macdonaldj wrote:

> Oh great !  So now we have not only to follow the rules of the competition
> but also we have to second guess the thoughts of any judges who might read
> between the lines of the rules :)  While I understand what you are saying,
> rules are rules and should be interpreted as the boundaries within which
> your image should be judged fairly.  If you think the rules are not good
> enough then make suggestions to change them - don't unfairly disadvantage
> those of us who have spent considerable time and effort making images for
> this competition in good faith!
> 
> For the record (and not that it should matter), I *did* only make subtle
> changes in brightness/contrast.  You shouldn't punish honesty - I could
> have not even mentioned the fact and you would have been none the wiser
> (and maybe would have got a fair vote).

????  Chill out dude!

I don't think my post in any way suggested unfairly disadvantaging 
anyone, nor did I say anything about punishing honesty.

I clearly stated that I didn't have a problem with corrective 
adjustments. I was merely pointing out that (as Warp also stated) when 
you have rules that prohibit something (post processing) and then turn 
around and have rules to make exceptions to those other rules, you also 
create potential for someone to abuse the exceptions. You can consider 
that either a suggestion for change, or my opinion, whatever.

Personally, I agree with Warp, making no exceptions keeps the field 
level and simplifies the judging. And also would prevent these recurring 
"is this a violation?" threads. But the rules are what they are, and I 
don't have a problem with it.

As far as the fairness of my judging, I certainly don't have time to 
spend trying to figure out if you changed the brightness by 6% or the 
contrat by 3%. I also do not know all the capabilities of all the 
renderers out there, so I sometimes can't tell if something is rendered 
or post processed.  If your image looks good and there are no obvious 
effects added to the rendered image then I score it fully and don't 
stress over it, even if you state in your textfile that you added 
contrast or whatever.

If I see something that is obviously a violation, I give it ones across 
the board because I don't think someone who knowingly cheats should get 
a valid score. If I see something that may be technically permitted, 
but, (as in my one example) clearly exceeds the intent, I will mark down 
one category some because it deserves a valid score, but not full marks. 
If I see something I'm not sure about (like the lens flare mentioned in 
my original post) I give the benefit of the doubt, score it fully and 
mention my concern in a comment.

In short, I try to be as fair as possible using as liberal 
interpretation of the rules as possible, but if something looks 
not-rendered then I will mark it down. Hopefully, everyone else is doing 
the same.

RG

Post a reply to this message

gonzo <rgo### [at] lansetcom> wrote:
> macdonaldj wrote:
>
> > Oh great !  So now we have not only to follow the rules of the competition
> > but also we have to second guess the thoughts of any judges who might read
> > between the lines of the rules :)  While I understand what you are saying,
> > rules are rules and should be interpreted as the boundaries within which
> > your image should be judged fairly.  If you think the rules are not good
> > enough then make suggestions to change them - don't unfairly disadvantage
> > those of us who have spent considerable time and effort making images for
> > this competition in good faith!
> >
> > For the record (and not that it should matter), I *did* only make subtle
> > changes in brightness/contrast.  You shouldn't punish honesty - I could
> > have not even mentioned the fact and you would have been none the wiser
> > (and maybe would have got a fair vote).
>
> ????  Chill out dude!
>
> I don't think my post in any way suggested unfairly disadvantaging
> anyone, nor did I say anything about punishing honesty.
>
> I clearly stated that I didn't have a problem with corrective
> adjustments. I was merely pointing out that (as Warp also stated) when
> you have rules that prohibit something (post processing) and then turn
> around and have rules to make exceptions to those other rules, you also
> create potential for someone to abuse the exceptions. You can consider
> that either a suggestion for change, or my opinion, whatever.
>
> Personally, I agree with Warp, making no exceptions keeps the field
> level and simplifies the judging. And also would prevent these recurring
> "is this a violation?" threads. But the rules are what they are, and I
> don't have a problem with it.
>
> As far as the fairness of my judging, I certainly don't have time to
> spend trying to figure out if you changed the brightness by 6% or the
> contrat by 3%. I also do not know all the capabilities of all the
> renderers out there, so I sometimes can't tell if something is rendered
> or post processed.  If your image looks good and there are no obvious
> effects added to the rendered image then I score it fully and don't
> stress over it, even if you state in your textfile that you added
> contrast or whatever.
>
> If I see something that is obviously a violation, I give it ones across
> the board because I don't think someone who knowingly cheats should get
> a valid score. If I see something that may be technically permitted,
> but, (as in my one example) clearly exceeds the intent, I will mark down
> one category some because it deserves a valid score, but not full marks.
> If I see something I'm not sure about (like the lens flare mentioned in
> my original post) I give the benefit of the doubt, score it fully and
> mention my concern in a comment.
>
> In short, I try to be as fair as possible using as liberal
> interpretation of the rules as possible, but if something looks
> not-rendered then I will mark it down. Hopefully, everyone else is doing
> the same.
>
> RG

OK, sorry for directing my frustation at you :)  Don't worry, I am "chilled
out" but I think this is an important point.

> I don't think my post in any way suggested unfairly disadvantaging
> anyone, nor did I say anything about punishing honesty.
No, but James Coons *did* mark down an image (?mine) even though it falls
completely within the rules.  If I (or whoever) hadn't mentioned the
brightness/correction, he *wouldn't* have marked it down.  That's punishing
honesty is it not ? :)

Regards

Julian

Post a reply to this message

It seems that a lot of voters here are not reading the rules correctly
(nothing ever changes).  Also, it seems that very little people either
subscribe to the mailing list, or bother to read it.  Perhaps this is why
old discussed topics keep ending up here again?

It was my understanding that panel judges agreed a long time ago that there
is nothing wrong with re-sizing an image down.  In fact, it was even
mentioned on the irtc site somewhere that it was in fact recomended for
users with a render engine that either has no AA, or poor AA, that they
could use this method.  Why should they suffer?

Come on people...  If we are going to get all technical on knocking down
people's scores, at least learn the rules before jumping to wrong
conclusions.  I have seen many users in the past lose points for going the
extra distance and putting in hard work on certain effects.  Why?  Because
the person voting didn't have a proper clue on how to vote yet thought they
did.

It just pains me to see this.


Thank you.

Post a reply to this message

"The Mad Hatter" <the### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> It seems that a lot of voters here are not reading the rules correctly
> (nothing ever changes).  Also, it seems that very little people either
> subscribe to the mailing list, or bother to read it.  Perhaps this is why
> old discussed topics keep ending up here again?

Maybe it's also because mailing lists are really a thing of the past. If the
IRTC had a good forum that would be used by more people then everyone could
look up these things.

Post a reply to this message