I don't know how things go here but I read the comments on a few as
compared to the scores and ranking. Looks like only those who like
something post comments on it. I did not see positive comments reflecting
ranking. 

	This could be a study in demographics if someone has the time. Sort of,
If you can't say something good don't say anything, as a voter policy.

Post a reply to this message

"simian" <mik### [at] localhostlocaldomain> wrote in message
news:3e3e3b5e$1@news.povray.org...
> I don't know how things go here but I read the comments on a few as
> compared to the scores and ranking. Looks like only those who like
> something post comments on it. I did not see positive comments reflecting
> ranking.

imho the dictum is: If you can't say anything good or constructive then
don't say anything at all.
There is also the possibility that we who enter often are loathe to offend
those who will be scoring our next entry.

John

--
Run Fast
Run Free
Run Linux

Post a reply to this message

simian wrote:
>I don't know how things go here but I read the comments on a few as
>compared to the scores and ranking. Looks like only those who like
>something post comments on it. I did not see positive comments reflecting
>ranking.
>
> This could be a study in demographics if someone has the time. Sort of,
>If you can't say something good don't say anything, as a voter policy.


For me there were a few different reasons for not commenting on an image:

1) The image was very poor *and* was just "thrown together" or violated the
rules. If they didn't take the time to do a serious entry then I'm not
going to waste my time commenting on it.

2) I didn't personally like the image for some reason, but it's through no
fault of the creator, so I felt any comment I made wouldn't be useful.

3) The image didn't elicit a strong enough reaction from me to comment, even
though I may have scored it highly.

I try to be positive because I know how much it means to the artist, and I
tried to balance negative comments with at least one positive.

People are different in how they accept criticism, and since I don't know
these people I worry that a purely negative (but constructive) criticism
may not be well received. A text message can sometimes be misinterpreted; I
can see how a comment is received in person, but there's no way to know if
I'm communicating properly in a posted comment.

This was my first experience voting so I'm interested in what others think
about this issue.

-Mark

Post a reply to this message

I haven't submitted an entry yet, so I have yet to experience the comments
of others, but I plan to be soon...

Anyway, I've read many comments from other users, and frankly, although most
of them are constructive, I can't say I always agree with the commenter.
Sometimes I feel that the artist may have tried to achieve a certain look
and feel to the final image, without it being photo-realistic, yet with many
of us, if it doesn't look photo-realistic enough, it's gets a lower score.

I've recently been browsing through a book I recently purchased for my wife,
which has many of Dali's paintings.  Achieving something similar in POV-Ray
would be quite a feat, IMHO.  Yet I've also thought that anyone who did
something very similar would probably be judged poorly, not because they
copied Dali, but simply because of the largely photo-realistic mind-set.
I'm really not criticizing anyone.  I'm just saying that the things that get
a high score on IRTC aren't necessarily the best and/or most artful, because
many of us (myself included) really aren't qualified to be very good judges.
A "jury of our peers" is the idea.  Some of our peers are very competent (as
can be seen in their own images) and others are not (likewise).  If I read a
comment from someone whose own scene looks really bad, I'm going to pay less
attention to it than from the person whose scene placed well.

For me, a comment is something to be considered, and nothing more.

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message

Renderdog wrote:
>simian wrote:
>>I don't know how things go here but I read the comments on a few as
>>compared to the scores and ranking. Looks like only those who like
>>something post comments on it. I did not see positive comments reflecting
>>ranking.
>>
>> This could be a study in demographics if someone has the time. Sort of,
>>If you can't say something good don't say anything, as a voter policy.
>
>
>For me there were a few different reasons for not commenting on an image:
>
>1) The image was very poor *and* was just "thrown together" or violated the
>rules. If they didn't take the time to do a serious entry then I'm not
>going to waste my time commenting on it.
>
>2) I didn't personally like the image for some reason, but it's through no
>fault of the creator, so I felt any comment I made wouldn't be useful.
>
>3) The image didn't elicit a strong enough reaction from me to comment, even
>though I may have scored it highly.
>
>I try to be positive because I know how much it means to the artist, and I
>tried to balance negative comments with at least one positive.
>
>People are different in how they accept criticism, and since I don't know
>these people I worry that a purely negative (but constructive) criticism
>may not be well received. A text message can sometimes be misinterpreted; I
>can see how a comment is received in person, but there's no way to know if
>I'm communicating properly in a posted comment.
>
>This was my first experience voting so I'm interested in what others think
>about this issue.
>
>-Mark
>

I'm still developing my theory...

But I know that the comments are very valuable to me, especially the ones
that point to ways to improve specific areas, and even negative comments I
regard as positive feedback if they at least take the time to state why. If
they're just somebody being nasty I ignore them.

With that in mind, I try to make a positive comment, even if I don't like
the image. I feel that if the artist has put some amount of effort into it
then it's worth some positive consideration.  If I feel the artist didn't
even try, or blatantly ignored the rules, I say so, and score them
accordingly.

I also try to make some constructive comment, but some people probably take
this as negative. Also, constructive is often more difficult, especially if
the artist is using techniques or software I know nothing about, because I
don't know what's involved. (And I only know Bryce fairly well, I'm just
learning POV, and have never tried any of the expensive stuff...) It's also
difficult if the artist's skill level is considerably above my own...

In the last two rounds I have managed to comment on every image, but this
takes time, so I imagine that's why a lot of voters only comment on a few.
Time is something which, due to a physical impairment that's curtailed my
normal activities, I've had a lot of the last several months, but
rehabilitation is slowly getting me back to a full schedule so I expect
that luxury to end shortly. Which also means less time to develop my own
images :(

RG

Post a reply to this message

"Slashdolt" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
news:3e3ec628$1@news.povray.org...
> Sometimes I feel that the artist may have tried to achieve a certain look
> and feel to the final image, without it being photo-realistic, yet with
many
> of us, if it doesn't look photo-realistic enough, it's gets a lower score.
>
I hate "me, too-ing" but I have to say that I agree 100% with you, Slash.
There does seem to be a tendency for many to mark down non-realistic images.
Hell, if I wanted photo-realism I'd go out and buy a camera. What I want
from myself and would like to see from others is artistry and imagination.

A real problem I have is that it is frequently obvious that the person
making the comments has not read read the .txt file. A comment on my image
in the last round read:
I don't exactly see what different perspectives have to do with a "frozen
moment".
If the person making that comment had read my file they might have found
out.

Finally, while I'm on a roll, does anyone (apart from me) look at what
hardware is being used? After all an image that takes 2 hours to render on a
modern machine may very well take two or more days on an early Pentium I
based box.
I personally add marks for working with "ye olde 486".

John

BTW Gonzo, thanx for the kind comments in the last round

--
Run Fast
Run Free
Run Linux

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:
>"Slashdolt" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
>news:3e3ec628$1[at]news.povray.org...
>> Sometimes I feel that the artist may have tried to achieve a certain look
>> and feel to the final image, without it being photo-realistic, yet with
>many
>> of us, if it doesn't look photo-realistic enough, it's gets a lower score.
>>
>I hate "me, too-ing" but I have to say that I agree 100% with you, Slash.
>There does seem to be a tendency for many to mark down non-realistic images.

Yes, I've noticed that while non-photoreal images do sometimes score well,
it seems like they have to be a notch or two above the norm before that
happens.


>Hell, if I wanted photo-realism I'd go out and buy a camera. What I want
>from myself and would like to see from others is artistry and imagination.

Yep. I've got multiple cameras and when I want reality I use one of them.
Even though I *usually* try to make the elements of my ray traced images as
realistic as I can, the image itself is usually something that combines
those elements in a non-conventional way or presents a non-real scene.
After all, I would sincerely hope that my Hang Time scene doesn't represent
"normal" behavior!


>A real problem I have is that it is frequently obvious that the person
>making the comments has not read read the .txt file.

Agreed.  I've seen comments in a couple of rounds indicating the commenter
thought the artist used post processing, when the .txt clearly describes a
perfectly valid technique. Sadly, I have to assume the scoring also
reflected that mistake.  On the other hand, I do mark down if I can't
figure out the image without the text, since IMO an image should speak for
itself. The text should be "in addition to" and not "required reading".


>BTW Gonzo, thanx for the kind comments in the last round

You're very welcome! I really liked your image. I'm just trying to find a
monitor with the right shape so I can use it for a desktop ;)

RG

Post a reply to this message

> I've recently been browsing through a book I recently purchased for my
wife,
> which has many of Dali's paintings.  Achieving something similar in
POV-Ray
> would be quite a feat, IMHO.  Yet I've also thought that anyone who did
> something very similar would probably be judged poorly, not because they
> copied Dali, but simply because of the largely photo-realistic mind-set.

I don' think so.
Look at this: http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2002-06-30/elojo.jpg
It won a Honorable Mention in Technical Merit.
Bye

Txemi Jendrix
http://www.txemijendrix.com

Post a reply to this message

Strange...  I was just looking at that image a couple days before I made
that post.  Maybe I've got selective memory... ;-)  Very nice, btw.

Photo-realism is very difficult to achieve, though it is getting easier all
the time.  But I hope to see more "artful" and surreal images like that one.

---
Slash

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 22:04:26 -0500, Slashdolt wrote:

> Strange...  I was just looking at that image a couple days before I made
> that post.  Maybe I've got selective memory... ;-)  Very nice, btw.
> 
> Photo-realism is very difficult to achieve, though it is getting easier
> all the time.  But I hope to see more "artful" and surreal images like
> that one.
> 

	Dali wouldn't stand a chance if photo-realism were a requirement.
Neither would Disney.

Post a reply to this message