So this happened. (CLOSED)

I completely understand and appreciate your perspective. Judging is genuinely difficult and bias is an inherent human factor. Nobody is disputing that. However, the existence of difficulty doesn't exempt the result from scrutiny. Published criteria exist precisely to minimize that bias and give entrants a measurable standard to work toward. When the gap between those criteria and the result is as visible as it is here, the conversation becomes necessary not to attack anyone personally, but because the community deserves transparency. A scoring breakdown would have answered everything before it became a public question. At the end of the day, $2,000 and a significant amount of store credit were awarded to something that by any objective reading of the stated criteria, technical ability, difficulty and complexity of execution...was simply mediocre. That's not a matter of judging difficulty. That's a matter of accountability.

I completely understand and appreciate your perspective. Judging is genuinely difficult and bias is an inherent human factor. Nobody is disputing that. However, the existence of difficulty doesn't exempt the result from scrutiny. Published criteria exist precisely to minimize that bias and give entrants a measurable standard to work toward. When the gap between those criteria and the result is as visible as it is here, the conversation becomes necessary not to attack anyone personally, but because the community deserves transparency. A scoring breakdown would have answered everything before it became a public question. At the end of the day, $2,000 and a significant amount of store credit were awarded to something that by any objective reading of the stated criteria, technical ability, difficulty and complexity of execution...was simply mediocre. That's not a matter of judging difficulty. That's a matter of accountability.

1. What happened is that $2,000 and significant store credit were awarded to a render where 85% of the image is intentionally out of focus and the remaining 15% is flat lit - against stated criteria that explicitly include technical ability and difficulty and complexity of execution. A polite 'we'll add it to feature requests' doesn't address that. It dismisses it. But thank you for confirming that you find that acceptable.

2. The math is interesting but creative. Nobody asked for a three minute breakdown of 500 entries. A simple post-contest statement explaining how the stated criteria were weighted would take one person twenty minutes to write. 'We prioritized overall mood and thematic fit over technical complexity this cycle' - DONE. That's it. Instead we got silence, then a feature request, then more silence. But I appreciate the effort to defend the indefensible with arithmetic.

The question was never about workload or volunteer hours. The question is whether $2,000 was awarded in accordance with the published criteria. That question still has no answer. Feel free to try again.

Sorry, I thought you were asking for the judges to provide a written evaluation of every single entry.

Quote: "A simple post-contest statement explaining how the stated criteria were weighted would take one person twenty minutes to write. 'We prioritized overall mood and thematic fit over technical complexity this cycle' - DONE. That's it."

If that's all you're asking for, everyone got to see that right from the start of the contest.

"For this event, we are focusing purely on the art of the render"
"your goal is simply to showcase your best skills in composition, lighting, and overall aesthetic"

Those two lines are right there in the contest introduction. No post-contest statement needed.

Thank you for actually finding that, because you've just identified the core issue more clearly than I did. The contest introduction says 'composition, lighting, and overall aesthetic.' The official judging criteria say 'technical ability' and 'difficulty and complexity of overall execution.' Those are not the same metrics. Entrants who read the judging criteria and built their work around technical complexity were operating under different expectations than entrants who read the introduction and aimed for aesthetic mood.

RenderHub published contradictory standards. Which one was actually used? Because that question, the one you just accidentally made more urgent, still has no answer.

But let me simplify this for clarity, since we seem to be going in circles: regardless of which criteria you apply, the introduction or the judging rubric, the first place winner was mediocre. That's not an opinion born from frustration. That's a observable conclusion that multiple artists, independently, have reached when looking at the results. There were significantly better works in this contest that didn't place. That is the point. Everything else is a distraction from that very simple fact.

Also another thing: "'No post-contest statement needed' - interesting that a community member has appointed themselves the authority on what RenderHub does and doesn't owe its entrants. I'll wait for RenderHub to make that determination themselves, since they're the ones who welcomed people's time, published the criteria, and handed out the prices. Not you.

What are you waiting for? In your original post, you said RenderHub already responded.

The judges have formed their opinions, and RenderHub has posted the results. This contest is done.

There is a very simple solution to your dilemma. If you don't like how the contests are run here, then don't enter them. Just move on with life.

What am I waiting for? An answer to the actual question - which was never addressed. 'We added it to our feature requests' is not an explanation of how published criteria were applied. It is a dismissal dressed as a response.

'The contest is done' is an interesting position. By that logic, no institution should ever be held accountable for any decision once it's been made. Results are permanent, therefore questions are invalid. That's a fascinating standard.

And the 'if you don't like it, don't enter' argument is the oldest deflection in the book. It has never once addressed a legitimate concern in the history of human discourse. It simply tells the person asking the question to be quiet. Which is notably different from actually answering it.

The question isn't going anywhere. Neither am I.

You're correct that it's their money and their platform. Nobody is disputing that. But 'they can do what they want' and 'the community deserves transparency about how published criteria are applied' are not mutually exclusive positions. Both can be true simultaneously, though I understand that nuance might be a stretch.

'Most of us don't care either way' and yet here you are, responding. With 11,000 karma and apparently nothing better to do than show up in a thread you don't care about to tell everyone you don't care. Fascinating use of a Tuesday.

And just to be clear about what 'it's their money, they can allocate it as they wish' actually means when applied here, it means that published criteria, community trust, and artistic standards are all irrelevant as long as the people holding the money decide they are. That's not wisdom. That's not pragmatism. That's just dressing up 'accept being wronged because the people who wronged you are in charge' in a trench coat and calling it philosophy.

The argument isn't moot. A moot argument gets no replies. This one keeps getting them, including from people who came specifically to tell everyone they don't care, which is perhaps the most eloquent possible proof that they do.

The irony writes itself. So does the bootlicking.

I read all your posts in this thread, you must be an absolute JOY to be around in real life. Get over it, you lost. Like many of the so-called "artist" on this site, you do nothing but complain and think everything should be your way. This forum is full of people who, based on what they post, must clearly struggle in the real world.

You came all the way here to tell me I must be a joy to be around, while calling strangers on a forum miserable without knowing anything about them. The irony of that apparently escaped you entirely. Come back when you have an argument. Obviously you can't read.

My condescending tone makes you want to puke. Interesting. Three weeks of discussion, 570 views, a question RenderHub hasn’t answered once and what you chose to contribute is your digestive reaction to my tone. Not a single word about the actual argument. Not one. I’d say I’m disappointed but I’d be lying. This was entirely predictable. Try again.

Again, it is everyone else, not the mentality of Dark Chrome. Zero self awareness.

Self awareness would be recognizing that you’ve now posted twice (from a burner account obviously) in a thread you claim doesn’t matter, contributing nothing but personal attacks while carefully avoiding the actual question that started all of this. But please, tell me more about my mentality.

Why would anyone need a "burner" account for a site that just sells assets for a hobby? Dude, you are very deluded. Not everyone "thinks" making renders is a job. I have a job and it is not some imaginary title like "artist". Maybe that's why you are so worked up about losing. I mean, I saw your one render published on here... I would not count on winning any prize money any time soon if I were you as judging from that, you are a mid tier creator.

You’ve posted three times in this thread without addressing the actual question once. Only personal attacks, assumptions about my life, and unsolicited critiques of a single remaining upload, while conveniently missing that I removed my other renders from this platform, including three that RenderHub featured on their own social media pages, within 2 weeks of time, back to back.

Ironic coming from someone defending a $2,000 first place render shot at f/1.8 with 85% of the image intentionally out of focus. But sure, mid tier.

I’m done engaging with you specifically. The thread exists for people who actually have something to say about the topic. My advice? Grow up.

You started all this by messaging Render Hub because you were butt hurt. You then decided to publicly try to get a mob going against them for not immediately bowing down to you. Then you attacked the winning submission (and are still doing so with technical BS). Then you began to attack anyone who disagreed with you. Then I stepped in and said something. You have continued to do the same thing over and over. But sure, I need to grow up, not you. Wait, didn't I already say that? You blame everyone but yourself for losing. Keep going with your temper tantrum, you're doing so well.

You’ve now summarized the entire thread from your perspective without addressing the actual question once. Not once. Three weeks, multiple posts, and not a single word about how the published criteria were applied to the result. Just a timeline of your feelings about my behavior.

That’s the whole story really. Everyone who disagrees with the question has focused entirely on the person asking it. Nobody. Not you, not RenderHub, not anyone, has actually answered it.

"Technical BS" in parenthesis... the irony of dismissing technical analysis on a contest that explicitly listed technical ability and complexity of execution as judging criteria is something I will treasure for a long time. That tells me a LOT about you and your capability.

That’s not a temper tantrum. That’s a question that nobody can answer. There’s a difference. You should learn it.

@zombiecharger65:

The crazy thing is this dude already got his question answered by RenderHub right from the start.

According to his first post, he said that he asked this:
"Will RenderHub consider publishing judging notes or a scoring breakdown for future contests?"

And he said RenderHub responded:
"we would absolutely consider judging notes and/or scoring breakdown."

I don't even know why this guy thought he could win a *Summer Fun* render contest with an entry that doesn't even fit the summer fun theme.

https://www.renderhub.com/gallery/100429/cold-beer-warm-barrel

Nuckin' futs if you ask me...

Thank you for finally offering an actual argument after weeks of personal attacks ‘it doesn’t fit the theme.’ That’s the first substantive point anyone on your side has made in this entire thread.

Japan has summer. Osaka is coastal. A character with a cold beer on a warm day is summer. A dystopian cyberpunk interpretation of summer is still summer. The brief said ‘Summer’ not ‘California Games 1985.’

Also, thank you for sharing the link. Let everyone look and decide for themselves what ‘mid tier’ means.

And one final thing, find me a single quote in this entire thread where I said my work deserved to win or should have placed. I’ll wait. I raised a question about judging criteria and transparency. That’s it. You and your friends have contributed exactly three things to this discussion: insults, gaslighting, and projection. Not one technical argument. Not one answer to the actual question. Just personal attacks against someone who asked a platform to explain how they applied their own published criteria. That says considerably more about you than it does about me.

@stevenjoseph8844 Yep. He just keeps going in circles and missing the entire point.

@Dark Chrome The same render I referenced is indeed the submission. Mid tier all the way and I had no idea this was supposed to be a "Summer" themed render. No wonder you lost. A fully dressed figure holding a beer, smoking a cigarette (that is lit, mind you) that has no smoke coming from it, with a cybernetic hand just SCREAMS summer fun.... There's your critique. Everyone knows what a summer render implies and you did something else. That was basically the equivalent of doing a render of someone in shorts and saying "well people somewhere in the world wear shorts during the summer". People drink beer in the summer in Japan? You lost for an obvious reason and you need Render Hub to explain why you didn't win?

@Dark Chrome Here is some further critique of your submission. Your original render, straight out of Daz Studio, looks significantly better before you Photoshopped it into ruin. You had a crisp and clean render with a lot of definition, clarity and depth in the foreground but you decided to blur it to death (didn't you say something that is 85% out of focus is hiding things?). Looks like the saturation was heavily decreased, it was given a blue hue and the contrast was cranked way up. Look at the blacks on the sleeves and legs... you now have massive artifacting and big ass blocks (that's a technical term ) and lost all of the fold and wrinkles on the clothes that were clearly present before. The boots are now blurry and the photo is grainy. It looks much worse than it originally did. Your Cyberpunk assassin from the future render lost the Summer render contest and you are crying because you think it was an unfair judgement.

One other thing, you claimed there have been weeks of attacks. I have been posting in this thread for less than 48 hours and from the looks of the forum, almost no one has replied to it. 5 people or so. If most of them have been attacks, then I fear you have failed in your mission to get validation and support from the masses.

Two posts in one hour from someone who doesn’t care. Noted.

On the cigarette smoke, a lit cigarette in a coastal windy environment does not constantly emit visible smoke. Wind disperses it immediately. Anyone who has actually smoked, or simply observed someone smoking outdoors, would know this. Basic real world physics. Not a detail that was missed, a detail that was understood.



The post-processing critique is interesting. For someone calling this mid tier you’ve invested considerable time in the analysis. However, post-processing and color grading after render is not a flaw. It’s standard pipeline. Every type of production, every game cinematic, every commercial photography shoot processes the raw output in post. Iray, V-Ray, Arnold, Unreal Engine, none of them produce a final image straight out of the renderer (you would knew if you were actually relative to it). The ‘blocks’ in the dark areas you’re describing are JPEG compression artifacts from web upload, something that affects every image on this platform including the winning render. Mistaking web compression for a grading error is exactly the kind of technical confusion that makes your critique difficult to take seriously. The color grading choices were deliberate, cyberpunk aesthetic intentionally desaturates and pushes cool tones.

Interesting coming from someone who dismissed this entire discussion as ‘technical BS’ and then spent two posts attempting technical critique while misidentifying JPEG compression artifacts, misunderstanding professional color grading pipeline, and apparently being unaware of how wind affects cigarette smoke. If you’re going to call someone’s technical argument nonsense, it helps to actually know what you’re talking about.

Also notable is what you chose not to mention. Not a word about the motivated rim lighting through refractive glass ON DAYLIGHT. Not a word about the custom cyberware hand painted in Substance Painter. Not a word about the sub-level 3 character geometry holding up at close focal range. Not a word about the deliberately composed negative space built into the scene specifically for the typography. Not a word about the custom architecture that is not part of any Daz Merchant and the emissive details on them, that provides depth and holds REALLY WELL in the DoF. Not a word about any of the elements that actually demonstrate technical ability and complexity of execution, the criteria this contest was supposedly judged on.

You found two points you thought you could attack. Got both wrong. And avoided everything else entirely. That’s not a critique. That’s a selection bias dressed up as one.

What I cannot accept is $2,000 going to faked Photoshop DOF (if you watch the boat edges), polygon distortion on the primary in-focus element (hat), and basic default shaders, based on criteria that explicitly listed technical ability and complexity of execution. I am susprised you haven't seen those, considering you hang around their posts regularly


48 hours and 5 people. Yet here you are. Still posting. Still analyzing my render pixel by pixel. For someone who thinks this argument is moot you’re working extraordinarily hard at it.

I smoked for 14 years. I know smoke better than most people and yes, smoke CONTINUOUSLY comes from something that is on fire, even outside. So I will reiterate... You had a decent render and you absolutely destroyed it in post. But the most glaring thing you did was completely ignore the theme of the contest. And considering your forum personality, I don't think Render Hub has any reason to ever give you an explanation as to how they graded you as you would very clearly spend the rest of your life blasting them on the forum and telling them why they are wrong. You will never admit that you lost fair and square largely because of your own decisions.

Let me say this one more time so you can completely ignore reality again.... YOU RUINED YOUR RENDER IN POST. Period. It looks like garbage now.

14 years. I smoked for 18, in a coastal bay area, including on speedboats, where even weak wind burns the cigarette twice as fast and produces zero visible smoke. Smoke does not continuously emit in wind. That’s not opinion. That’s combustion physics. Wind disrupts the airflow around the burning tip. The stronger the wind the less visible smoke. Any smoker who actually paid attention knows this.

‘You ruined your render in post’ a very decent color grade that you didn’t notice until you had a direct comparison. By definition, if you couldn’t detect it without the raw render, it didn’t ruin anything. It was invisible to you until you were handed the answer. No surprise, considering you find yourself constantly out of ammunition, therefore you recycle boring personal attacks, as follows yet again.

‘Your forum personality’ you’ve posted seven times in this thread to tell me nobody cares and the argument is moot. I’ll let that speak for itself.

The theme argument is the only "coherent" point anyone has raised in this entire thread. And quite arguable, since not all coastal areas ESPECIALLY dystopic, are like a postcard. And yes before you try to argue that on a fictional level, one name for you "PACIFICA". And if you have to google that name (and I know you will because you are a clueless summer child), then you shouldn't even been judging or posting about dystopic beach themes. Everything else has collapsed under basic scrutiny. You’re welcome to keep going. Despite you are clueless about post production, color grading and how things works. I presented several positives against your "negative" based on your personal opinion and not facts, and YET you go back to the same. Like a broken record. Because simply, you have nothing else to say.

If you have any dignity left, keep going with your main account if you don't mind yeh? A 2022 account with zero gallery uploads that suddenly appeared in this specific thread with extreme prejudice. No creative contribution to this platform. Ever. Just forum posts defending a judging result that has nothing to do with them, while farming karma points from a thread they claim is pointless. I mean have you even installed Unreal Engine, Blender, Maya or Daz, ever in your life? At this point, I will even accept MS Paint used by you, for creative purposes. Even if that is the closest you have ever touched. The community can draw their own conclusions.

And to end this from my side, because this thread was not made to argue with your non-sense, I'll just wait for your next major memorable comment. So far you have given me plenty of material.

You can't see the forest for the trees. Literally the only submission in the entire gallery that didn't get the assignment. Continue to argue no matter what and refuse to accept that you lost for very clear and obvious reasons. You will continue to argue, no matter what anyone says and fail to take accountability. This is 100% your own doing and you can keep trying to explain in detail why everyone else is wrong and you are right but in the end... since you lost, that makes you a loser. So, keep going round and round, loser.