On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 05:17:13 -0800, Alan Kong wrote:
>On 27 Mar 2001 07:36:54 -0500 Tina wrote:
>
>>My interpretation of this feedback and lack thereof is that the IRTC
>>audience considers my work utter crap.
>
>  Sometimes ya just gotta make art for art's sake, not for judgement by
>others.
>
>  I'd rather have received your two lone comments rather than the
>embarrassing ones that hhcopy.jpg received for his Photoshop collage. That
>must be some sort of joke (I hope).

What amazed me is that someone out there actually gave it something besides
the lowest possible scores.

-- 
Ron Parker   http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions.  Mine.  Not anyone else's.

Post a reply to this message

"Tina" <you### [at] foadorg> wrote in message news:3ac08966@news.povray.org...

<SNIP>

I'm sorry you felt insulted by your scores - and looking at them, it may be
that some cross contamination took place on your concept score (i.e. the
voter's feelings about the technical and artistic merits of your pic
affected their voting on the concept score). It would have got at least a 10
from me, which is the minimum I give to any pic that's on-topic.

However, the scores on artistic and technical seem fair enough I'm afraid.

With regard to the comments, for myself, I score first and then comment on
pics in scoring order. I comment as many as I can before the deadline.

If you want to ensure that you receive comments on your work, post it here
prior to the comp., or solicit here for comments after the comp. is over.

Here are mine:

Apart from the sun, the textures are very grainy (what is the grail
reflecting? whatever it is, it doesn't look very nice).

IMHO, the pic seems cluttered and unfocused - it might be better if you
dropped the other objects apart from the grail, and dropped the egg as well.

The planet at the right is clipped too much by the edge of the picture.

Is there any AA on this? It seems very jaggy, particularily the edge of the
sun.

Post a reply to this message

Tina <you### [at] foadorg> wrote in message news:3ac08966@news.povray.org...

> Since I've already put in a couple weeks of every day work on my current
> entry I will probably end up entering it despite this, but I do think it
> will be my last entry into the contest. I'll keep viewing the entries of
> course; it's a great deal of interesting work and sometimes I get useful
> knowledge from it. But... frankly, I give up any hope of /entering/ the
> contest being useful to me.
>

Don't get discouraged.

I suggest you post it to the images group here. The comments I
get on the images I post are almost always very helpful.

Gail
*************************************************************************
* gsh### [at] monotixcoza                *   Step into the abyss,           *
* http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~gail/   *   and let go.        Babylon 5   *
*************************************************************************
* The difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes a little longer *
*************************************************************************

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 14:57:42 +0100, Tom Melly wrote:
>Here are mine:
>
>Apart from the sun, the textures are very grainy (what is the grail
>reflecting? whatever it is, it doesn't look very nice).
>
>IMHO, the pic seems cluttered and unfocused - it might be better if you
>dropped the other objects apart from the grail, and dropped the egg as well.
>
>The planet at the right is clipped too much by the edge of the picture.
>
>Is there any AA on this? It seems very jaggy, particularily the edge of the
>sun.

It's hard to use AA with a granite starfield and get anything resembling
stars.  

Please note that I wasn't eligible to vote in this round, so I didn't 
rate this image against the others.  If I had, I think I'd rate the 
concept a little higher than average, the technical merit a little below
average, and the artistic merit right about average (since I fail to see
what "artistic merit" is if it isn't a combination of concept and technical 
merit...  but that's another discussion.)

Tina, please don't take these comments too hard.  We were all beginners
once.  The only time I've ever entered the IRTC I got dinged pretty 
heavily on technical issues, too, so I don't pretend to be an expert.
Nevertheless, if you'd like more information on any of the comments below,
or if you'd like some help understanding or fixing something from the list
below, don't hesitate to ask.  There are a lot of very generous and talented 
people who frequent this server, and I'm sure most of them would love to
help make your next IRTC entry the best it can be.

Technical comments:

- The camera angle is too wide.  Sun and Earth are both stretched in an 
  unattractive way due to the wide perspective. 

- Some of the larger stars look more like water spots.  I realize this is a
  side-effect of the granite texture.  Perhaps the effect could have been
  lessened by reducing the brightness of the larger stars to make them stand
  out less.

- The CSG on the three religious symbols is a little spotty.  There's a 
  coincident surface problem with the cross, the points of the Muslim star 
  don't line up right, and the Star of David has different-sized points and
  the tips of the points aren't joined cleanly.

- The texture on Earth is a little simplistic.  No clouds, the landmasses
  are uniformly bright green... an image map, even a small one, would have 
  helped here.

- I like the grail itself.  It appears to be well-modeled, and the texture
  is evocative of turned metal.  The idea that the real grail would have 
  been turned (or even metal!) might be a little anachronistic, but I like 
  the effect anyway.

- The lighting is good.  It definitely adds something to the metallic
  texture.

Conceptual comments:

- I'm not sure what that magenta stuff is.

-- 
Ron Parker   http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions.  Mine.  Not anyone else's.

Post a reply to this message

Geoff Wedig <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote:
>after all.  As a first entry, you didn't do too badly, really.  A couple of

Heh. This wasn't my first entry, although you have to go back to the
Horror round to find the prior one.

>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.

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?

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.

Post a reply to this message

"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:
>I'm sorry you felt insulted by your scores - and looking at them, it may be
>that some cross contamination took place on your concept score (i.e. the
>voter's feelings about the technical and artistic merits of your pic
>affected their voting on the concept score). It would have got at least a 10
>from me, which is the minimum I give to any pic that's on-topic.

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.

>However, the scores on artistic and technical seem fair enough I'm afraid.

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...)

>Apart from the sun, the textures are very grainy (what is the grail
>reflecting? whatever it is, it doesn't look very nice).

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. 

>IMHO, the pic seems cluttered and unfocused - it might be better if you
>dropped the other objects apart from the grail, and dropped the egg as well.

Well, I originally was thinking of doing it another way, but there would
have been just as many objects in that version. The other objects are
meant to frame the central image. I did do a render without them and the
scene looked empty and barren. Possibly there's a middle ground here that
I could try for, but I'm not sure what. Just the stars in the back was
definitely not enough, IMO.

>The planet at the right is clipped too much by the edge of the picture.

Hmm, really? I thought having it entirely visible made the scene layout
seem artificial (which, er, it is, but...)

>Is there any AA on this? It seems very jaggy, particularily the edge of the
>sun.

You know, I honestly don't remember, although... I /think/ 0.3.

Post a reply to this message

Tina <you### [at] foadorg> 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