gonzo <rgo### [at] lansetcom> wrote:
> macdonaldj wrote:
>
> > 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).
>
> ????  Chill out dude!
>
> I don't think my post in any way suggested unfairly disadvantaging
> anyone, nor did I say anything about punishing honesty.
>
> I clearly stated that I didn't have a problem with corrective
> adjustments. I was merely pointing out that (as Warp also stated) when
> you have rules that prohibit something (post processing) and then turn
> around and have rules to make exceptions to those other rules, you also
> create potential for someone to abuse the exceptions. You can consider
> that either a suggestion for change, or my opinion, whatever.
>
> Personally, I agree with Warp, making no exceptions keeps the field
> level and simplifies the judging. And also would prevent these recurring
> "is this a violation?" threads. But the rules are what they are, and I
> don't have a problem with it.
>
> As far as the fairness of my judging, I certainly don't have time to
> spend trying to figure out if you changed the brightness by 6% or the
> contrat by 3%. I also do not know all the capabilities of all the
> renderers out there, so I sometimes can't tell if something is rendered
> or post processed.  If your image looks good and there are no obvious
> effects added to the rendered image then I score it fully and don't
> stress over it, even if you state in your textfile that you added
> contrast or whatever.
>
> If I see something that is obviously a violation, I give it ones across
> the board because I don't think someone who knowingly cheats should get
> a valid score. If I see something that may be technically permitted,
> but, (as in my one example) clearly exceeds the intent, I will mark down
> one category some because it deserves a valid score, but not full marks.
> If I see something I'm not sure about (like the lens flare mentioned in
> my original post) I give the benefit of the doubt, score it fully and
> mention my concern in a comment.
>
> In short, I try to be as fair as possible using as liberal
> interpretation of the rules as possible, but if something looks
> not-rendered then I will mark it down. Hopefully, everyone else is doing
> the same.
>
> RG

OK, sorry for directing my frustation at you :)  Don't worry, I am "chilled
out" but I think this is an important point.

> I don't think my post in any way suggested unfairly disadvantaging
> anyone, nor did I say anything about punishing honesty.
No, but James Coons *did* mark down an image (?mine) even though it falls
completely within the rules.  If I (or whoever) hadn't mentioned the
brightness/correction, he *wouldn't* have marked it down.  That's punishing
honesty is it not ? :)

Regards

Julian

Post a reply to this message