 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Shay" <sah### [at] simcoparts com> wrote in message
news:3f71a4f2$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message
news:3f70865d@news.povray.org...
> |
> | I MUST TRY HARDER!!! :op
> |
>
> Thinking about this and your landscape entry, I believe that you
might
> score higher if you didn't try *as* hard.
Thanks. That one is being tattooed on my brow tomorrow... Or, when I
wake up... :o/
Both of those pictures were
> dark with open horizons. Very ambitious.
Really? I have to admit that I haven't tried a daylight scene yet.
Any pointers?
>
> If you don't mind a suggestion,
I don't mind any REAL suggestions at all.
I would recommend that you fill at least
> sixty percent of the viewable area with large objects like
mountains,
> buildings, or furniture. This would leave you with forty percent or
less
> of the area to fill with your subject models.
Hmm... too cluttered? I like the idea, though.
This IMO is a more
> reasonable goal for two months.
I tried this below, in the first two/three weeks, and then withdrew
it and did 'Harvest' instead...
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/32805/
I think I should have entered this... :o[
~Steve~
> -Shay
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3f71ae83@news.povray.org...
> > IMHO those are the most surrealistic results I have ever seen.
>
> Well, that is kind of expected. :-)
Not at all.
Talking seriously, I'm considering not to enter anymore.
Actually I'm going to enter for the current round, but
just because it's a kind of birthday (my 1st IRTC
entry was for the september-october round back in
1998, 5 years ago), and also 'cos I have almost completed
my entry.
See you.
Txemi Jendrix
http://www.txemijendrix.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Txemi Jendrix wrote:
>Not at all.
I can understand your feelings. This round's results do leave a bad taste.
I don't want to point fingers or start flame wars, but to my admittedly
untrained eye (and judging by the comments, others eyes as well...) there
appeared to be a group of images in this round that were roundly slammed by
someone(s). Unfortunate, but one aspect of the voting system used in the
IRTC is that to someone who doesn't give a damn about fair, or the rules*,
it can be easy to sabotage.
>Talking seriously, I'm considering not to enter anymore.
But I would hate to see you drop out. Your entries and input are always
good (and El Ojo is a personal favorite!) and that is exactly what is
needed. Dropping out because of a bad round just means that the competition
becomes nothing more than a shoving match for immature egos.
Errant as this rounds results were, I do not think this is the case in every
round. Most rounds I think the voting is fair, and the artists are
participating for the knowledge & experience. Do not take that away from
yourself and others because of the behavior of a small minority.
>Actually I'm going to enter for the current round, but
>just because it's a kind of birthday (my 1st IRTC
Happy birthday, this last round was my POV birthday... my 1st POV image was
1 year ago.
>entry was for the september-october round back in
>1998, 5 years ago), and also 'cos I have almost completed
>my entry.
And I'll look forward to this one too.
I do hope your considering is still in flux...
RG - *rules? did anyone else besides a couple of commenters note the
copyright date on this webpage? http://www.c0d3m0nk3y.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3f72017b@news.povray.org>, Txemi Jendrix wrote:
>Not at all.
>Talking seriously, I'm considering not to enter anymore.
>Actually I'm going to enter for the current round, but
>just because it's a kind of birthday (my 1st IRTC
>entry was for the september-october round back in
>1998, 5 years ago), and also 'cos I have almost completed
>my entry.
Txemi, your entries are some of the best. I especially liked "Leonardo".
You need to keep entering so that people who browse the IRTC are aware
of your art. If it weren't for your IRTC entry, I wouldn't have visited
your web site, and would have missed out on all the neat pictures you've
made.
-Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I liked the results overall, even if the overall winner is slightly
off-topic. The only notable omission for me, amongst the winners, was
"Fungi", that I found quite intriguing and well executed.
So, cheers to the winners!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I agree with Peter. You probably have a lot of fans that you never
realized. I always look forward to your pictures. Your modelling is often
incredible.
As far as the IRTC this round, I read one of the image text files that said
something like, "This image sucks, and I only entered it because I wanted to
vote this round, and I'm 12 years old." It was the image of the giant hand
reaching for the car. While somewhat impressive for a 12 year old, knowing
that a 12-year-old was voting on the images is somewhat unsettling.
Additionally, only about one quarter of the people who entered actually
voted. That's not normal.
Personally, I don't find the images at the top to be that far off the mark.
As I pointed out in another post, the gap between the top 4 was pretty
small. IMHO, POVPlanet lacked in concept, but in artistic and technical, I
think it's quite good. It may not have had my highest vote, but often the
winners never do.
I've often wondered why Digital Blasphemy's (Ryan Bliss) "Fluorescence"
image has always been so popular (the blue-glowing mushrooms), since it's
not very complex. It may have never won the IRTC even if the topic was
"Mushrooms", and yet it's probably one of the most popular digital images of
all time. I would guess that most of us would probably pick an image with
more complexity.
--
Jeremy
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:3f71e857@news.povray.org...
|
| I haven't tried a daylight scene yet. Any pointers?
Radiosity + area_light.
|
| I don't mind any REAL suggestions at all.
Don't forget that this suggestion is from someone who placed well below
you.lol
|
| Hmm... too cluttered? I like the idea, though.
I don't mean clutter. What I mean is decreasing the "size" of your scene
and in doing so decreasing the number of elements a viewer expects to
see. This removes the empty look of many scenes. The best example I can
think of is a picture gallery. If you were to model a picture gallery,
you would need a certain number of paintings for each unit space of
wall. If you hung a single bulb fixture in the middle of the ceiling,
then the viewer would expect the gallery to be bedroom sized, and you
would only need to include a few paintings. If you put in an exposed
beam ceiling with dozens of light fixtures, then the viewer would expect
the gallery to be stadium sized, and you would need to include hundreds
of paintings.
That's just stadium sized. A person sees a flat horizon at nine *miles*,
so when you show the unobscured horizon in your pictures, a viewer
expects to see many square miles worth of scene elements!! As large as a
mountain is, it's area is many many times smaller than the viewable flat
land it obscures. So, just by adding a mountain to your scene, you have
decreased the viewer's element expectation by over ninety-nine percent!!
It's can also be a good idea to limit the viewers "imagination eye" from
wondering off the sides of the picture. "Radio Graves" is a good
example. The sides of the fence around the radios is of course not
visible, but the imagination still recognizes it as a barrier. This is
why no partially cut-off radios are needed to suggest that the elements
continue. The elements don't need to continue, because they are not
expected to.
I've noticed that ninety-nine percent of pictures which show the horizon
are pictures of water, because a viewer's imagination expects water to
be empty and will not question a lack of elements over the many "miles"
he can see.
Of course, don't take my advice too seriously on this. I don't put
together pictures according to that formula at all!!!lol For "scenes",
however, I think this is the way to increase your score, though how you
could value a high score after seeing the results of the last round is
puzzling to me.
|
| I think I should have entered this... :o[
Yeah, you've done exactly what I'm taking about. You've cut down the
area to only a few virtual square feet. I'll bet this picture would have
scored much higher that the one you did enter.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think most of us POVers have a hidden desire to win the IRTC, but the more I've
entered the more I've realized this isn't the
point.
Just because an image wins doesn't mean it's the best. Art is so subjective there can
never be a best. Everyone has a different
idea about what is appealing and what's not. I love raytracing, but in general have
very little time to actually spend working on
images. The IRTC gives me a broad topic to think about, a deadline, and some
guarantee that a large audience will at least look at
my work for a few seconds. This spurs me to squeeze the time into my busy life to do
what I love to do. Does my heart race when I
see "the results are in"? Sure, but no matter what the results, as long as I'm happy
with the look and feel of my image, who won
or lost is irrelevant. More important are the comments. Comments, good or bad, are
proof that you inspired a reaction in your
audience. If I received absolutely no comments on an image, I might then feel like a
loser, knowing that my effort wasn't even able
to invoke a complaint. ;-)
Don't enter to win. Enter to learn and grow. To be honest, my mind hasn't even
associated a name with the current winning image.
But over time, seeing consistently artistic and well executed images from certain
individuals brings more credibility and name
recognition than any single win. Let's take Gilles as an example. Gilles isn't a
famous POVer because he won the IRTC. He's a
famous POVer because he consistently does artistic, well executed work, and pushes the
boundaries of what can be done with our
humble POV.
Don't enter to win. You'll just set yourself up for disappointment. Enter so that
you're part of the POV community. Enter so that
there's a permanent record of your growth as a digital artist. Enter so that you can
learn to accept the infinite number of
opinions that your work will inspire in people. Enter so that I can look forward to
viewing and commenting on your next and better
image.
Andrew Wilcox
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Txemi Jendrix" <tji### [at] euskalnetnet> wrote in message
news:3f72017b@news.povray.org...
|
| Not at all.
| Talking seriously, I'm considering not to enter anymore.
Ouch. That's pretty serious. But if you're not getting what you want to
out of it, then you'll only piss yourself off by *not* stepping away. I
certainly wouldn't subject myself to that standard. I saw where one
person gave the winning entry (prob. about 50 lines of code) a nineteen
for technical merit.
Alternately, you could look at understanding the IRTC judging as a sort
of game, and continue to compete by trying to figure out the rules and
then play by them. Sort of a "when in Rome" type of thing. There is
actually a game show on where idiots are found and interviewed, and
contestants attempt to guess which common knowledge questions the idiots
will be able to answer correctly.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> POVPlanet lacked in concept, but in artistic and technical, I
> think it's quite good.
I made a mistake when voting : for off-topic images I rated Artistic and
technical Merit as honestly as I could, but I was wrong, I think, now that
an off-topic image should be rated (1, 1, 1) : think of an image by Gilles
Tran, "in vitro" for instance, which IMHO is a great image :
http://www.oyonale.com/ldc/francais/invitro.htm, if Gilles had entered a
round whose topic is "railroads" I could have rated him (19, 19, 1) and he
can reach a place in the top-ten which would not have been fair to other
competitors.
Just my opinion
Philippe Gibone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
