Or it could be sticking a sequence of 3D renderings side-by-side to show a
sequence of events. Or it could be changing everything to sepia color. Or it









Maybe we should apply the same logic to the problem of post-processing. If what
it done overall is not sufficiently masterful in 3D then it just gets bad

shades of gray. Is that reasonable?


Submissions are expected to primarily demonstrate and document the use of 3D
software. Scores are awarded based on artistic, technical and conceptual merit.

That keeps the work about 3D, does not dictate methodology or tools. But allows
the IRTC community to applaud work that is most significant. What is

always, in the end, in the hands of the community to decide.



powerful, heart-felt work is not always pretty. If it means something more than


for size:

Submissions are expected to primarily demonstrate and document the use of 3D
software. Scores are awarded based on artistic/conceptual, and technical merit.






How about this:

Submissions are expected to primarily demonstrate and document the use of 3D
software. Scores are awarded based on artistic/conceptual, technical merit and
quality of documentation.

That puts us back at three scores per image.

So there you go! Problem solved. Right? Something missing?

Post a reply to this message