On The Summer Dew

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12 December 2012   #16
It takes two votes to accept/reject a submission, not one.

I think the showcase gallery will still exist, but it'll be more like an "editor's choice/spotlight" kind of approach instead of a submission system. So basically, you don't need to submit anything anymore. The people behind the scenes will simply pick the images they think are excellent and featuring them. (This my understanding right now, and what I've suggested to them, but we won't know exactly what the system will be in detail until it's finished and tested.)
 
Old 12 December 2012   #17
Ah it's ok, I thought you were speaking about Choice Gallery.

It takes two votes to accept/reject a submission, not one.


Last question to you on this issue. What happens now when one of them accepts the image and the other not?
I would really like to hear their opinion (I still don't know who voted on my image, because you, Stahlberg and Putterfish did not voted/would have accepted it probably), I think it could be useful for me (and, maybe, for them too) to have their opinion in this thread.

Cheers, mate.

Last edited by ramonesFAN : 12 December 2012 at 12:17 AM.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #18
Hi Lunatique, its clear that when there is a judging system, especially on something subjective like art, there will be a little inconsistency, controversy by eyes of people here.

One of the bias that many people here think (not unnecessary true) is bias towards characters.

Often we see characters in the still gallery with next to no expression, minimal/no posture, let alone composition. Also often there are inconsistency in the work, often very details face, but very simplified clothings that are of much lower level. But this seems ok to judges.

What I heard before, was that the judges will not reject an image if it is of a high technical level, which seems fair enough, except when it comes to non character, especially still life like what ramonesFan have, cars, some electronics, or even someone room, the requirement seems much much tougher.

It need to be interesting, compositional good, tonal good, etc, on top of technically good.

I recognize that most people here like characters, judging from replies to a character centric showcase, compare to still life. probably more if its a sexy woman.

I am cool with that, but at least, make the requirements clear when submission time.

The advice I usually give to someone who I think have a good showpiece (that is non character) is to post it somewhere else too, e.g, post it on a 3D car showcase gallery on a car centric forum, or architecture image on a architecture centric forum...& this is coming from someone that work mainly on characters. They are also maybe more likely to get more views, opinions, & replies anyway compare to here, as in my opinion most people prefer characters more here, at least in the 3D section anyway.
__________________
My WIP Thread:
Next Gen Lara Croft 3D Model Fanart
 
Old 12 December 2012   #19
Originally Posted by ramonesFAN: What happens now when one of them accepts the image and the other not?

It then returns to a rejection status and if it gets another rejection vote it will be rejected. Or, if it gets an accept vote it will return to an accept status, awaiting another yay/nay vote.

I may be one of the down voters on this one, though Iím not 100% sure since we go through lots of images at any given time, and unfortunately most do get rejected and we donít see everything that goes through. I saw it in the queue and as someone who did tons of insect macro photography in the past, and appreciates a good bug pic, I was curious about it. The reason I wasnít too impressed (and not impressed with most 3d butterfly profile images) is the main focal area driving the imageís aesthetic appeal is essentially, in most cases, clipped photographs of butterfly wings on simple placards of the wing shape. This is the case with your Spotted Fritillary, as well. 90% of the butterfly is a photograph, which is the glory of the work. The remainder is covered in poorly handled 3d hair (especially in comparison to the hair work on your Spotted Fritillary). The image does have a sense of photographic realism, but in the wrong direction, IMO. It looks like a poor photo with too much contrast conflict between the background and foreground elements. That lens bloom/glare at the upper left adds to the problem. The overall image gives me the feel of an old Kodachrome slide, without the dust and scratches. Many people (not you in particular) claim the Artsy defense, and in most cases all that destructive cheap lens aberration, faux film grain and overuse of shallow DOF, etc., really does is masks poor craftsmanship (in a lot of cases)óin the name of ďartĒ. Yes, Iím hyper critical of 3d work and usually wonít vote on some of it. When I do down vote something that I feel others may not feel the same way about, they usually overturn my vote anyway. Thatís the way it should work. So in this case, if in fact I did eventually give this piece a nay vote (whether first or last call), others or at the very least someone else seemed to have agreed with me, especially since this happened twice. I did not know this was submitted twice as I donít see everything that goes through.

Having said all that, Iím with Robert on getting rid of the current system all together and going with an editorís image highlight system.

Resubmit the image again. The 3rd time may be the charm.
__________________

Last edited by Quadart : 12 December 2012 at 12:34 PM.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #20
Hi Quadart, your point is really interesting.

I agree with you regarding the image treatment, maybe the colors could remember the lomo's but it was not intentional. In fact I did not put grain or expired-film effects/aberrations.
I definitely agree with you about the glare, it will disappear.

But I absolutely cannot agree with you regarding the butterfly issue, this because the texture I used for the wings had been photographed and edited by me, my Sigma 180 macro and Photoshop (colors flattening, highlights removing, etc.), then placed into Material Editor and processed again on the other channels (bump, displ, refl). I did not used "shortcuts" in modeling neither in texturing, in fact I could render the butterfly in any angle I want.
Regarding the hairs, I did not understand if you liked it or not. I can tell you I combed and fixed the hair system according to different butterfly references.

Resubmit the image again. The 3rd time may be the charm.


Don't understand (seriously) if you wrote this for fun or something else.
The second time I re-uploaded the image I did not do it on a whim. I did it following Stahlberg suggestions and self-moved critics.
If I will re-upload it the third time, would be after a good period of adjustments and fixes, according to your and others comments/critics.
I'm not a kid or a fool, my attempt is to understand the reason why an image was rejected and - if it's possible - trying to refine it at my best.

Thank you for your time
 
Old 12 December 2012   #21
Originally Posted by ramonesFAN: But I absolutely cannot agree with you regarding the butterfly issue, this because the texture I used for the wings had been photographed and edited by me, my Sigma 180 macro and Photoshop (colors flattening, highlights removing, etc.), then placed into Material Editor and processed again on the other channels (bump, displ, refl). I did not used "shortcuts" in modeling neither in texturing, in fact I could render the butterfly in any angle I want.

I was referring mainly to that fact that the primary focus and overall interest in most of these 3d profile close-up views of butterflies is the showcased photography represented in the wings, stepping outside of just being a photo texture. If you take away the huge dominating photographic element from the image thereís really nothing left, in the vast majority of these images. Turn the brown or orange butterfly 85į (almost head on) to see what Iím getting at here.

Originally Posted by ramonesFAN: Regarding the hairs, I did not understand if you liked it or not. I can tell you I combed and fixed the hair system according to different butterfly references.

I liked the hair work on the Spotted Fritillary, in comparison to the brown and white butterfly. Iíd like to see a couple details of the head on that orange one. The hair work on this one has that typical bad 3d hair look.

What's the name of that brown and white butterfly?

Originally Posted by ramonesFAN: Don't understand (seriously) if you wrote this for fun or something else.

It wasn't a joke. Tweak it and give it another shot.
__________________
 
Old 12 December 2012   #22
Got your point.
I'm not sure about her name, the original one is similar to a Monarch/Queen butterfly - Danaus gilippus/Danaus plexippus. But I decided to add or modify some details (like fur on the wings - not spotted body) for making her more interesting and particular.

Understood the 85į issue. I wrote you I can shoot her from any angle, but cannot do extreme closeups 'cause she was not "modeled for this purpose". I was planning to create an extremely detailed butterfly for closeups, maybe I will fix the current one for that goal.

I liked the hair work on the Spotted Fritillary, in comparison to the brown and white butterfly. Iíd like to see a couple details of the head on that orange one. The hair work on this one has that typical bad 3d hair look


I'll search for the backup hdd in which I saved the .max file of the previous butterfly, now - if you like - you can find a closeup/crop of the image in my CG portfolio (unfortunately not really good quality).
As well I'll fix the current hair system according to your suggestion (probably splitting it in three/four coexisting macro-systems for obtaining best control on different hair groups).

It wasn't a joke. Tweak it and give it another shot.


Now I am working on a new image for my porfolio - finally something different from the usual photorealistic works. When I'll finish it I will fix this work and would be more than happy to re-upload it.

Thanks again
 
Old 12 December 2012   #23
Thread automatically closed

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.