Do we want questions where the asker doesn't have a specific problem, just wants feedback on a finished image?

For example, they could ask whether their attempt at a photorealistic image has any problems that make it obviously not a photo. Or they could ask about an image that does not attempt to be photorealistic. Even a cartoon style image is accepted by the eye significantly better with consistent lighting and shadows.

If we do allow such questions, there will be no problem to describe. How much description should we require of how the image was produced and any particular aspects that the asker wants feedback on?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It would probably help in having this discussion if you posted what you would consider a high-quality question of this type. $\endgroup$ Aug 15, 2015 at 18:33
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinBüttner I agree, but I don't have a high quality image to post yet. I thought if I posted this meta question it might prompt some people who have high quality images they'd like reviewed to post them on main, then we can see how the community responds. $\endgroup$
    – trichoplax
    Aug 15, 2015 at 18:44

1 Answer 1


I think it might be tricky to write such a question within high quality standards ; but yes, as always, if it triggers an interesting and constructive conversation about CG techniques, we should accept it.
The tricky part, I think, is the description of all the techniques that were included to create that image ; in order to have useful advices the asker would first need to tell which techniques he used, and give details about their implementation, since a small discrepancy in implementation can lead to a very different looking image.
This might make the first question quite long, and complex to analyze and answer.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .