Ray Saintonge wrote:
I don't know if removing them is the right
course of action, or if
the size limit should be imposed on the contributor. Postage stamp
designers do not do their work on a postage stamp sized canvas.
Having the original work in a large file is preferable because it can
be scaled down. In scaling up a small file we will not be able to
provide missing detail. Trimming a contribution to 30k should be
done by software. If a scaled down logo loses too much information,
we probably shouldn't adopt it.
Yes, we must have the large original.
But voters MUST be able to see that the design is viable at the final
size. If size reduction & data compression turns the winning design
into a blurry mess -- what then?
Then we should never have adopted that one in the first place. This is
less critical when we are trying to establish a short list from a list
that's as long as the list of California gubernatorial candidates.
If a logo with such problems makes it onto the top ten list, the
contributor should then have the opportunity to rectify this kind of
problem or be prepared to have it eliminated.
Perhaps what we are looking for in the first round of voting is some
kind of broad aesthetic appeal.
Ec