I haven't submitted an entry yet, so I have yet to experience the comments
of others, but I plan to be soon...

Anyway, I've read many comments from other users, and frankly, although most
of them are constructive, I can't say I always agree with the commenter.
Sometimes I feel that the artist may have tried to achieve a certain look
and feel to the final image, without it being photo-realistic, yet with many
of us, if it doesn't look photo-realistic enough, it's gets a lower score.

I've recently been browsing through a book I recently purchased for my wife,
which has many of Dali's paintings.  Achieving something similar in POV-Ray
would be quite a feat, IMHO.  Yet I've also thought that anyone who did
something very similar would probably be judged poorly, not because they
copied Dali, but simply because of the largely photo-realistic mind-set.
I'm really not criticizing anyone.  I'm just saying that the things that get
a high score on IRTC aren't necessarily the best and/or most artful, because
many of us (myself included) really aren't qualified to be very good judges.
A "jury of our peers" is the idea.  Some of our peers are very competent (as
can be seen in their own images) and others are not (likewise).  If I read a
comment from someone whose own scene looks really bad, I'm going to pay less
attention to it than from the person whose scene placed well.

For me, a comment is something to be considered, and nothing more.

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message