Thibaut Jonckheere <tua### [at] MAPSONyahoofr> wrote:
>
> -  I think the rules should simply state that a ray-tracer has to be the
> main tool to produce the image, and give a lot of freedom to the
> participants concerning their method and other tools used.
>

Ditto:

Now for debate and trying to convince folks that this is the best.  On one hand,
I'm sure we'd all hate it if the contest were to become a showcase for 2D
plug-ins in paint programs. Yuck.  On the other hand, I really don't like the
attitude that someone's 24 h render which required no post-processing is
inferior to the 24h render which --oops-- required a last-minute gamma
correction to get it right. Yuck, yuck, yuck on images where the gamma
correction is spot-on perfect immediately out of a raytracer.

I'm one of the bigger critics of attempts at exhaustive photorealism (read: the
bottom of Uncanny Valley ravine) "art". I think being a purist bully about
post-processing is not bad in and of itself, but that it implies a spirit of
dried-bones perfection rather than providing entertainment with 3D software. Is
the competition about entertaining our friends or showing off your photorealism?

It's also interesting that it's possible for an image to have "2D manipulation"
and at the same time be the first and only output of raytracing software.
Megapov's camera_view pigment ( **not** even it's post-processing features)
allow for one to apply effects to a box painted with camera_view before
anything is ever written to HDD.  So if you do go purist, you have to
accomodate for this option in your rules.

Post a reply to this message