gonzo <rgo### [at] lansetcom> wrote:
> =Bob= wrote:
>
> > Then you might not have not judged fairly. I would believe judges
> > should be aware of the rules, from irtc:
> >
> > =======================================================
> > Images must not be enhanced or altered ('post-processed') by use of
> > paint programs such as PhotoShop(tm) etc. There are exceptions to
> > this rule:
> >
> > You may convert images to JPEG format.
> >
> > You may add text information (name, title, email address, copyright.
> > etc...) to your image.
> >
> > You may gamma-correct and contrast/brightness adjust the image.
> > =======================================================
> >
> > =Bob=
>
> While this is permitted by the rules, there is still a "spirit" or
> "intent" to those rules.
>
> I certainly don't have a problem with someone making a 5% adjustment of
> brightness, which can be simply correcting the difference as seen on 2
> different monitors. That is clearly a "normal correction", and well
> within the intent of the rules. (And one I wish I had made on my "Great
> Inventions" entry which looked great on my girlfriend's LCD when I
> submitted it, but was WAY darker on my CRT when I viewed it at home...)
>
> On the other hand, a 50% brightness combined with a 65% contrast would
> be completely changing the rendered image and goes well beyond what I
> would perceive as the intent of the rules.
>
> Probably (fortunately) not a common occurance, but there was an entry in
> one round (surreal maybe, I forget which) that looked like it was a
> fairly simple image that had been heavily tweaked with contrast to get a
> very striking effect, and I remember marking it down because there just
> didn't seem to be any way it could have been rendered like that. I also
> recall it getting a few comments about not explaining in the .txtfile
> how that was done, so I guess I'm not the only one who thought so.
>
> I guess its all pretty subjective how people score those. Where is the
> line between normal corrective adjustments and artistic tweaking? If I
> had made the adjustment on my "Great Inventions" entry would anyone have
> known the difference? Especially since I later re-rendered the image
> myself with a .1 difference in assumed_gamma and got pretty much the
> same thing, so it could be done in the renderer.
>
> RG

Oh great !  So now we have not only to follow the rules of the competition
but also we have to second guess the thoughts of any judges who might read
between the lines of the rules :)  While I understand what you are saying,
rules are rules and should be interpreted as the boundaries within which
your image should be judged fairly.  If you think the rules are not good
enough then make suggestions to change them - don't unfairly disadvantage
those of us who have spent considerable time and effort making images for
this competition in good faith!

For the record (and not that it should matter), I *did* only make subtle
changes in brightness/contrast.  You shouldn't punish honesty - I could
have not even mentioned the fact and you would have been none the wiser
(and maybe would have got a fair vote).

Julian

Post a reply to this message