Robert J Becraft <cas### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:<3873ace1@news.povray.org>...
>> lots of stuff!

With regard to technical scores, I largely agree with what you say. The
problem from my point of view is two-fold.

In the first place, quite a high degree of intimacy with each prog is
required to give accurate technical scores. For example, it is not
necesserily enough to know what poser can do, it would also be nice to be
able to recognise "stock" figures from those specifically created by the
artist.

Secondly, I wonder if the whole principle of technical scores for such a
diverse range of applications is appropriate?

Certainly, to my mind, one solution would be to allow technical votes to be
skipped (adding on the average score for that user instead), although this
might complicate things with obscure progs, since one vote could be very
significant.

With regard to the text files (when not judging technical merit), I guess
this is matter of personal opinion when judging artistic merit and concept.
Certainly when I was unsure of the relevance of a particular image, I
checked the text, but it very rarely made any difference. Perhaps, in a
different topic, it could be more essential. For instance, the subject
"folly" illustrated with a man falling from the sky surrounded by feathers
would require that you know the story of icarus (spelling?). However, a man
sawing a tree branch while sitting on the wrong half would not.

To my mind, a garden, abstract or not, should in some way be a garden. I
will concede that I might have missed something that could have scored a few
points - for example if someone had illustrated "autumn, season of mists and
mellow fruitfullness" then I would have liked to have read the text and
scored appropriately. On the other hand, such a scene, if successful, would
also stand on it's own merit.

On the whole I find the text files are either irrelevant to my enjoyment of
a scene, or are excrutiating and convoluted justifications of off topic
subjects.

P.S. I took another look at your history entry - a perfect example of the
former. The subject is history, which your picture certainly is - all the
text file does is explain the rather confusing title. If it had just been
called "Romans" or something, it would still have been very on-topic and
wouldn't have needed the text explanation (or am I missing something?).

P.P.S. How should pictures be scored for technical where renderer, tools and
source are not given? 0?

Post a reply to this message