 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msn com> wrote in message
news:3f56538e$1@news.povray.org...
|
| Still, can't negative from one
| point of view be positive from another?
That's the problem. I suppose that there is always a benefactor from
decay, but an image focusing on that factor is not focusing on the decay
at all. In a sense, the concept of decay is still present, but no more
than it is present in any picture of a person eating, a plant growing,
etc.
I usually see more of the benefit than the actual decay. I'm not the
type to get upset about old buildings being torn down or what happens to
a body after death. True, there is occasionally what I feel is the
unfortunate decay of something which I feel should be preserved, but I
don't feel nearly strongly enough about that to work for two months on a
picture depicting that loss. I've got a *short* attention span, so I've
got to really want to do something to spend two months on it.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeremy M. Praay wrote:
> Don't forget "Moral decay" (assuming you're not amoral). ;-)
>
Yes that is where we were headed, for sure. You have a natural process
of deterioration, but you view it as the more negative 'decay', it
seems to bring a moral component to bear. Like 'corruption' as a form
of decay.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmmm, I've got an idea here on "Decay" that I love. Let's see if I make it
this time... it's about time I get to participate on one IRTC, after all
these years lurking. :-)
> Hi all.
> I'm back from vacation and checking the ftp site I found
> there is a new topic "Decay" and the zip files of the
> surrealism round are ready to download.
> Good luck to all the entrants (including me ;-)
> Bye
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gonzo wrote:
>
> Gonna be tough to score.
>
No doubt. I'm taking a break from that right now. It seems that the longer
I'm at it, the more everything looks either great or 5h!++y. I lose my
sense of perspective.
What I'm doing is going through in Winvote and giving things a ballpark
score as I add comments. When I'm done with that, I'll get them all into
the order I want and then go down the list giving out entries/20 ones,
entries/20 twos, etc.. That's the fairest way I can think to do it.
I also find that it helps for me to form a concrete idea of what my
qualifications for each category are for the round. For 'Surrealism' I'm
using:
1. Artistic Merit - Does the look of the entry reflect the tone of what the
entrant was trying to communicate? Is it beautiful if it should be
beautiful? Ugly if it should be ugly?
2. Technical Merit - How much of what is in the picture is the entrant's own
work? How do the details hold up to close inspection?
3. Creativity/Interpretatin - Is the picture at all provocative? Does the
image inspire any curiosity within me about the objects, events, or
viewpoint of the scene?
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message news:3f596921@news.povray.org...
> What I'm doing is going through in Winvote and giving things a ballpark
> score as I add comments. When I'm done with that, I'll get them all into
> the order I want and then go down the list giving out entries/20 ones,
> entries/20 twos, etc.. That's the fairest way I can think to do it.
>
Same here, get them all on the board, then go back and look at the details.
I usually don't read the textfile on the first time through, the ball park
is more based on very basic reactions;
artistic - does it make me want to look twice or do I automatically head
for the back button,
technical - are there any glaring artifacts or conversely any objects or
effects that make me drool,
concept/originality - can I tell what it is without reading the file, do
7 other images look the same
interpretation - does it fit the topic (a pretty broad call in this
round...)
> I also find that it helps for me to form a concrete idea of what my
> qualifications for each category are for the round. For 'Surrealism' I'm
> using:
I always find the categories start to bleed over into one another...
>
> 1. Artistic Merit - Does the look of the entry reflect the tone of what
the
> entrant was trying to communicate?
Here's where the bleeding starts... "reflect what the artist was trying to
communicate" = artistic -vs- "reflect how the artist communicates the
theme"= concept/interpretation. Artistic & concept to me are often closely
related. For more strictly artistic criteria I look at composition, use of
color, visual appeal.
>
> 2. Technical Merit - How much of what is in the picture is the entrant's
own
> work? How do the details hold up to close inspection?
Technical bleeds the least, but even here I look at artistic/concept - if
the image is minimalistic I don't expect a lot of high technicality. Someone
with limited technical skills, but who knows their limitations and works
well within them I will give a better technical score than someone who uses
highly complex techniques but produces a mediocre product. To me, part of
technical ability is knowing when and how to apply it.
> 3. Creativity/Interpretatin - Is the picture at all provocative? Does the
> image inspire any curiosity within me about the objects, events, or
> viewpoint of the scene?
Definitely bleeding now... "provocative","curiosity", while I agree they
count conceptually, to me those weigh heavily in the artistic score as well.
Interpretation I relate strictly to the round topic, if I can't make the
connection even after reading the textfile, that's a 1.
And after saying all that, it's STILL a tough round to score! And I'm
wondering why the usual contingent of totally off-topic, completely
composited in photoshop, blatant ignoring-of-the-rules entries seems to be
missing this round... highly suspicious.
RG
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gonzo wrote:
> artistic - does it make me want to look twice or do I
> automatically head for the back button,
Sounds like your criteria for artistic is very similar to mine for concept.
I can't use yours because I often find myself heading for the back button
on some very beautiful, well done, but to me boring images.lol
> technical - are there any glaring artifacts or conversely
> any objects or effects that make me drool,
Have you gotten to the image yet that the guy rendered with *his* *own*
ray-tracer?
> concept/originality - can I tell what it is without
> reading the file, do 7 other images look the same
Too much of that in this round, IMO.
> interpretation - does it fit the topic (a pretty broad
> call in this round...)
I ignore whether or not I believe the concept fits the topic. I'm afraid
that a lot of the non-Dali-like images in this round are going to be
perceived as non-surrealist by the unaware. Surrealism imcludes styles as
far from Dali as Joan Miro. I can imagine the ridicule his works would
receive if entered into this round of the IRTC.
> For more strictly artistic criteria I look at
> composition, use of color, visual appeal.
Agreed, except that I would substitute visual *effect*.
> Technical bleeds the least,
And I think that it's important for that reason. There are always a few
entires that are only slightly more "3D" than mapping a magazine picture
onto a plane. I look for pictures where the entrant has worked hard to
display his own vision rather than *featuring* the work of other people. A
technical image to me is one that is shaped by the intrant's intentions
rather than by his convenience.
> Definitely bleeding now (Creativity/Interpretation )
This is where I find that basing my comparisions strictly on the other
entries in the round rather than judging each against my own interpretation
is most useful.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message news:3f5a3f4b@news.povray.org...
> Sounds like your criteria for artistic is very similar to mine for
concept.
> I can't use yours because I often find myself heading for the back button
> on some very beautiful, well done, but to me boring images.lol
Exactly my point. Pretty colors or highly detailed modeling do not
necessarily equate to art.
>
> Have you gotten to the image yet that the guy rendered with *his* *own*
> ray-tracer?
Yeah, I never know how to score that. It's impressive, but at the same time,
unless his ray-tracer does something unique that no other ray-tracer does it
has nothing to do with the image.
>
> I ignore whether or not I believe the concept fits the topic.
Well, I can't ignore it because if everyone ignored it, why have a topic in
the first place? I do have degrees of fit though, someone who blatantly
ignored the topic gets slammed, as opposed to an image that maybe I'm simply
not comprehending I give the benefit of the doubt. Good reason to always
give a description :-)
I'm afraid
> that a lot of the non-Dali-like images in this round are going to be
> perceived as non-surrealist by the unaware.
Yes, and I suspect my own is in that category, but at least its my own :-).
On the other hand, despite the high number of stairways, clocks and other
Dali spin-offs, there is enough variety in interpretation evident in the
entries that I'm hopeful of an equally wide variety in judging. (That is of
course assuming that the less Dali afflicted take the time to vote...)
> > composition, use of color, visual appeal.
>
> Agreed, except that I would substitute visual *effect*.
Thank you, 'appeal' wasn't really what I wanted there. Effect is much
better. Actually, after two more cups of coffee, I think what I was really
looking for was "impact". (Leading back to the artistic point about hitting
the back button... if it doesn't have impact, I won't stick around or come
back for more.)
> > Technical bleeds the least,
A
> technical image to me is one that is shaped by the intrant's intentions
> rather than by his convenience.
hmmmm, definitely sounds like bleed-over from the concept/interpretation
channel ;-)
> This is where I find that basing my comparisions strictly on the other
> entries in the round rather than judging each against my own
interpretation
> is most useful.
Good point. Each round has a flavor of its own. I try to keep my own
interpretation mostly in check. Actually, my first point of reference is
the definition or description in the topic announcement. After I initially
go through all the images I get a general feel for how others interpreted
that definition, sort of a "definition range". The midrange of that becomes
a "10" and image scores are adjusted up or down from there.
Oh, and I see there is 1 non 3d entry in the round. I feel much better now.
A round without any rules violations at all would be unnatural.
RG
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news:3f5a206d@news.povray.org...
> And after saying all that, it's STILL a tough round to score! And I'm
> wondering why the usual contingent of totally off-topic, completely
> composited in photoshop, blatant ignoring-of-the-rules entries seems to be
> missing this round... highly suspicious.
There's one (Illustrator + Photoshop) :
http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2003-08-31/creat1lo.jpg
http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2003-08-31/creat1lo.txt
Actually, the pic is much better than the "Hey I just discovered Photoshop"
of the usual off-topic entries but on the other hand it makes it harder to
understand how the author could miss the rules. Of course, he says that he
took "great quantities of hallucinogenic drugs" years ago, so he may have
fried the "read the rules" part of his brain in the process...
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
news:3f5c8cf5@news.povray.org...
http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2003-08-31/gamma.jpg
http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2003-08-31/gamma.txt
I'm not sure what Ulead Cool 3D can do, but this looks like some type of
post processing to me. I'd like to hear a second opinion.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news:3f5c92fe@news.povray.org...
> I'm not sure what Ulead Cool 3D can do, but this looks like some type of
> post processing to me. I'd like to hear a second opinion.
From the feature list and screen shots
(http://www.ulead.com/cool3d/screen.htm) Cool 3D looks indeed like a 3D
modeller/renderer, but a highly specialised one for titles and 3D effects to
be used in websites, presentations and publications. So it's perhaps
blurring the line a little between 2D and 3D (hard to say without trying it)
but it's still within the rules IMHO.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
