> Fabien<fab### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> The "new" IRTC literally sucked, quality-wise, (the images,
>> not the site), compared to what was produced some years
>> ago.
>
> Ouch.
>
> Well, I personally don't think my images sucked too hard in comparison to the
> "old" IRTC (but I suppose I'm biased).

Sorry if I appeared to say that all images were bad. Of course not.
But the average level of the renewed competition (and I'm definitely
talking about the irtc.org stuff, not anything else) was very low
compared to what it was before the Big Blackout.

The problem is not the low end of the lot, beginners are fully
welcome, and I've done my part of constructive critiscism to them,
in the past.

It took years, from IRTC creation, to get a hive of talents, which
resulted in rounds with a good number of good-to-excellent images.
Three years of interruption destroyed that, and the higher end of
last competition was just a handful of good-to-very-good, not enough
to call a "waaah" after viewing a round. Given the CPUs and memory
ressources we have these days, it's a pity that the recent rounds
were of a lower quality than three years before.

So, unless IRTC is killed once and for all* (which seems an acceptable
option rather than the hiatus), a prolonged absence will cause
harm again to the quality level, which only a continuous effort
can improve. Something SHOULD be done, and that's why the "not
to be fixed anytime soon" message instead of a call for help is
so irritating.

(* : meaning the IRTC role must be officially  _handed over_ to
  other(s) competition(s))

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message