Here are some thoughts on how I vote. They were compiled during a very
boring meeting at work, anticipating having to defend earlier comments
about how and why I vote.  I offer these comments with humility, in that
it involves criticism of people's work which is better than mine.

First, I rate  ARTISTIC merit according to the questions, "Would I like
to wear this on a T-shirt? Would I like this to hang in my living room?"

I rate TECHNICAL merit according to the apparent attention to detail;
I'm likely to rate an entry lower which appears as an obtuse showcasing
of the features of a raytracing program.

I think that there are about four or five different categories of
entries, and I list them from highest to lowest as I typically rate
them:

TIER I:  SUPERB PHOTOREALISM
These rare entries attempt to look just like a photograph and excel at
it! Recent IRTC entries in this category include AFROG, 8_FORGIV, and
STRIKE.
A great master of this style who I've run across is Victoria Brace,
non-IRTC'er, whose work can be found at
http://www.vika.org/images/index.html

TIER IIA: COOL CARTOONY LOOK
These entries evoke favorite childhood toys or 3-D versions of cartoons,
like the entries FOOD101 and MAGIC from this contest, and POOLSHARK from
the last Animations round. (When I went to the IRTC voting overview
page, I found that I had ranked  FOOD101 highest: will you forgive
me?).  I hope that in heaven we'll have bodies like this.  I'd much
rather the entry to be fun and entertaining than be an over-exerted
attempt to be photographic and fall short. Again, some photo-realism of
the unreal characters is required, but there are fewer details to screw
up. The artist attempts something simple and does it well. Note that I'm
NOT talking about the Garfield entry of a few rounds ago.
A great master of this style (another non-IRTC'er) that I've run across
is Troy Paiva and his work can be found at
http://designshed.com/shed.html

TIER IIB: PEN-AND-INK REALISM.  These look like a watercolor or ink
drawings of a very realistic 3-D scene.  "Ice Giants" and MG_ROSE form
this round fall into this category.

TIER III: UNPLEASANT ATTEMPTS AT PHOTOREALISM
With all due respect, GE_FIRST falls into this category.  I usually give
these 7-13 in the artistic & technical categories. These entries don't
look like a photograph, but look like unsuccessful attempts at making
one. The artist attempts something unnecessarily ambitious and fails at
it.    Common ways in which my eye is offended include:
A. Human figures which are ugly, not by artistic intent, but out of less
than careful modelling or texturing. A humorous dwarf or Ernest Bergnine
character can be quite appealing; ugly babies are not.
B. Superbly photorealistic scenes with a few glaringly unrealistic
components not related to artistic intent or theme.  One such example
was the bald, paleskinned, cloned cavemen.
C. Superbly photorealistic landscapes next to sloppily constructed CSG
objects.
D. (For 1998) Most uses of Poser 2 faces, especially when bald.
E. (For 2000) Most uses of Poser 3 faces.
F. Lighting and contrast problems, such as:
 1. Use of too much ambient light.
 2. My inability to tell what entry is about from the thumbnail.  I
expect to be able to detect the content from the thumbnail and be
surprised by a second meaning or added details when I go to the 800 x
600!  If  I paid the artists to wear these entries on a T-shirt, my
friends would have to squint and to touch my chest to see what they were
about.

TIER IV: PRANKS AND OFFENSIVE STUFF
I usually give these very low numbers, much lower than 8. Yes, I'm
easily offended.
A. Pranks, such as previous entries "Pixel," and "Night".
B. Entries which glorify violence or torture. One non-IRTC image that
comes to mind is an image of a naked Poser woman in a dark prison cell.
"Houhahaha," the artist probably thought to himself.
C. Drug use.
D. Anything looking 2-D.  Sue me.
E. Multiple entries from same person which simply mean rearranging
objects on a table.
F. Really bad puns, especially involving cows. Sue me. FOOD101 makes me
chuckle; enCOWnter makes me ill.


With all due respect to my talented friends.
___________________________
Greg M. johnson
http://members.xoom.com/gregjohn/index.html

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (5 KB)

>................TIER III: UNPLEASANT ATTEMPTS AT PHOTOREALISM
>With all due respect, GE_FIRST falls into this category.  I usually give
>these 7-13 in the artistic & technical categories. These entries don't
>look like a photograph, but look like unsuccessful attempts at making
>one. The artist attempts something unnecessarily ambitious and fails at
>it.    Common ways in which my eye is offended include:
>A. Human figures which are ugly, not by artistic intent, but out of less
>than careful modelling or texturing. A humorous dwarf or Ernest Bergnine
>character can be quite appealing; ugly babies are not.
>B. Superbly photorealistic scenes with a few glaringly unrealistic
>components not related to artistic intent or theme.  One such example
>was the bald, paleskinned, cloned cavemen.
>C. Superbly photorealistic landscapes next to sloppily constructed CSG
>objects.
>D. (For 1998) Most uses of Poser 2 faces, especially when bald.
>E. (For 2000) Most uses of Poser 3 faces.
>F. Lighting and contrast problems, such as:
> 1. Use of too much ambient light.
> 2. My inability to tell what entry is about from the thumbnail.  I
>expect to be able to detect the content from the thumbnail and be
>surprised by a second meaning or added details when I go to the 800 x
>600!  If  I paid the artists to wear these entries on a T-shirt, my
>friends would have to squint and to touch my chest to see what they were
>about.
>


Hi Greg:

I am the author of ge_first. I believe that the commentaries of the judges
would have to be ample and deep, like his; although in this case I am the
victim.    :-(

Consider the following thing. The human figures are very difficult to model
with Pov-Ray. With Spatch something can be done better, but it continues
being difficult; the work is very long and tedious. I do not believe that I
repeat the experience. You consider that the modeled one of human figures is
not common in the IRTC (exception Lorenzo Quintana, Anto Matkovic, and Gena
Obukhov). I hope that it is evident that my " baby " is not Poser.

Excuses by my English and thanks for its attention.

Guillermo Espitia
Bogotá, Colombia

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson <gre### [at] aolcom> wrote:
: F. Really bad puns, especially involving cows.

  Does this mean you didn't like my COWBATH in the previous round?-)

-- 
main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
*_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/

Post a reply to this message

I didn't say I hated cows, but I did hate "Cow Pi."  It's silly, as you say,
pretty good fun.  Your whole theme is cool and bizarre and had some thought to
it, but was not a mere pun.

You put a lot of work into the intricate texture of the tiling. I have no idea
what score I gave you.  It does'nt quite make it to "superb" (ie., score >>15),
due to the simple texture of the cow, wooden expression on the cow (shouldn't it
be surprised at us?) , grey untextured walls, and square-edged-cylinder shaving
cream.  Your entry certainly doesn't merit the description "offensive to the
eye," but if you fixed all those details you could have possibly won!

http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/1998-10-31/cowbath.jpg

The point I was trying to make is that a well executed, rubber-ducky looking cow
in a more cartoonish-looking bathroom would have engendered as high or higher a
score as I gave to your entry.

Nieminen Mika wrote:

> Greg M. Johnson <gre### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> : F. Really bad puns, especially involving cows.
>
>   Does this mean you didn't like my COWBATH in the previous round?-)
>
> --
> main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
> *_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (2 KB)

Sorry, hope I wasn't too harsh, Guillermo, and all of the flaws below don't
apply to your work. Yes, there is more originality, personal pride, and
technical merit in hand-made figures.  That's why I create entries with what's
been called "ugly" figures made out of  POV-Ray blobs.

I was trying to explain to my wife about how I like a cool, 3D cartoony look.
She said, "You mean Wallace and Gromit?"   I said, "YES!"  I think that Nick
Park had more to do with my interest in raytracing more than did Jurassic Park
or Lawnmower Man.  Consequently, while there will always be a few great
perfectly photorealistic entries at the top of the heap, I like images that look
like a frame from a Nick Parks film.

Restating my advice to Nieminen, if one were to say to Nick Parks the words,
"Cow in a bathtub," he'd come up with a pretty neat looking image: can you
imagine it? And someone who can duplicate the fun of Park's work with raytracing
will in my heart get a higher score than all but the utmostly photorealistic
images.

Guillermo Espitia Rojas wrote:

> Hi Greg:
>
> I am the author of ge_first. I believe that the commentaries of the judges
> would have to be ample and deep, like his; although in this case I am the
> victim.    :-(
>
> Consider the following thing. The human figures are very difficult to model
> with Pov-Ray. With Spatch something can be done better, but it continues
> being difficult; the work is very long and tedious. I do not believe that I
> repeat the experience. You consider that the modeled one of human figures is
> not common in the IRTC (exception Lorenzo Quintana, Anto Matkovic, and Gena
> Obukhov). I hope that it is evident that my " baby " is not Poser.
>
> Excuses by my English and thanks for its attention.
>
> Guillermo Espitia
> Bogotá, Colombia

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (2 KB)

Greg M. Johnson <gre### [at] aolcom> wrote:
: what score I gave you.  It does'nt quite make it to "superb" (ie., score >>15),
: due to the simple texture of the cow, wooden expression on the cow (shouldn't it
: be surprised at us?)

  As I said in the description text, the cow wasn't my model. I don't have the
tools or the knowledge to model or to modify other people models.
  I didn't work very much on this image and actually I was very surprised for
the high score (it got in the top 36).


 , grey untextured walls, and square-edged-cylinder shaving
: cream.  Your entry certainly doesn't merit the description "offensive to the
: eye," but if you fixed all those details you could have possibly won!

  Why didn't you tell this on the comments page?-)

-- 
main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
*_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/

Post a reply to this message

This is a really interesting voting philosophy, mainly because it is 
just the opposite of what I think. I really spend the most of my time in 
artistic merit. But there are some reasons for me to Not write anything 
to anyone, as a Solomon measure. I am a fine arts and history teacher 
and I analyze vary carefully the entries.  Some comments about "a bunch 
of lines" hurt deeply.
And since I am an entrant, I realize and accept that there are excellent 
works, far better than mine, and far better than many images I have seen 
before. In fact, I consider my images to be experimental, because this 
programming stuff is new in my way of thinking. 
What is interesting to me, is the parameter difference in art's field.  
I will not condemn the "T-shirt" thing, because it might be my approach 
to Technical merit., although it seems -the shirt- too much to those who 
buy an oil painting because it matches with the upholstery.  And that, 
too is a freedom exercise, which is practiced in Arts like a mantra.  
Discussing about causes, impulses, justification, and beauty  -among 
many things- is time wasted, exactly the same way many people have been 
doing since 2000 years,  ago.  
Why do I spend more time in Artistic merit, and most importantly, what 
am I evaluating? Well, these things:
- Structure
--Composition, balance, lines, unity, variety, use of color -and 
expression through-, balance of color, Ligths and shadows and balance, 
which produces the whole balance of the composition -, mass and volume, 
forms distribution, among others.
-Topic
--The tricky part. 
Can I evaluate like Kant, I do like or do not? What are my reasons? 
Thankfully I do not know personally any of the authors, Can I see some 
structure -other than the round itself?
Can I identify how the artist -if so- translates his/her world objects 
without noticing it? Are these objects symbols of the society again 
without noticing it?  Or better yet, is the artist -if so- expressing 
him/herself?
What is he/she expressing?  How is he/she doing it?  Which means -other 
than the software as a tool- is he/she using?
The bottom-line, Does this trascend the maker? 
As you can see, "ugly" and "beautiful" are meaningless at this point. :(
 
How my poor knowledge of the medium influence my appreciation? Is that 
fair?
What if it is a masterpiece? And that would lead to another question: 
What is a masterpiece? and equally important, Who says it? And so on. 

Certainly artistic merit is a tough one for me.  It has to do with my 
values, my background, what I know,  and my ability to do 'traditional 
art', a field in which I was very comfortable.  Now I am trying a new 
medium, that requires more attention, an another type of knowledge. I 
know how to draw and how to paint ...in canvases. I am learning to make 
other images, or these kind of images. 

This takes me to the technical merit. At this time and space, I would be 
trivializing my own proccess if said that everything I see amazes me. 
Not.  In this year and a half or so, I have had to learn -or try to- 
many things.  I have learned to appreciate the technical aspect in the 
image, basically because I started from 0-zero-.  I sincerely admire 
those of you who are able to translate the logic of something onto the 
program, and I tend to overestimate this field. 

As you can see, this field is a little daunting for me., but I am 
confident. I know I have to "educate" my eye just like I have done for 
Visual Arts. We are ALL entering to new fields, aren't we?
And I think that is going to be even more difficult now that I have been 
named as the"oldest female". GRRRRRRR!

Marjorie Graterol
eme### [at] emediezcom
 
http://www.emediez.com
 
PS. I am not English speaker/writer! Please excuse my errors
 


    Greg M. Johnson wrote in message <36942BAB.F100F5D5@aol.com>...
    Here are some thoughts on how I vote. They were compiled during a 
very boring meeting at work, anticipating having to defend earlier 
comments about how and why I vote.  I offer these comments with 
humility, in that it involves criticism of people's work which is better 
than mine. 
    First, I rate  ARTISTIC merit according to the questions, "Would I 
like to wear this on a T-shirt? Would I like this to hang in my living 
room?" 

    I rate TECHNICAL merit according to the apparent attention to 
detail; I'm likely to rate an entry lower which appears as an obtuse 
showcasing of the features of a raytracing program. 

    I think that there are about four or five different categories of 
entries, and I list them from highest to lowest as I typically rate 
them: 

    TIER I:  SUPERB PHOTOREALISM 
    These rare entries attempt to look just like a photograph and excel 
at it! Recent IRTC entries in this category include AFROG, 8_FORGIV, and 
STRIKE. 
    A great master of this style who I've run across is Victoria Brace, 
non-IRTC'er, whose work can be found at 
    http://www.vika.org/images/index.html 

    TIER IIA: COOL CARTOONY LOOK 
    These entries evoke favorite childhood toys or 3-D versions of 
cartoons, like the entries FOOD101 and MAGIC from this contest, and 
POOLSHARK from the last Animations round. (When I went to the IRTC 
voting overview page, I found that I had ranked  FOOD101 highest: will 
you forgive me?).  I hope that in heaven we'll have bodies like this.  
I'd much rather the entry to be fun and entertaining than be an 
over-exerted attempt to be photographic and fall short. Again, some 
photo-realism of the unreal characters is required, but there are fewer 
details to screw up. The artist attempts something simple and does it 
well. Note that I'm NOT talking about the Garfield entry of a few rounds 
ago. 
    A great master of this style (another non-IRTC'er) that I've run 
across is Troy Paiva and his work can be found at 
    http://designshed.com/shed.html 

    TIER IIB: PEN-AND-INK REALISM.  These look like a watercolor or ink 
drawings of a very realistic 3-D scene.  "Ice Giants" and MG_ROSE form 
this round fall into this category. 

    TIER III: UNPLEASANT ATTEMPTS AT PHOTOREALISM 
    With all due respect, GE_FIRST falls into this category.  I usually 
give these 7-13 in the artistic & technical categories. These entries 
don't look like a photograph, but look like unsuccessful attempts at 
making one. The artist attempts something unnecessarily ambitious and 
fails at it.    Common ways in which my eye is offended include: 
    A. Human figures which are ugly, not by artistic intent, but out of 
less than careful modelling or texturing. A humorous dwarf or Ernest 
Bergnine character can be quite appealing; ugly babies are not. 
    B. Superbly photorealistic scenes with a few glaringly unrealistic 
components not related to artistic intent or theme.  One such example 
was the bald, paleskinned, cloned cavemen. 
    C. Superbly photorealistic landscapes next to sloppily constructed 
CSG objects. 
    D. (For 1998) Most uses of Poser 2 faces, especially when bald. 
    E. (For 2000) Most uses of Poser 3 faces. 
    F. Lighting and contrast problems, such as: 
     1. Use of too much ambient light. 
     2. My inability to tell what entry is about from the thumbnail.  I 
expect to be able to detect the content from the thumbnail and be 
surprised by a second meaning or added details when I go to the 800 x 
600!  If  I paid the artists to wear these entries on a T-shirt, my 
friends would have to squint and to touch my chest to see what they were 
about. 

    TIER IV: PRANKS AND OFFENSIVE STUFF 
    I usually give these very low numbers, much lower than 8. Yes, I'm 
easily offended. 
    A. Pranks, such as previous entries "Pixel," and "Night". 
    B. Entries which glorify violence or torture. One non-IRTC image 
that comes to mind is an image of a naked Poser woman in a dark prison 
cell. "Houhahaha," the artist probably thought to himself. 
    C. Drug use. 
    D. Anything looking 2-D.  Sue me. 
    E. Multiple entries from same person which simply mean rearranging 
objects on a table. 
    F. Really bad puns, especially involving cows. Sue me. FOOD101 makes 
me chuckle; enCOWnter makes me ill. 
      

    With all due respect to my talented friends.  
    ___________________________ 
    Greg M. johnson 
    http://members.xoom.com/gregjohn/index.html

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'iso-8859-1' (11 KB)

Pedro Graterol wrote:

> And I think that is going to be even more difficult now that I have been named as
the"oldest
> female". GRRRRRRR! Marjorie Graterol

Would you prefer the eldest woman ? It sounds a little more respectful
of your station in life :)

Ken "they call me old too" Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)

What's the difference between "oldest" and "eldest"? Is it something 
like your discussions about colour and color? :)
Anyway, being a teen's mother I realiza that someday I will be a 
"grandma". I will think about
that for "Horror" topic :) .
It was kidding. As I said -I don't remember where- it's an honor 
-honour- for me to be the old-eld-est  woman. Female was the word 
the distinguished gentleman wrote.  I am the eldest Me :)
Marjorie
    Ken wrote in message <369B7B2A.A2B39CFB@pacbell.net>...
      
    Pedro Graterol wrote: 

        And I think that is going to be even more difficult now that I 
have been named as the"oldest female". GRRRRRRR! Marjorie Graterol
    Would you prefer the eldest woman ? It sounds a little more 
respectful 
    of your station in life :) 

    Ken "they call me old too" Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'iso-8859-1' (2 KB)

Regarding my "T-shirt comment"  for artistic merit.  I guess that to me,
there are two kinds of great art, both based on emotional appeal:

1. Images that evoke fun, such as FOOD101, which I would in fact put on
a T-shirt (had I the copyright) for going fishing with my 7-year old
nephew.

2. Images that evoke awe, such as 8_FORGIV or AFROG, that I would hang
in my living room or my foyer which I would show to formal dinner guests
to my home.

Both evoke necessary or positive emotions.  Some emotions I can do
without, such as those I get when the creator says through his or her
work:

A.  "Look at me!  I can show you what my software can do if let to run
for 48 hours,"
  OR
B.  "Hyuck, hyuck, I spent 15 minutes making up a pun!"

_________________________________
Greg M. Johnson
opinions solely those of my own.


Pedro Graterol wrote:

> And since I am an entrant, I realize and accept that there are
> excellent works, far better than mine, and far better than many images
> I have seen before. In fact, I consider my images to be experimental,
> because this programming stuff is new in my way of thinking.What is
> interesting to me, is the parameter difference in art's field.  I will
> not condemn the "T-shirt" thing, because it might be my approach to
> Technical merit., although it seems -the shirt- too much to those who
> buy an oil painting because it matches with the upholstery.  And that,
> too is a freedom exercise, which is practiced in Arts like a mantra.

Post a reply to this message

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] dholcom

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)
-Basic Elements (Line, Color, Lighting –in the sense of volume and mass
balance-, Textures)
-Stylistic Coherence

-Original techniques
-Overall design (textures, meshes, csg’s , height fields, etc)
-Rendering  -Use of limits and strengths of the renderer
-Specific techniques (usage of,  creation of, )


-Originality – in presentation of the image, in connection with the topic
-Rules –Compliance with

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)