid the sword, armor, hairs, postures, etc.

But the pose and general composition have not changed. Just
stand one step away from your monitor, and it will be hard
to tell the difference.

> If much of the image components are
> re-used, than this would definatly be bad.

That's the problem, they're all new, yet the same. Just like
Andy Warhol series of Marylin, you see. Everything is changed,
everything is the same.

Not speaking of rules, do you think submitting the "same"
image over and over is very sensible? This is not in the
spirit of the competition, which is to create *new* images,
much more than new objects to put inside them.

I mean I prefer a new image with objects seen here and there
on the web, or in previous works from the artist, than the
same image done and redone.

Post a reply to this message

i don't think it breaks rules, but where i think it would be just fine
to redo an image previously posted to .images, i think redoing an image
previously posted in the competition is kinda poor sportsmanship, if you
know what i mean, and should simply be judged accordingly by the
voters.  the least the artist should have done was reuse the models but
change the camera angle and scene compostition.  i mean, really, how
hard would it have been?

Adrien Beau wrote:
> 
> > The artist seems to indicate that the image was re-done
> > completely from scratch.
> 
> And this is true. If you compare the two images (thanks to
> the IRTC CDs), you'll notice that in fact everything is new.
> He redid the sword, armor, hairs, postures, etc.
> 
> But the pose and general composition have not changed. Just
> stand one step away from your monitor, and it will be hard
> to tell the difference.
> 
> > If much of the image components are
> > re-used, than this would definatly be bad.
> 
> That's the problem, they're all new, yet the same. Just like
> Andy Warhol series of Marylin, you see. Everything is changed,
> everything is the same.
> 
> Not speaking of rules, do you think submitting the "same"
> image over and over is very sensible? This is not in the
> spirit of the competition, which is to create *new* images,
> much more than new objects to put inside them.
> 
> I mean I prefer a new image with objects seen here and there
> on the web, or in previous works from the artist, than the
> same image done and redone.

Post a reply to this message

ryan constantine wrote:
> 
> i don't think it breaks rules, but where i think it would be just fine
> to redo an image previously posted to .images, i think redoing an image
> previously posted in the competition is kinda poor sportsmanship, if you
> know what i mean, and should simply be judged accordingly by the
> voters.

This is precisely what I meant to say! And it seems that hopefully
most voters judged it "accordingly".

> the least the artist should have done was reuse the models but
> change the camera angle and scene compostition.  i mean, really, how
> hard would it have been?

As he said, he "liked the composition". I wonder how many times he
will redo his image?  :-)

Post a reply to this message