Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "clipka" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht 
> news:web.497c5bd6c722a95a3c6235530@news.povray.org...
>> "Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
>>> HOF, is/should be, in my perception, the showcase of what can be 
>>> achieved -
>>> technically and artistically - with different *tools* centered around
>>> POV-Ray as the principal and sole renderer, the hub as it were of the 
>>> whole
>>> creative process by the artist. This excludes automatically any rendered
>>> image achieved inside Poser or inside Blender, or inside whatever other
>>> renderer is available in the outside world.
>> Very well put.
>>
> 
> Thanks. I think we need at least a framework or a good definition before 
> going on.
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 

An barely relevant opinion:

I would say that each image can be assigned figures of merit, for example as was done
in the IRTC:
http://www.irtc.org/stills/2006-10-31/results.txt
1. artistic merit
2. technical merit
3. integration of theme
Here any theme would perhaps be defined only by the artist, so this is less important
than the other two for HOF consideration.  For artistic merit, technical aspects don't
really matter.  But in the technical aspect, it seems contributions from other tools
(for example, generating a mesh with an external tool counts no more than using a
pre-existing mesh) don't contribute to technical merit, while certain techniques such
as post-render gimping will actively subtract from a technical score.

So sure, given two identical images, one with a POV-coded model and one generated with
blender or wings3d, the POV-coded version is the better choice.  But if the use of the
auxillary tools contributes to the artistic merit of the image, then that contribution
should be welcomed.

  Dan

Post a reply to this message