On 15/08/2013 8:07 PM, MichaelJF wrote:
> My comment about hitting the topic was more intended as an observation and not
> really as criticism.
>


I know but it is one of the things that niggle me. I think that the 
voting categories are outdated fine for when the IRTC started but the 
technical one does not make sense to me nowadays.

> As for the "golf" topic, my first thought was a car, and not Tiger Woods;-) But
> this may be biased being German.
>

For me golf is a good walk ruined. ;-)

> And for the voting. You have only small influence with your work. People does
> not ever look at the pictures and try a fair vote. Sometimes they like you,
> sometimes they dislike you and vote you down. My lowest voting for my "Ariadnes
> Garden" picture was 5,5,5. I didn't missed the topic but I used an image
> designed for an earlier round (and admited that), which seems to be an
> unforgivable thing to some persons.

Well you are not alone, I once got 3-3-3.  There is one member, who 
entered the IRTC as well. Often gave those sort of scores to images he 
found displeasing.

> In this case I can accept the artistic and concept vote, but not the technical
> one, having used occlusion map baking, splines to create the general shape of
> the creatian labyrinth and to have the grass down where the ball was moved. And
> a lot of other things.

That is what I mean. Other than detailing what you have done and leaving 
it up to the voter to understand the difficulty. It won't be credited. 
As far as I know, occlusion map baking may be easy to do and a bit of a 
cheat. I've never tried to use it. So how can I, or anyone like me, give 
an informed vote?

> More work in this one than in other ones I did. But
> technically only 5 for one voter. One has to accept that.


Accept what? That he is an idiot or a spoiler?
Long ago I realised that when someone disagreed with me on artistic 
matters. It did not mean that I was wrong and generally meant that they 
only had a superficial understanding of the subject or they were just a 
blowhard. ;-)


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message