Slashdolt wrote:
>>
>> one thing that's worse, imho, is those voters who only take a 5 to 10
>> second max look at each image before entering their vote then rushing
>> along.
>> I like to sit back and take a good look, seeing items that the artist
>spent
>> time on but are harder to see at first glance, etc.
>>
>That's a good point.  Each new round, I generally quickly look at all of the
>images and think "Wow! Some of these are the best ever!" or the opposite of
>that.  But upon closer inspection of the images, I generally find missing
>details or more details than I had seen the first time.
>

I like to go through all the entries several times, not just for details,
but to see how what kind of staying power they have. I find that there are
some that just grow on me over time, not for any specific details, but the
image as a whole.

Both of my two top picks in the last round (Modern Times & Radio Graves)
started lower in the rankings, but as I viewed and reviewed all the images
several times, my original top picks wore out, while those two kept getting
better and better.

Of course, the number of entries and the amount of free time I have come
into play there, so I'm probably inconsistent from one round to the next,
but at least my judging is consistent within the round, with every image
getting equal time.  (And as long as no one submits 4 copies of exactly the
same image...)

RG

Post a reply to this message