pouët.net

Since I started visiting demoscene parties again in 2025, I have noticed that graphics compos are riddled with:

a) “Steps galore”
b) “Zoom in and find out”

Personally, I find this very distracting and not in the interest of the artist who created the competition entry.

An image is made to be enjoyed in a certain way—preferably in its original aspect ratio and at the scale the artist intended, normally around 100%.
If you are keen on knowing how the artist made the image, the work steps can be included in the final release. Please do not show all the steps during the compo. Most of the time, they tell the audience very little without any explanation.

If work steps are required for a competition entry, review them beforehand and then decide whether the image qualifies for the compo.

Please do not constantly zoom into the displayed image. This is practically nonsense when the artist did not intend the image to be viewed as a collection of isolated details.

Show the artwork as the artwork—not as something for the compo operator to explore with an image viewer.

Just some general thoughts about graphics compos.

What are your thoughts?

100% agree

From the standpoint of a longtime lurker but recent competitor: if you are going to zoom, then please at least show the piece at 100% for longer than five seconds.

In general this is especially annoying when the only time the attendees will be able to view your piece before voting is during those few seconds - because party systems do not let attendees registered in said system download the entries for review, and/or do not require screenshots for prods using a display.

(Arguably doesn't make sense to add these features when the compos and voting fit in a single day - "when are you going to get the time to review anything?")

Even worse when the viewing conditions with the beamer are sub-optimal :(

(I think PM recommends you submit a screenshot and exposes downloads? Granola has neither, Wuhu not sure - for the parties I used it at, no idea how customizable they are.)

Zoom and wiggle mouse around for 2 seconds, NEXT IMAGE!

YTHO.

I enjoy the zooming but, as hmstx says, show the fullscreen image for a bit both before and after.

I also often think the wrong parts of the image are zoomed, but I guess that's personal preference.

Steps should be for the orgas, but given the amount of prompted stuff that apparently slips through anyway, I'm not sure what the point of these are anymore.

Noted!

The music equivalent of the zooming would probably be muting some channels from a tracker entry and playing random patterns here and there :)

Yeah, what acryl and reed say.

i disagree... when you look at a painting in a museum you can step closer and focus on every small detail too (e.g. a must when looking at a Bruegel painting) so that renders the 'zooming on a section of the artwork is not as the artist intended the art' argument void.

i do agree that showing the piece as a whole for a longer period of time AND doing less zooming during the graphics compos is important and often neglected. probably because they don't want the audience to get bored and they overdo the zooming/interactive part.

as for steps, mixed feelings. i enjoy seeing the process and at least it helps the audience convince it's not AI slop repixeled, but at the same time, you don't show steps of music entries or demos because the end result is the art you want people to see/hear so i can understand the 'then why should gfx?'

I’d like to see you try that with the Mona Lisa ;)

As for the other stuff: i like seeing the steps, as well as the zooming stuff, but i definitely agree that those two should not be ”the main attraction” and that the final image should be displayed longer.

Going with reed's comment again, it can be very hmm... outlandish what you do in tracker if you go track by track, pattern by pattern, if you are more interested in the outcome. I can only guess it can be quite the same with gfx. If jury can see the work behind it, and conclude it isn't for example AI, it should be enough.

depends on who is zooming -.-

Agree.

The overall composition aspect of an image could get
lost when too much into detail.
Fibonacci, concept of: The eyes entering an image on the
darkest part wandering to the brightest parts eg.

@maali:

You are absolutely right. You can step in and out of an image when in a gallery.

But you are doing it. You control it. Imagine having vr goggles on - and another
Person does the panning, zooming, stepping back/forwards movement for you
with the controllers. You get the motion sickness.

Anyways, the suggestion from acryl is good.

i have no opinion on zooming, but i very strongly support the displaying of working steps, especially in times of AI.

To spot rule-breaching pieces that have slipped through and escaped the organisers' keen eyes? :)

Didn't some people point out, that AI can produce working-steps now too.

Jury in compos can handle the working steps, if they are required but not provided, fine, no compo then. That's why there are personnel to make the compo fair for everyone, no? I can imagine acryl's position quite clearly, even if not gfx artist, and i can second it.

It can be thought as rude to break your art into pieces, and zoom into somewhere where you especially didn't want it to get zoomed at etc.

Acryl brought up a very good point. I agree 100%.

I agree with Acryl. No need to zoom on random parts of the image.

It's interesting how working steps have become a public thing only for graphics. It seems nobody is asking for half-finished versions of music tracks or demos to be shown alongside the final piece, or even included in the archive.