"scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
> Of course, but I understood the competition was about creating a world class
> *image* using POV.  If this really was the case, the judges should have
> judged the images with no knowledge of how it was created.  Of course
> afterwards they can check that is was actually created in a way that
> complied with the rules, but *how* it was created shouldn't have affected
> the judging or the comments if it was truly an "image" competition, and not
> a "scene" competition.
>
> But as I said, maybe I misunderstood (most likely) and there was some
> element of creating a good "scene" as well as a good final image.  I was
> under the impression it was to show off to non-POV people how good an image
> POV can create.

You know, in these types of debates, I think it occasionally helps to take
examples to ridiculous extremes, in order to make a point. Please don't
misinterpret this post as an implication that anyone has previously made
similarly silly statements during the course of this thread.

I think we can all agree that it actually does matter how the scene was
created. Some hypothetical person could actually generate a very beautiful,
compelling image with photographs, photo editing programs, paint programs,
other rendering programs, etc. This wonderful image could then be mapped
onto a plane, lit, and rendered with POV. The result may look very nice,
but the image is obviously not eligible for any recognition in a POV-Ray
competition. Although POV-Ray was used to render the image, and it may end
up being the "best" image that is submitted, it does not at all make good
use of POV-Ray's capabilities.

If you can agree with me on this, then you must be forced to admit that some
consideration needs to be given to the method of image creation, beyond
simply "rendered with POV-Ray". Again, remember that this is an intentional
exaggeration. Now, you can extrapolate this inane example through a series
of more sane situations that could include some textures created outside of
POV, some models created outside of POV, all the way out to the other
extreme in which the entire image is SDL generated. I think that we can all
agree that any image in which everything that you see in the image was
generated entirely in SDL would likely be eligible for consideration in a
POV-Ray competition.

Now, somewhere along that spectrum, you need to make a cutoff point that
says that anything over here is eligible, whereas anything beyond this
point is unacceptable. We may not all agree as to where that cutoff point
is, but I think we can all agree that such a point absolutely must exist.
Beyond this, I think that it is also obvious that any images that are

would probably be upstaged by images that are further down the spectrum

appearance since, remember, we are only talking about very good images
here, but in terms of adhering to the spirit of the competition.

The bottom line is that it is possible to create some dazzling images
without the use of POV-Ray. You can create some dazzling images that just
happen to use POV-Ray to render them, but nothing about them really
demonstrates the power of POV-Ray as a tool. You can also create some
dazzling images that make great use of POV-Ray and the flexibility that
this wonderful program offers. The blatant purpose of this competition was
to show off the power of POV-Ray as an image creation tool. It should come
as no surprise to people that the images were judged based on how well they

tools does require a lot of skill, and can produce very pleasing results,
but for the purposes of this specific competition, it is no different than
my Photoshop example above. Photoshop, Illustrator, photography, etc. all
require a lot of skill as well, and when used effectively, can produce some
very nice results. Neither one showcases POV-Ray in the way that the
contest intended.

 - dan B hentschel