Greg M. Johnson <gre### [at] aolcom> wrote:
: In the Stills, I usually give 20-20-20's to my favorite,

  This is ok if the image really is excellent in all the three categories.
  I'm not saying that you are one of those, but it seems that there is people
out there who doesn't distinguish very much between the different categories.
If the image is astonishingly great, they give high points in _each_ category,
no matter how bad it may be in one or two of them. An image may be technically
almost perfect, photorealistic, incredibly perfect, but that doesn't mean
that it's artistically good or original (specially the last one, since most
of the great images I have seen have nothing original).
  Although an image looks great, it's not wrong to give it something like
20-18-2. If it has a total lack of originality, then you have to judge it
from that point of view and give points keeping that in mind. Technically
excellent doesn't mean it's artistically excellent or excellently original.
  And I'm sure you will never, ever see something like 1-2-20. If it's
technically awful, then almost everybody will give it very little points in
each category, no matter if the idea of the image is something nobody have
ever seen in this universe.

-- 
main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
*_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/

Post a reply to this message