Monthly Noob Challenge - Extended Edition ?

eXecutex

Hello polycounters !

Some of the members mentioned that they want this challenge to last 2 months each, so on behalf of that I am making this thread to ask you whether you agree about that or not.

This is also going for the character art challenge as I've been informed. So judging by that I think it's a good idea to extend this challenge starting from this month till April.

This is good because it somehow keeps you motivated to finish your piece if you didn't have time for the entire month. 

So there you go, let me know and I'll keep it going for 2 months until I come up with new concepts and such.

m4dcow

The only issue I could see with making the challenge longer is new people who weren't in on the current 2 month cycle could get a bit impatient if the challenges aren't as frequent. Many work on challenges past the end of a month anyway, sure some people lose interest and drop out, but those people probably wouldn't finish even with an extra 2 months.

aaronmwolford

There's nothing that says you cannot take 2 months you'll just miss the second month's challenge. Why not just skip every other month? The purpose of the challenges are to build speed and repetition, which is why they are best suited monthly. 

skodone

why i am really a fan of this is also to be able to receive critics and exchange over a longer period of time than just a month
for "noobs" the challenges here are super challenging actually and i doubt that many hobbyists are able to do them in one month 

to me it seems a 2month extension would really not harm the frequency and so on that much but could drag you deeper into the materia and keep you more focussed on one project before the next one is coming along and you are like dang i want to do this too but i am not halfway through the first one... character challenge does this for quite a while now... and it seems to work nicely isnt it?
also it would allow to introduce something as more complex envis for amateur artists for instance... you need one month for the easy enviro? very nice seems like you exceeded noob level and can face tougher challenges... also what speaks against making 2 enviros in the period

to me it seems prolonging the deadline would add more flexibility to the people taking part and the task would actually get more noob friendly while staying challenging overall. and to build up speed and stick to it frequently... thats something one has to achieve for himself... thats not a thing noob challenge can achieve for you

cgtoolsmith

Hi,

As @aaronmwolford said: The purpose of this short challenges is to build up speed and repetition. And I agree with that. You'll also learn/practice to deal with deadlines. All challenges are open for all skill levels because people can choose to focus on different parts. Also you can choose to take the project further (after the deadline) in a different thread. (And receive more feedback from Polycounters).

Marto101

I would definitely have to say I believe just sticking to monthly would be more suited to the challenge as giving people extra time to do it will not necessarily produce better results, just more so meaning more time to achieve the same result for people not looking to perfect their work.
I would have to say monthly, but that's just my opinion. Thanks!

CMPearce

As someone who doesn't have much spare time to complete a project within a month, I would still prefer monthly challenges. I would just participate every other month. I don't worry too much about the deadline as at this stage it's developing my skills that count. It's easier for slower pace workers like myself to join in bi-monthly, but I feel you would lose the interest of the artists who do complete the work within a month who ultimately are the driving force behind the success of this challenge in my opinion. 

Chronicle

i'm only an occasional bystander here, but i agree that one every month still seems the best to me.  Its far more interesting to check back in every so often and see new projects going on.  Sometimes i do the challenges on the side anyways.  People are always welcome to continue on them passed the one month anyway as this is all for fun here.  Its nice to have fresh things with fresh artwork to look at monthly.

eXecutex

I believe aaronmwolford pretty much said it all. This challenge is specifically made to help you build your speed and repetition of the things you create. Simple as that. If you find yourself finishing the environment you started but you didn't have time for the entire month, you are free to do it, it's your own work. But you should remember what the challenge is for. So far there is no sense in extending this challenge to 2 months or more, it'll stay as it is.
If you think anything else should be change in regards of this challenge let me know.
I think the discussion ends here. I will make a new MNC today so stay tuned! Thank you all for your comments !!

AtticusMars

"Monthly" challenges is just a terrible format frankly. It doesn't matter if it's one month or two, or how many times you tell people they can keep working on it, most people are going to come in at the middle and think "ehh I'll just wait for the next one". In that sense stretching it out to 2 months is just the beginning of the end as far as I'm concerned. If you want any evidence of this just ask why people are asking for 2 months instead of 1 if the monthly deadline is supposedly completely meaningless?

Just as a final semi-unrelated note, I'm sure I'm probably alone here but I'll never do one of these because it's clear you don't ask any of the concept artists for permission to use their concepts. Worse yet, sometimes you don't even credit them. In January you posted a concept up without a source, you just credited the artist as "unknown"...

Shyralon

I am also against the two month cycle. On one hand because it's harder for people who are out for the current challenge to join if they have to wait two month. Also doing several shorter projects keeps motivation up. In my opinion you can also see that with the character challenge, which has quite less participation since it lasts two month. Maybe change the name to "polycount noob challenge" so it's clear that you can keep working after the month, but still have a new one starting every month.

m4dcow

AtticusMars said:

"Monthly" challenges is just a terrible format frankly. It doesn't matter if it's one month or two, or how many times you tell people they can keep working on it, most people are going to come in at the middle and think "ehh I'll just wait for the next one". In that sense stretching it out to 2 months is just the beginning of the end as far as I'm concerned. If you want any evidence of this just ask why people are asking for 2 months instead of 1 if the monthly deadline is supposedly completely meaningless?

Just as a final semi-unrelated note, I'm sure I'm probably alone here but I'll never do one of these because it's clear you don't ask any of the concept artists for permission to use their concepts. Worse yet, sometimes you don't even credit them. In January you posted a concept up without a source, you just credited the artist as "unknown"...

Hey having the monthly challenge is better than not having one at all. It isn't like there are tons of environment challenges going on all over the place. Even in the big challenges/contests you see people flaking out all the time, so it is bound to happen in the monthly challenges too.

Maybe it would be better to emphasize that a challenge starts every month and the previous one doesn't end, although there is a natural lull in interest even before the next challenge is up, people should be encouraged to work till completion.

I definitely think that artists should be credited for any concepts used, and back when these started out I made a point to complain about lack of credit. With reverse image search engines, it isn't that hard to do anyway.

However, for something like this which is simply a learning exercise I don't see why permission is needed to use a concept. You can't always expect to get a timely response from a concept artist, even when you do quite often the work was done for a client and they can't give you permission anyway. Its a lot of hassle to go through when many of these simply won't see the light of day beyond a few WIP images.

AtticusMars

m4dcow said:

However, for something like this which is simply a learning exercise I don't see why permission is needed to use a concept. 

That's an extremely convenient stance considering it is not your work being used. It is not your place to decide what is appropriate to do with other peoples art, it's up to the original artists themselves and the only way you're going to find that out is to ask.

None the less, I'm not the art police and you guys can keep doing as you please. 

For whatever it's worth, there's a thread in the 2D section where artists have posted work up for anyone to model.
http://polycount.com/discussion/133572/2d-conceptbank-post-your-concepts-to-model#latest

m4dcow

AtticusMars said:

m4dcow said:

However, for something like this which is simply a learning exercise I don't see why permission is needed to use a concept. 

That's an extremely convenient stance considering it is not your work being used. It is not your place to decide what is appropriate to do with other peoples art, it's up to the original artists themselves and the only way you're going to find that out is to ask.

None the less, I'm not the art police and you guys can keep doing as you please. 

For whatever it's worth, there's a thread in the 2D section where artists have posted work up for anyone to model.
http://polycount.com/discussion/133572/2d-conceptbank-post-your-concepts-to-model#latest

I get where you're coming from, but in the same vein do concept artists ask permission for every piece of reference photography they may have used when creating a concept?

Thanks for pointing out that "concepts to model" thread though, some pretty cool stuff in there.

AtticusMars

m4dcow said:

AtticusMars said:

m4dcow said:

However, for something like this which is simply a learning exercise I don't see why permission is needed to use a concept. 

That's an extremely convenient stance considering it is not your work being used. It is not your place to decide what is appropriate to do with other peoples art, it's up to the original artists themselves and the only way you're going to find that out is to ask.

None the less, I'm not the art police and you guys can keep doing as you please. 

For whatever it's worth, there's a thread in the 2D section where artists have posted work up for anyone to model.
http://polycount.com/discussion/133572/2d-conceptbank-post-your-concepts-to-model#latest

I get where you're coming from, but in the same vein do concept artists ask permission for every piece of reference photography they may have used when creating a concept?

Thanks for pointing out that "concepts to model" thread though, some pretty cool stuff in there.

Are concept artists making 1 to 1 copies of photos? Using reference for inspiration is not even remotely the same thing as cloning someone elses design.

m4dcow

AtticusMars said:

Are concept artists making 1 to 1 copies of photos? Using reference for inspiration is not even remotely the same thing as cloning someone elses design.

Many time people modeling from concepts aren't doing a 1:1 copy either, they are interpreting the concept in 3d. Concepts can also be very loose or simply convey mood and the 3d interpretation will fill in a lot of the blanks. When a concept artist decides to draw a building they don't typically get permission from the architect, or if they draw the same building from a photograph do they ask permission of the photographer, or the architect or the construction company, or the building owner? It all sounds silly but this would be the sort of ridiculous BS a concept artist might have to go through if the same consideration applied before they were even able to put down a mark on the page.

AtticusMars

Yes, if you try hard enough you can artificially construct a scenario completely detached from the context of my point to cast doubt on it.

If you don't want to credit people or ask permission, then don't do it. Or do one and not the other, it makes no difference to me. I think it's shitty, but these aren't my designs. I only posted to say why I don't participate.

heyeye

AtticusMars said:

Yes, if you try hard enough you can artificially construct a scenario completely detached from the context of my point to cast doubt on it.

If you don't want to credit people or ask permission, then don't do it. Or do one and not the other, it makes no difference to me. I think it's shitty, but these aren't my designs. I only posted to say why I don't participate.

I'm actually curious with what the actual laws are regarding 3d adaptations. Is recreating a work from a 2d image into a 3d space considered substantial enough changes to give originality and thus protected by copyright? This can't be true can it? Mona Lisa with a mustache comes to mind.

Shyralon

heyeye said:

I'm actually curious with what the actual laws are regarding 3d adaptations. Is recreating a work from a 2d image into a 3d space considered substantial enough changes to give originality and thus protected by copyright? This can't be true can it? Mona Lisa with a mustache comes to mind.

Would be interested in this as well.
Also, in theory fanart of any kind would not be legal if we take everything that serious, right?
Or are there like expections for that (as long as it's non commercial of course)..
Getting quite offtopic tho.

m4dcow

AtticusMars said:

Yes, if you try hard enough you can artificially construct a scenario completely detached from the context of my point to cast doubt on it.

If you don't want to credit people or ask permission, then don't do it. Or do one and not the other, it makes no difference to me. I think it's shitty, but these aren't my designs. I only posted to say why I don't participate.

I didn't say anything about not wanting to credit people, in my first post I made it clear that it is important to give credit for any concept you may have worked from.

My argument is that there isn't a need to obtain explicit permission for non commercial purposes, and a concept artist would find it pretty ridiculous to be held to those same standards for non commercial work themselves.

heyeye said:

AtticusMars said:

Yes, if you try hard enough you can artificially construct a scenario completely detached from the context of my point to cast doubt on it.

If you don't want to credit people or ask permission, then don't do it. Or do one and not the other, it makes no difference to me. I think it's shitty, but these aren't my designs. I only posted to say why I don't participate.

I'm actually curious with what the actual laws are regarding 3d adaptations. Is recreating a work from a 2d image into a 3d space considered substantial enough changes to give originality and thus protected by copyright? This can't be true can it? Mona Lisa with a mustache comes to mind.

I'm not sure of the actual laws myself, but I know that certain buildings can't replicated in certain works without the owners or architects permission depending on the case.

Than you have games like GTA where certain cars are either copies or heavily derived by a real world counterpart but since there is hasn't been a license negotiated for a particular manufacturer they can't call it the actual name. This is also the case with certain arms manufacturers IIRC.

AtticusMars

m4dcow said:

My argument is that there isn't a need to obtain explicit permission for non commercial purposes, and a concept artist would find it pretty ridiculous to be held to those same standards for non commercial work themselves.

There is a difference between creating original work from influences and reproducing someone elses work. I'm certain that you're capable of recognizing the distinction, yet you've chosen to ignore it in favor of going off on a tangent about a conveniently constructed scenario to make your stance more reasonable.

Edit: Final attempt

Let's set the scene here: You want to create a recognizably reproduce someone elses concept art in 3D. Not only that, but you want to invite others to model that persons concept. The concept artist may or may not approve of this.

Now you have some options;

1) You could ask the concept artist and know for sure.

2) You could just assume they won't care and use the concept art anyway without asking.

But apparently there's a third option, and I must confess I hadn't actually considered this until you started posting:

3) Don't ask, because if you do enough mental gymnastics you can conflate creating original work by drawing inspiration from others, with recognizably reproducing someone elses design. If you squint your eyes hard enough you can blur these two things enough that they look the same. Given this, you can conveniently conclude that the concept artist shouldn't have any say in what's done with their work because they didn't go back in time to ask homo neanderthalensis for permission to illustrate images using visual contrast in a two dimensional medium. After all, the cavemen invented it and everything thereafter is simply derivative.

Frankly, in most cases option 2 is not that bad in my opinion. It's not what I would do, but it's okay. However what sets this particular situation apart from the rest is that you are not just modeling it yourself, you are suggesting others to do the same. You are inviting other people to use another artists work, without obtaining permission from the author. That is the key distinction here.

As for option 3, I can only hope that you aren't fooling anyone with this except yourself.

m4dcow

AtticusMars said:

m4dcow said:

My argument is that there isn't a need to obtain explicit permission for non commercial purposes, and a concept artist would find it pretty ridiculous to be held to those same standards for non commercial work themselves.

There is a difference between creating original work from influences and reproducing someone elses work. I'm certain that you're capable of recognizing the distinction, yet you've chosen to ignore it in favor of going off on a tangent about a conveniently constructed scenario to make your stance more reasonable.

Whether someone is trying to replicate a concept or is loosely influenced by it is irrelevant, these works are non commercial and traditionally would be called studies. Concept artists don't ask for permission when they do studies directly replicating or being influenced by another piece of work. There can be many different goals in the exercise, but it boils down to practicing your art. For many CG artists that art is using 3d workflows and techniques to interpret a piece of concept art in 3d however closely that may be.

I'm sorry for the other participants in this thread for how off topic this has gotten, so I'll avoid trying to rationalize my "conveniently constructed" point of view any further.

Bentic

What about the concept voting thread ?
Was that a good idea ? Should we bring it back ?

I'm also for keeping the challenge a monthly thing. We can keep working on it if we didn't have time to finish it within a month, we just need to stay focused and not be distracted by the new concepts of the next month
It's also less frustrating for those who would like to join halfway through, or who didn't like the concept and would have to wait two months for the next one. That would only be six challenges per year...
We could still work on a different one on our own, but the purpose is to work together, of course.

May I also suggest keeping the prop part about props ?
I thought the last one was a bit big for a prop. We can always treat it as an RTS building, for instance, and keep a reasonable amount of details, but I would rather see objects, furniture, small machines, trees, weapons, stuff like that. Maybe not statues, since that would be more suited for character modeling.
What do you think ?

eXecutex

I don't think any further discussion is needed about the concept. The reason I said Unknown is that I couldn't find it, tho people wanted it to be there and to create what was in that concept. Noone complained so far. And if you know the artist you will credit it, because it's reasonable. 
And I think we understand each other for taking a concept and working on it. It's mostly considered as a Fan Art and Personal Work, which doesn't include commercial use or any kind of money laundering. Simple as that, nothing to complain about it here.

Also I am taking the opportunity to change the name of the challenge from Monthly Noob Challenge into Monthly Art Challenge. I talked about this with the Greentooth guys and they totally agree which is quite reasonable. Some people might think this could not be the challenge for them so they won't enter because it's a "Noob" challenge. And I think we are all noobs(people) in general who are still learning. So on behalf of that I am renaming it permanently.

I hope you agree too.

Cheers!!

heyeye

eXecutex said:

I don't think any further discussion is needed about the concept. The reason I said Unknown is that I couldn't find it, tho people wanted it to be there and to create what was in that concept. Noone complained so far. And if you know the artist you will credit it, because it's reasonable. 
And I think we understand each other for taking a concept and working on it. It's mostly considered as a Fan Art and Personal Work, which doesn't include commercial use or any kind of money laundering. Simple as that, nothing to complain about it here.

Also I am taking the opportunity to change the name of the challenge from Monthly Noob Challenge into Monthly Art Challenge. I talked about this with the Greentooth guys and they totally agree which is quite reasonable. Some people might think this could not be the challenge for them so they won't enter because it's a "Noob" challenge. And I think we are all noobs(people) in general who are still learning. So on behalf of that I am renaming it permanently.

I hope you agree too.

Cheers!!

Solid changes across the board. I think it really doesn't matter what the name is as long as it has 'Monthly' and 'Challenge' somewhere snuck in there. Regardless of the changes, I have and will continue to point any aspiring artists towards the thread because there is no downside that can't be fix without a change in an individual's motivation or time management.(I might have just double negative, but hopefully the point is there.)

 I also apologize for the derail, would make an interesting conversation in general.

Bentic

I remember the monthly noob challenge being the first monthly challenge if I'm not mistaken. Then came the character, hard surface, substance challenges (and the long gone firearms challenge).
Couldn't it be useful to add "Environment" in there, now, to help differentiate it from the others, and not be too generic with "Art" ?

Also, regardless of the permission/credit debate, is the choice of concepts for the upcoming month discussed somewhere (since there aren't any voting threads anymore) ?
Is that done in the hangouts/slack/skype group ?

Anyway, thank you for keeping it alive, Executex

eXecutex

@heyeye
I suppose it will be more alive this way to be honest. Plus some people want it to have various concepts in it apart from ONLY environment. This way, they will be more interested in doing it. Even I am getting hyped a bit for some of the concepts I see  
And no worries, no need to apologize. If you guys want to discuss this here you are free to do so .

@Bentic
You are kinda right, I'm not much informed about it but I believe that's how it happened.
I think Art would fit this challenge more since it began to become more in general with the concepts since we are including props as well. Plus I think the interest would be bigger since some people asked for it.
There won't be any more voting thread for the concepts and such. I am choosing the concepts myself with a bit of help from the guys in the Skype group and Slack sometimes.
Speaking of Slack, I might be able to create a slack specifically for this challenge so we can store some concepts there for later use. This also needs to be discussed. Slack is being more used lately than Skype in general.

Cheers

m4dcow

Bentic said:

Couldn't it be useful to add "Environment" in there, now, to help differentiate it from the others, and not be too generic with "Art" ?

I agree with having environment in the title too.

Bentic

Thanks for the added details. I'm not too aware of what's happening "live", I should request access to the slack board

I was just wondering if it would not be too confusing for newcomers to have a general name compared to the other challenges.
I guess it depends on the prop, but they usually are part of the environment (and you would be right telling me that pretty much anything is too )

I haven't really used Slack yet, but isn't it possible to create a room/channel (not sure how it's called) for the challenge, instead of an entirely new board/group ? Or maybe a new one for all the challenges ? I don't know what's already in place.