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

>

I felt downright bad when I saw your scores and that there were no comments
especially after you were so generous with comments and particularily generous
to me.  I remember I was about to write something and my mind just froze up.
I was having difficulty writing comments this time around and made just a
few.  For what it is worth I scored your piece 15/10/10 which put it in the
top third of my scoring.  I thought there was some interesting visual design
going on and I enjoyed you discussion of how you developed the theme.  I
scored 10 on concept because I couldn't really connect the discussion it with
the image.  In retrospect that may have been harsh.  The piece did do some
interesting things mixing concept and symbol.  I think I actually had it
higher then lowered it a bit to group your image with others I thought about
the same level.  Again, I think you have a good eye and a strong sense of
design. I particularily remember how the orange in the ;lower left and the
black ground worked against each other.  The 10 for technical was basically
cop out.  I wasn't sure what was intended and what you just settled for.

Again, for what it is worth,  I read every comment you made on people's images
with interest and amusement.  I think you made a very generous effort and were
not repaid in kind.  Thought I suppose contributions should not necesssrily
be "quid pro quo" ( like I know what that means ).

A short anecdote.  In the Nov-Dec round my image scored in about the same
place your current one did.  I knew the image had been heavily influenced by
the recent death of my father and I felt so estranged I was happy just to get
something done. It had technical problems, it went counter to the usual RT
mindset, and had not expected it to do well.
But I was reasonably satisfied with the image on a visual and expressive
level.  Recently I sent links of several of my lastest entries to some friends
who are painters but know nothing of raytracing or IRTC.  With no other
reference to go on except the links directly to the images, they picked the
Nov-Dec entry as their favourite.  The other entries didn't even get a
mention!

Anyway I thank you for posting and allowing me a second chance to respond.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

>  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.

Actually that particular museum piece consists of two parts ( not well conveyed
in my rendering )  The cup is clearly an old and quite simple relic of crude
silverwork. The goldplated, silverwork reliquary is from later.  It is precisely
this juxtaposition of a simple crude cup with its elaborate later enshrinement
that lead to arguments that this could be "the holy grail".  The speciousness of
such a conclusion lead in part to my choice of this as a subject for "worship".
The design is now thought to most resemble a tenth century oil lamp, by the way,
neither a chalice or a grail.
/jc

Post a reply to this message

I've been working on digital images since a long ago, and I remember when I
entered for the first time in the IRTC (
http://oz.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/1998-10-31/scotilla.jpg ), I thought the
work I'd done was going to go right up to the top.
It wasn't, and I had not worked on it two weeks, but almost two months.
But I learned a lot from that.
The first thing was that I had to keep learning
The second was that sometimes you cannot get the connection between what you
do and what the other people see.
The third was to redirect all that angry to the next topic and try to do my
best.
The fourth was that when you expose your work to the others, you never can
be sure of the result, but is a great opportunity instead of keep it to
yourself and your PC.

the road your walk.
Keep it up.

Txemi Jendrix
tji### [at] euskalnetnet
http://home.dencity.com/tji

Post a reply to this message

1) I'd vote it low.

    ART & TECH scores: low because that collection of symbols doesn't look
like anything with depth (hey, we are 3d artists) but something that could
have been done with a paint program: was it a flying bucket, a holy mist, a
space womb--what?
    THEME: It looks like some kind of new agey, "all paths lead to God" theme,
which I don't care for.

2) So what if we vote it low

    I let low IRTC scores cripple my creativity for a while.  These are just a
bunch of volunteer amateurs and everyone has their head up their but over a
different issue.  There was a time when I was angrily offended that crisply
photorealistic but horribly boring images got higher scores than imaginative
and ambitious stuff, but hey I GOT OVER IT!  If it is really something that
*you* would print out on a T-shirt for your nephew or print out to hang on the
wall in your foyer, then by all means enjoy your creativity and don't let a
little nitpicking ruin your whole "vocation" of art in this form...

3) Practice !
    How does one get to Carnegie Hall?

Tina wrote:

> My interpretation of this feedback and lack thereof is that the IRTC
> audience considers my work utter crap.

Post a reply to this message