As might have been menitioned elsewhere, the problem with one category is
thematic deviation (yes I've done it).  But what about the fact that someone
has a really great idea for their image, and just didn't develop that idea.
(Again, I've done this).  If there was one category, there would be no way to
honor that person for a great idea, but a lousy image.

In my thoughts, I think the categories should be the following, because these
are distinct, but still tie together with each other:
 -Concept/originality
 -Technical Merit
 -Impressiveness

Concept/originality is basically how the topic is developed in the image.  It
shows how well through the image was thought. e.g. In one of the Stills rounds,
called "Alien Worlds," there were some beautiful Star Trek matte paintings
rendered, but that's not really original as an idea.  So, Plus for the
artistic, minus for the orignality

Technical Merit is basically how the user approached the image s/he made.  Did
s/he use some impressive code to produce a high degree of photo-realism, or did
he simple put a few spheres next to each other, and just image-map them.
Basically, it's how much work the user put in to achieve his goal.

And Impressiveness is basically just how well the image pulls off as a good
image.  The more it makes someone go "Wow" and the more it looks good, might be
the scale.  That doesn't just mean that photo-realism is impressiveness.  I
mean, I get more "wowed" from Pixar's Toy Story, than I do from Harry Potter's
Magic Effects.  It just is how good the image looks.

By all means, don't quote me on saying that's how it should be.  I personally
think this would work well, with a bit of tweaking here or there, but that
system seems good to me.

And to David, if you use this system, or something very similar, by all means,
you may quote me in the voting guidelines, or rules, etc.

Any other ideas on those categories?

Post a reply to this message