 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I respect your opinion, as I stated earlier. I just wanted to say, that
everyone thinks different, or
more exactly and honestly, I think in a different way. Or better said, I
have another approach, equally valid.
The way we evaluate depends on each one of us, because that's the way it is,
and that's
the way that, fortunately, will be. There is enough art for everybody,
because
each one puts different grades of emotion, memory, feelings whether doing
or
appreciating it.
Let's say that the same approach you have when starting an image, thinking
about that, and what,
and how -sometimes how in this world..like I do.- ; is the same approach you
experience before
a blank canvas. with the same questions. And after the moment of creation,
the image -the artwork-
acquires life in itself. From now on, two individuals will never have the
same point of view about it.
It is up to everyone how to "see" it, and interpret it. It is a complete
subjective matter, and
beyond the scoop of the artist. Just like Frankenstein!
The worst thing an artist can experience is indifference. So regarding this,
we are all OK.
The Judging process is as complex as the images running. That's great.
Marjorie Graterol
PS. I sincerely ask you to excuse my English, I am kind of "joking impaired"
in this
language, just the opposite in Spanish.,...and my husband's signature. I
cannot make this
&&&**&* thing to work with mine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Pedro Graterol wrote:
> I respect your opinion, as I stated earlier. I just wanted to say, that
> everyone thinks different, or
> more exactly and honestly, I think in a different way. Or better said, I
> have another approach, equally valid.
> The way we evaluate depends on each one of us, because that's the way it is,
> and that's
> the way that, fortunately, will be. There is enough art for everybody,
> because
> each one puts different grades of emotion, memory, feelings whether doing
> or
> appreciating it.
> Let's say that the same approach you have when starting an image, thinking
> about that, and what,
> and how -sometimes how in this world..like I do.- ; is the same approach you
> experience before
> a blank canvas. with the same questions. And after the moment of creation,
> the image -the artwork-
> acquires life in itself. From now on, two individuals will never have the
> same point of view about it.
> It is up to everyone how to "see" it, and interpret it. It is a complete
> subjective matter, and
> beyond the scoop of the artist. Just like Frankenstein!
> The worst thing an artist can experience is indifference. So regarding this,
> we are all OK.
> The Judging process is as complex as the images running. That's great.
>
> Marjorie Graterol
>
> PS. I sincerely ask you to excuse my English, I am kind of "joking impaired"
> in this
> language, just the opposite in Spanish.,...and my husband's signature. I
> cannot make this
> &&&**&* thing to work with mine.
Jerry Anning has a philosiphy about voting that I think is about the fairest
approach of any I have heard yet. It echoed my own thought so completely
I'm reposting his reply he made on the subject in november last year. What
you will read below is what I would say if only I were a little more gifted as
a writer ...
Ken Tyler
Marc Schimmler wrote:
> This is just what happened to me (so I haven't voted yet)! This also the
> reason why I asked for some good advice on voting. To my disappointment
> nobody answered. Maybe the question was stupid.
It wasn't a stupid question. I suspect that no one answered you because
there is no real consensus on "how to vote." Different voters have
different priorities, different esthetic sense and different degrees of
background knowledge in 3d graphics. The hope is that these varied
viewpoints will even out and produce a good set of winners. Usually,
they do. For whatever good it will do, I will outline some of my
methods and criteria. First, I quickly go through the images with a
slideshow program. I do not study them in detail at this point, I am
just looking for common themes, the overall quality level and things
like that. One thing this does is, if many people come up with the same
interpretation, I know it before I start detailed judging so that the
knowledge affects all renditions of that particular idea equally. I
then load them into Winvote, read each text file, and look more
carefully at each image with the textfile info in mind. This helps me
to spot clever technical tricks and artistic decisions and judge their
success. It also ensures that I have all needed info to recognise and
judge the idea of the image and how well it presents it. In some cases,
I look at the zip file, e.g. to determine whether a particular object is
a csg, a custom mesh or a canned object, so that I can give due credit
for technical skill. This is seldom needed. I then go through, vote
the images, and comment them as I vote, flipping frequently between the
image, the text and my comments. The vote helps me see just how well I
like the image and which aspects to comment on. I then read my comments
again in order to decide whether the vote was, in retrospect, correct
and fix it if needed. When I am done voting and commenting, I go
through all of the votes one last time, looking for ones that no longer
seem right (I do this over a period of several days and I want to be
sure that, say, a bad mood one day doesn't make some scores too low.)
Then I compile the whole mess and send it in. For specific voting
criteria, I start at 10 and add or subtract as needed. The scores I
assign tend to be low compared to the averages. I seldom go over 15 and
the highest I have assigned to date is 18. I call that "leaving room
for Picasso." This, of course, hurts no one as I do it to everybody. I
assign a preliminary score in a category based on my overall impression
of the image in that respect. I then add or subtract if needed for
special circumstances. In artistic, I look for either overall beauty or
artistic ugliness, composition (placement of objects in relation to the
viewpoint, use of dynamic asymmetry, etc.), use of color, lighting,
appropriateness of textures, realism (if the image tried to be
realistic), selectivity (does everything in the image contribute to
it?), good use of detail, and stylistic coherence (is one key object
very realistic, while the rest are cartoonish?). In technical, I look
for original and clever techniques, whether the textures are well
designed, whether the artist is pushing the limits of the renderer, how
well the artist overcomes the limits of the renderer, how intelligently
the artist exploited the strengths of the renderer, how well made custom
meshes, csg's and height fields are, whether the artist created new
tools for the image, whether the textures and colors are custom created
(and how well) and things like that. How well this can be judged
depends on your knowledge about the various rendering programs. If
something is flashy, but is routine for the renderer (e.g. Bryce
mountainous landscapes), it is worth less technically to me than the
same thing done in a renderer not specialized for that purpose. I also
penalize technical rules violations (such as illegal postprocessing)
here if I think it is warranted. In concept, I look for whether the
image is on topic, how original and clever the idea is, whether the
image actually shows the alleged idea, how strained the connection to
the topic is, etc. If the connection to the topic is unexpected, but
good it adds points. If it is a stretch or an irrelevant detail thrown
in to "qualify" an otherwise irrelevant sci fi, fantasy, car, tv, comic,
etc fan image it loses lots of points. I penalize here for rules
violations such as entering an image made before the round began or
entering an image with no actual rendering involved. The main thing I
look for in concept (and it tends to spill over into artistic) is: "Does
the image say something" Does it tell a story, make a philosophical
point or illustrate a meaningful event. A random building, for
example, is just a technical exercise. It probably isn't saying
anything. The great pyramid being constructed, a rotting hulk in an
otherwise vibrant downtown area, or an old barn with encroaching condos
and strip malls in the background are saying something. This is hard to
explain, but I hope you see what I mean. If an image is a blatant
violation of any rule, I lower all category scores as well. When I
comment, I try to find something positive to say about each image, but
if I see nothing good ... so be it. I confine negative comments to
aspects of the image itself (I might say "Your textures are much too
simplistic," but I won't say "You're a lousy artist.") In scoring, I
try to judge every image by the same criteria, but in commenting, I try
to go easy on people new to rendering, and concentrate on general
suggestions for improvement, while I am much more likely to nitpick work
by established masters. I could go on at some length, but I think you
get the idea. Remember that none of this is obligatory or set in stone
and other people have completely different criteria and methods. This
is just how I do it.
Jerry Anning
cle### [at] dhol com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
>
> Jerry Anning has a philosiphy about voting that I think is about the fairest
> approach of any I have heard yet. It echoed my own thought so completely
> I'm reposting his reply he made on the subject in november last year. What
> you will read below is what I would say if only I were a little more gifted as
> a writer ...
>
> Ken Tyler
>
I'am glad Ken that you quoted Jerry's post because I also think that
this was a very fair approach to voting even if I can understand Greg's
voting philosophy.
I think it's really fine to have voters with completly different
backgrounds in this competition. While folks like me are more likely to
focus on technical issues voters like Marjorie with a fine arts
background take care that this technical votes don't overpower
everything.
I too try to focus also on the artistic aspect but as the hobby artist
that I am my knowledge about composition, etc. is quite small (I fear my
entries reflect that :-( ).
So everybody has to follow his or her own philosophy that fits with the
personal background. Jerry's post makes sure that one knows that there
are more aspects than the technical ones and gives good hints where to
look.
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is an excellent starting point. I've managed to decompose Anning's
items in these groups, representing
equally the first three parts, this is, Artistic, Technical and Topic:
-Overall impression
-Composition (includes selectivity)
balance-, Textures)
-Stylistic Coherence
-Original techniques
-Rendering -Use of limits and strengths of the renderer
-Specific techniques (usage of, creation of, )
This point derived from the same text, could be more subjective,
encompassing the way we 'perceive' the image,
or like the author said, the Picasso's two points
-Expression
Now the true moment, which will be the qualification or assigning numeric
values. One of the things that is
really funny for me is the fact that, even when 1-20 scale is considered
arbitrary, I have used it all my life, because in many countries of South
America it is the scale to evaluate formal education. At the end, these
values depend on
the evaluator, too. What I -me ,personally- did while working , was an
effort to be objective within the subjective field, and
tried -not always successfully- to be fair.
Separating aspects -items- helps a lot., and re-reading this, I stay the
same as I was in the beginning, the technical part is very tough for me. I
am very 'new' comparing to others, I might be an artistic educated person,
but I am really a programming illiterate -looking at what people usually
write about-.
Anyway, I think it is a very well and articulated 'evaluation tool' to
begin with. I will prepare my scale based on these
points and, of course, will try to work more with the technical aspect in
each one of my images, to be able to understand more the works to watch.
Thank you very much for re-posting this, and for your help.
Marjorie Graterol
Ken wrote in message <369### [at] pacbellnet>...
>
> Jerry Anning has a philosiphy about voting that I think is about the
fairest
>approach of any I have heard yet. It echoed my own thought so completely
>I'm reposting his reply he made on the subject in november last year. What
>you will read below is what I would say if only I were a little more gifted
as
>a writer ...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yikes! I thought Annig echoed my thoughts. Is there that big a difference between
Annig's philosophy and mine? Annig was certainly more articulate in his description
and probably spends more time on studying each image than I do, but the following
chords from Annig resonated with me:
Annig rewards
- "realism if tried to be realistic"
- "stylistic coherence"
- "clever"
- "intelligently exploiting strengths of renderer"
- "Does it tell a story?"
and Annig penalizes
- "irrelevant details thrown in" to tie to theme
Marc Schimmler wrote:
> I'am glad Ken that you quoted Jerry's post because I also think that
> this was a very fair approach to voting even if I can understand Greg's
> voting philosophy.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I try to give an answer even if my language skills might fail.
I think the main difference I saw was that Jerry looks for a "overall
beauty or artistic ugliness". If I got that one right this refers to any
style. You said that you rank the styles (first superb photorealism,
second cool cartoony look ..).
I think there is a difference because in every style you can have this
artistic beauty or ugliness.
But as I said before. I can also understnd your way and I respect it.
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I assign points based on their
fitting into certain stylistic categories. So, you must forgive my English
;-).
If anything, I was trying to say that my rating is forgiving of the style!,
in that I like well-done cartoony stuff as much as I like well-done
realism. In the last round, my highest-rated entries were MAGIC101,
STRIKE, 8_FORGIV, and AFROG. I pretty much picked the podium. I think I
would have given that chicken-farm thingy a higher rating had I noticed the
chicken's brains being replaced.
I think my whole posting was in a defensive response to a half-remembered
complaint I heard somewhere about "cute" or "pastel" images, which in some
cases I very much enjoy. My posting was also a sort of complaint in that I
assumed many voters fireballed well-done cartoonism but were overly
forgiving of poorly crafted photorealism, if such hobgoblin-voters actually
do exist out there.
Marc Schimmler wrote:
> I try to give an answer even if my language skills might fail.
>
> I think the main difference I saw was that Jerry looks for a "overall
> beauty or artistic ugliness". If I got that one right this refers to any
> style. You said that you rank the styles (first superb photorealism,
> second cool cartoony look ..).
>
> I think there is a difference because in every style you can have this
> artistic beauty or ugliness.
>
> But as I said before. I can also understnd your way and I respect it.
>
> Marc
> --
> Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (2 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
