Is it me, or does the overall quality seem a bit, well, low on the current
round?

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly wrote:
> 
> Is it me, or does the overall quality seem a bit, well, low on the current
> round?

That's difficult to compare.  I think there's no more "bad" or "weak"
images than usual (well, about 50-60 %), but there's no "clear winners"
this time, maybe.

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

Fabien Mosen wrote:
> but there's no "clear winners"
> this time, maybe.

So Gilles didn't participated this time? ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Not funny, Vahur. ;-)
______
David McCabe
mcc### [at] yahoocom
http://homepage.mac.com/davidmccabe/
Jesus loves you! 


>> but there's no "clear winners"
>> this time, maybe.
> 
> So Gilles didn't participated this time? ;-)

Post a reply to this message

In article <3aa3bc01@news.povray.org>, Tom Melly says...
> Is it me, or does the overall quality seem a bit, well, low on the current
> round?
> 

And someone had the impertinence to try and model part of the Mezquita! 
I couldn't believe my eyes. Did it within 2 months too, while I have 
been busy for over 2 years :(( Hopefully he doesn't win ;-)
-- 
Regards,  Sander

Post a reply to this message

Speaking "overall", I had a similar response but figured maybe it was, in
part, my Febuary blues lagging into March.  Or perhaps those 2 days that
Febuary is short makes a difference.  I thought I'd wait a week, look again,
and see if my mood changes. I thought some individual images were notable just
the same.

Tom Melly wrote:

> Is it me, or does the overall quality seem a bit, well, low on the current
> round?

Post a reply to this message

"J Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3AA426DE.C6B7272F@aol.com...
> Speaking "overall", I had a similar response but figured maybe it was, in
> part, my Febuary blues lagging into March.  Or perhaps those 2 days that
> Febuary is short makes a difference.  I thought I'd wait a week, look
again,
> and see if my mood changes. I thought some individual images were notable
just
> the same.
>

Yeh, maybe. Also, perhaps a bit of over-anticipation about the theme. (and
of course there are many noteable images - my impression was of more weaker
images than normal, rather than fewer exceptional images).

Post a reply to this message

I'd expect such from such a lame topic.

I haven't been to the site but I'm sure we'll find "barbecue of the four
elements" again.

Tom Melly wrote:

> Is it me, or does the overall quality seem a bit, well, low on the current
> round?

Post a reply to this message

"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:

> I'd expect such from such a lame topic.
>
> I haven't been to the site but I'm sure we'll find "barbecue of the four
> elements" again.

Hmm. "Lame" is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. Although the topic may be
difficult to express purely visually, I think it's a wonderful idea.

I don't think there's any real difference in the range of quality than usual
insofar as artistic and technical expression goes (where "usual" is "over the
course of the last year or so" in which I've been viewing all the images each
round). Concept is generally a matter of opinion in any event but particularly
so for this round, which may affect one's opinion of how "good" the round is
conceptually.

Fabien Mosen opined there were no clear winners -- I assume meaning no image
really stood out as excellent, which I disagree with. Obviously I won't name the
particular image I have in mind but you'll be able to tell (if you're the type
that reads comments) by the gushing praise in my comment on it after the round
ends. :)

There were also a few cute interpretations of the topic (and no, I don't mean
the toilet images) which I got a chuckle from (and in at least one case thought
was also rather well done in general), and a few other images other than my
"clear winner" which I thought were gorgeous... and, of course, the usual few I
really didn't like. Nothing noteworthy about the distribution from my point of
view, in other words.

Post a reply to this message

Yes, that's funny, 'cause Gilles always win. Get it?



B6C9181F.4658%mcc### [at] yahoocom...
> Not funny, Vahur. ;-)
> ______
> David McCabe
> mcc### [at] yahoocom
> http://homepage.mac.com/davidmccabe/
> Jesus loves you!
>
>
> >> but there's no "clear winners"
> >> this time, maybe.
> >
> > So Gilles didn't participated this time? ;-)
>

Post a reply to this message