Nieminen Mika wrote:


>   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.

I generally agree with this, but note there is more than "originality"
to the third category than "originality".  From the FAQ :

[3.10] What do the categories mean? 
      Hard question. They mean whatever you want them to mean, in general. However,
our intent was to separate the purely
artistic and purely
      technical aspects of these unique images so they can be rated on their separate
merits. The third category, concept/theme,
is in some ways a
      contradiction--the more creative artists get, the less some judges think they
are adhering to the theme. The original name
for the category was
      "creative interpretation of theme". How you interpret this category--as reward
for creativity or punishment for failing to
stick to the topic--is up to
      you. 
[3.11] What do the ratings mean? 
      They are an absolute scale of merit, with 1 being the lowest, poorest rating, 10
or 11 being average, and 20 being the
highest, best rating an
      image can receive. Each judge must decide how to award merit, but experience has
shown that sticking close to average for
most images gives
      you more room to reward those "Wow!" images, and to educate those morons who
just don't get it. 



-- 
http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/

Post a reply to this message