 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tina <you### [at] foad org> wrote:
> Geoff Wedig <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote:
>>You actually downplayed the work you did, saying that some things were
>>simple and easy. Anyone reading that is going to think "Well, if *she*
>>didn't think it was difficult, why should I?" That'll lower your scores a
>>bit.
> The only score this /should/ lower is technical, and I should be clearer
> that I wasn't outright insulted by my technical score, although it was a
> bit lower than I thought it might be. It was the conceptual and artistic
> scores I had a problem with. I don't ever expect to get particularly high
> technical scores simply because I know my images are not technically
> intricate, and they'll likely never be. And I don't mind if I end up
> simply average on the other scores, since they're both very subjective,
> and I enter more for the feedback then anything else.
Well, yes, that's the only one that it should decrease, but it's a well
recognized fact that one score leaks into another, especially the artistic
into the other two categories, simple because if someone sees somethign as
attractive, they'll give it high marks for the others simply because they
like it. There's very little that can be done about this.
> The rest of your comments are appreciated, although I do have to say that
> I don't understand what about my textures you felt were poor. The symbols'
> textures are simple because such things generally are, and of course,
> they're marred slightly by being behind another texture. I suppose I could
> have made the objects ornate but I didn't -want- ornate objects. As
> beautiful as the very intricate Grail cup entry was, I suspect that if
> the Grail exists it will turn out to be quite plain. How would you have
> done it differently, if you don't mind my asking?
Hard to say. Maybe a bit of reflection in the grail, perhaps on the others
as well. They're all pretty uniformly yellow except for the grail. I'd
make them either more like the grail, or less like each other. Having the
grail and the others all of a piece might be nice, and with reflections,
it'd get more of an 'ooh' upon first seeing.
I'd probably also scale everything up, and make them the center of the
image. This would require some reworking of the CSG, as there are errors
(others have mentioned) that would be too noticable at a larger scale. I'd
also get rid of or smooth out the egg thing, because right now it hampers
seeing the shapes.
Others have taken on the stars and the earth and such, so I'll not cover
them here.
> As to posting my stuff, if I can ever find a Windows-based newsreader I
> like, that will probably be my alternative to IRTC entries, since all I
> care about is the feedback. Unfortunately it's a little tricky to handle
> the binaries groups with a text-based newsreader. :) I'm currently
> evaluating Forte Agent, I may just buy that and use it.
I use a text reader for reading the posts, and use netscape for posting
images. I don't like using netscape for reading (I like threaded
newsreaders!), so I only use it when needed. my text reader will pipe
images to munpack, so I can look at images from it. Would something like
that work for you, perhaps?
Another option is, if you have webspace, to put them up on the site and post
the URL. This has the advantage of not cluttering up the newsgroups, though
it has the disadvantage of leaving broken links for newbies if you ever take
the pictures down.
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Geoff Wedig wrote:
> I use a text reader for reading the posts, and use netscape for posting
> images. I don't like using netscape for reading (I like threaded
> newsreaders!), so I only use it when needed.
Netscape IS a threaded news reader.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tina wrote:
>
> Well, as I said elsewhere, I'm not really bitching about the technical,
> since it's only about a point lower than I'd expected. But artistic 7?
> That bothers me. It bothers me more in the face of what scores above mine
> (a couple naked stone tits is prettier than my image? greaaat...)
>
I'm also sometimes quite astonished about how certain pictures are rated,
especially in technical category. IMO artistic merit is quite subjective
and probably a more abstract picture like yours is less appealing to most
voters. In general I would find it better if voting would focus more on
how much work and consideration is put into a scene, but that's just my
personal opinion.
I had a look at your entry in the 'horror' round and saw that it is much
less abstract and also gained a much higher score.
>
> Mostly the light sources (there are two, of which one is the visible
> sun). Some of what may look like reflection is probably the piece of the
> egg that is in front of the Grail.
>
> I have been thinking about the texture of the egg and possibly something
> smoother would have been better. I wanted it to be possible to see through
> the egg but still have the egg have 'substance'. And it can't be outright
> cracked open; the birth hasn't happened yet.
That's probably the most problematic thing of your picture. Your problem
is quite understandable, but the grainy transparency has two effects:
- it reduces the 3-dimensionality of the scene
- it does not make clear whether the egg is actually enclosing the objects
Some things that would make this particular picture more appealing IMO:
- making the egg semi-transparent and adding a specular finish to get a
highlight (maybe a bit like a glass egg or a soap bubble).
- a more obvious lighting situation, meaning everything is lit by one
light source (sun) and the planets and objects having clear shadowed
parts.
- as others mentioned antialiasing which of course is problematic for the
star background.
- rotating the objects in the egg a bit so their 3dimensionality is better
visible.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tina" <you### [at] foadorg> wrote in message
news:3ac0a9ea$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Mostly the light sources (there are two, of which one is the visible
> sun). Some of what may look like reflection is probably the piece of the
> egg that is in front of the Grail.
>
Ah, I read the picture as the egg being behind the objects.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tina <you### [at] foadorg> wrote:
: The only score this /should/ lower is technical
I have noticed the cross-contamination of judging categories in the IRTC
long time ago, tried to express my views (and most people agreed) and tried
to think about solutions, but there seems to be none feasible.
The term "cross-contamination of judging categories" I use here means that
when people vote, they do not consider (consciously or subconsciously)
different categories as completely independent, but an extremely high or
low score in one category will inevitably affect the other categories as
well.
For example, if an image looks like crap, it will get a very low score
in _all_ categories, no matter if it is, for example, extremely original
and its concept is excellent. In the same way, if the image looks just
astonishing, it will get a high score in all categories although it may
be completely banal, without anything special and new.
This is unfair, of course, but as I said, there's no feasible solution
to this.
(The best solution I have come with is that judges have to comment on
each score and say why they scored in that category that way; however, this
may not work as people will probably just comment something meaningless or
just leave it blank...)
--
char*i="b[7FK@`3NB6>B:b3O6>:B:b3O6><`3:;8:6f733:>::b?7B>:>^B>C73;S1";
main(_,c,m){for(m=32;c=*i++-49;c&m?puts(""):m)for(_=(
c/4)&7;putchar(m),_--?m:(_=(1<<(c&3))-1,(m^=3)&3););} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
: What amazed me is that someone out there actually gave it something besides
: the lowest possible scores.
Shouldn't an entry like that be disqualified, so scores should not matter?
--
char*i="b[7FK@`3NB6>B:b3O6>:B:b3O6><`3:;8:6f733:>::b?7B>:>^B>C73;S1";
main(_,c,m){for(m=32;c=*i++-49;c&m?puts(""):m)for(_=(
c/4)&7;putchar(m),_--?m:(_=(1<<(c&3))-1,(m^=3)&3););} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> Geoff Wedig wrote:
>> I use a text reader for reading the posts, and use netscape for posting
>> images. I don't like using netscape for reading (I like threaded
>> newsreaders!), so I only use it when needed.
> Netscape IS a threaded news reader.
It doesn't thread for me. I've looked through all the options. Besides, it
also does a lot of other things I don't like, including parsing HTML in the
post, and requiring me to be at my local site to use. I'll stick with tin,
thanks.
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Tina <you### [at] foadorg> wrote:
> : The only score this /should/ lower is technical
>
> I have noticed the cross-contamination of judging categories in the IRTC
> long time ago, tried to express my views (and most people agreed) and tried
> to think about solutions, but there seems to be none feasible.
This is simply the result of the totally unnatural separation between
art, tech, and concept, especially tech/art.
For example, think of detail level. A good detail-level enhances the
concept, as it helps refining the idea. It requires good technical
skills to model the details. And choosing appropriate details, getting
the right documentation, is an artistic task.
The demonstration is valid for most elements of an image. The
categories are totally dependant from each other ! The process of
making an image is not broken into these three steps, why should
the vote be so ?
An image with excellent concept and poor realisation is worth
nothing ! How can you evaluate the concept if it's badly represented ?
The reverse is true too.
Gilles Tran's latest winning image is a good example of that. The
*idea* is not striking, but, due to high artistic and tech skills,
the "contrast" concept is present everywhere, in every aspect of
the scene. That's why, though the overall concept is not higly
original, it deserves a high concept note.
The solution ? A single note (/100) for each image !
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tina wrote:
> A 10 would have made me a lot happier. And you're likely right about the
> cross-contamination, but I think that's why I' m so irritated.
IRTC is not school. A note under 10 is not a failure (especially if
you look at the highest scores, around 15-16). You are allowed to
participate next time anyway.
> That bothers me. It bothers me more in the face of what scores above mine
> (a couple naked stone tits is prettier than my image? greaaat...)
Outside, say, the ten first images, ranking is far from being
really significant. You've done the right thing by coming here
and asking for more comments. Try to act as if "they'll never
have to say THAT again for one of my images" !
> You know, I honestly don't remember, although... I /think/ 0.3.
It looks like AA was simply off.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It doesn't thread for me.
You may need to click the little box to the left of "Subject".
--
Phil
...coffee?...yes please! extra sugar,extra cream...Thank you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
