Doctor John wrote:
>"Slashdolt" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
>news:3e3ec628$1[at]news.povray.org...
>> Sometimes I feel that the artist may have tried to achieve a certain look
>> and feel to the final image, without it being photo-realistic, yet with
>many
>> of us, if it doesn't look photo-realistic enough, it's gets a lower score.
>>
>I hate "me, too-ing" but I have to say that I agree 100% with you, Slash.
>There does seem to be a tendency for many to mark down non-realistic images.

Yes, I've noticed that while non-photoreal images do sometimes score well,
it seems like they have to be a notch or two above the norm before that
happens.


>Hell, if I wanted photo-realism I'd go out and buy a camera. What I want
>from myself and would like to see from others is artistry and imagination.

Yep. I've got multiple cameras and when I want reality I use one of them.
Even though I *usually* try to make the elements of my ray traced images as
realistic as I can, the image itself is usually something that combines
those elements in a non-conventional way or presents a non-real scene.
After all, I would sincerely hope that my Hang Time scene doesn't represent
"normal" behavior!


>A real problem I have is that it is frequently obvious that the person
>making the comments has not read read the .txt file.

Agreed.  I've seen comments in a couple of rounds indicating the commenter
thought the artist used post processing, when the .txt clearly describes a
perfectly valid technique. Sadly, I have to assume the scoring also
reflected that mistake.  On the other hand, I do mark down if I can't
figure out the image without the text, since IMO an image should speak for
itself. The text should be "in addition to" and not "required reading".


>BTW Gonzo, thanx for the kind comments in the last round

You're very welcome! I really liked your image. I'm just trying to find a
monitor with the right shape so I can use it for a desktop ;)

RG

Post a reply to this message