'On the Beach' - FEEL FREE TO COMMENT

[Stu B]

That is a very relevant point Bert. I always think that the "motion" pics are always marked down. As not quite there. When in real terms are far more difficult to achieve. Lets face it you have lots more thinking time over still life shots. Landscapes or Potrait shots.

[Paul Jones]

... they very rarely comment on the difficult circumstances some of the shots where taken in
Pauls shot of the model on Formby beach was a lot more difficult than if he had taken shots of the model in a studio
my shot of the sleeping bees was far easier to take than the chaffinch in flight, but the bees won.

That is a very relevant point Bert. I always think that the "motion" pics are always marked down. As not quite there. When in real terms are far more difficult to achieve. Lets face it you have lots more thinking time over still life shots. Landscapes or Potrait shots.

I agree that it is a very valid point that Bert makes, and thanks for making it.

It's true that I had much more of a challenge taking the beach photos than any studio shoot I've done. In a studio everything can be controlled. At the beach the light was changing every few minutes and though each shot was lit with flash the challenge was to make them look natural. If anyone has experience of an outdoor portrait shoot they'll understand what I mean.

I wonder when a judge looks at a photo whether they consider the circumstances under which the image was captured and the degree of skill involved, or are they purely judging the photo in front of them?

Another thing that I've been thinking about is titles for photos. How important is the title? If you had a stunning photo but the judge was confused by the title could that lead to it being marked down? Is it better to stick with simple titles? What do you think?

I'd be interested to hear from our three L&CPU trained judges on these - John, Tom, Pam - if they feel like sharing their judging secrets...

[pammie]

I wonder when a judge looks at a photo whether they consider the circumstances under which the image was captured and the degree of skill involved, or are they purely judging the photo in front of them?

Well the day Tom and myself went to the workshop, they said that you shouldn't mark a picture higher if it had been taken in "difficult" or "challenging" circumstances. I suppose the point being that someone who had taken an image that was difficult to execute, eg, a macro of a very small but fast moving insect or something; but had produced an unsharp or otherwise deficient image, should not get higher marks than someone who had taken a technically simpler image that was better.

I am of course assuming in the above example that the author intended the image to be sharp, and not be an abstract representation of the subject.

I can see the logic in this. Your job is to appraise the piece of work in front of you as presented.

As for titles, if you convey the feeling / point / meaning you wanted to convey with the image then is a title actually needed? I must admit, I usually just title mine in a straightforward way, just literally the name of the model, or the name of the building or loaction.

[Paul Jones]

Interesting comments. Thanks Pam.

[Dave Hutchinson]

Pam wrote

I can see the logic in this. Your job is to appraise the piece of work in front of you as presented.

But hadn't the judge from last weeks competition already marked the images before they were presented in the competition ? I've heard judges comment before about how an image seemed much better on their PC than it looked on our screen or vica versa, and some have marked it up because it looked better at home whilst some have marked them down stating that they have to mark them as they are projected on the night

[John]

Interesting point Dave and a problem with new forms of viewing.

A print is a print. Providing we view it in good light and not candlelight we should be able to make a definitive statement about its qualities.

A digital image depends upon the photographer's own monitor being correct and the way the judge sees it also being correct. Now my screen and Sue's screen, side by side, same computers, same monitors do actually look the same. When I enter images in the competitions, they look about the same when projected at ADAPS. However, when taken to other clubs sometimes they look right, sometimes they don't. Clearly some of our members think our projected images look fine, some don't. We know the percentages for that from the recent questionnaire. But there is far more room for variance than with a print.

This was actually also always true for 35mm slides as well and often people were very unhappy with the way they were projected.

So the question remains. Should the judge take their own equipment as being correct or judge purely on the projected one. I haven't even mentioned laptop screens, which are nowhere near as goo as IPS monitors.

[Dave Hutchinson]

I too have never had a problem with the ADAPS projected images, I am quite happy that any of my entries have looked the same or near as damn it as they do on my PC. It's the inconsistency of the judges remarks that worries me, they should either mark it as they see it on the night (all judges) or all mark them as they saw them on their own PC. Its just that we have heard some say that an image got a better mark because they knew it looked better on a PC, whilst others have knocked images down stating that they have to judge as they see it on the night, I just think they should all judge the same way whichever way that is.

[John]

Just out of curiosity, which way do we think is right?

The worst case I had was where I was send digital copies of the print section by a club. I looked them through and made choices, but when I saw the prints it became apparent that the copies were very poor and all the subtelty had been lost. So I actually rearranged my choices based on the real article. After all, if you enter a print then you expect the print to be judged.

I suppose based on that logic I would have to judge any images as presented to me by the club, that is as they projected them. My own monitor would then no longer be a relevant comment to make.

[Dave Hutchinson]

Personally I don't really mind which method is used, my point is more that they should all use the same method. However it became apparent at one of the meetings that someone was upset that the judge had been viewing the images prior to the competition (I think it was prints in that instance), so based on tjhat argument and the statement Pam made about 'judging them as they are presented' then maybe they should be judged on the night in the way that all and sundry get to see them.

[Paul Jones]

A digital image depends upon the photographer's own monitor being correct and the way the judge sees it also being correct.

Clearly some of our members think our projected images look fine, some don't. We know the percentages for that from the recent questionnaire.

The argument about how digital projected images look has been kicking around for a while and will probably never be resolved.

One wonders how many of our members are working on a calibrated monitor?

Personally I don't really mind which method is used, my point is more that they should all use the same method.

It's a valid point.

[Walter Brooks]

Have we not been here before?

Is it not that the Judge views the collection of prints/ DPIs as a whole and, together with the stand alone image, makes a comparison with others to be judged in the competition, eg. one portrait or sports shot against another?

So with that premise then, reviewed on their own PC and the prints displayed on their staircase at home, or 'cold' on the night would it matter? Well for me yes, I would prefer that they did a review at home first and cut down on some of the soporific deliberations that we have had recently.

Walter

[mike-e]

This subject certainly has created some very informative and highly c\onstructive debatable discussion.

Given that we have quite a reasonable club membership with at least in excess of around 30% plus taking part in any one internal competition at a time, and with with a high standard, generally, of entries is it not possible to allow a lttle more time to our competition evenings.
For example we may consider starting the judging proceedings at 8.15 and ask the judge to arrive for 7- 7.15 this would allow any judge ample time to form an opinion of the 60 or so images we sometimes have.
Maybe even introduce space in the old darkroom for an easel and daylight colour corrected tube for 'correct evaluative viewing', even a colour calibrated -old-pc and crt monitor- for the digital files. It certainly would reduce the potential discrepancies judges can make .
Also on the projection of any image do we not have the facility to calibrate the projector /laptop, and if not does the club see the quality of the projected images an issue big enough to warrant expenditure of purchasing a calibration unit . We have such a good standard throughout the club, many who spend hunreds, if not thousands on their hobby I just wondered if any of the above would be worthy of consideration. Maybe I am just being too fussy as I do feel the images that Angie and I have submited are very very close to the images we get on our eizo and illyama screens. The club is very good as what it does, it doesn't mean we can't get better

[Paul Jones]

is it not possible to allow a lttle more time to our competition evenings.
For example we may consider starting the judging proceedings at 8.15 and ask the judge to arrive for 7- 7.15 this would allow any judge ample time to form an opinion of the 60 or so images we sometimes have.
Maybe even introduce space in the old darkroom for an easel and daylight colour corrected tube for 'correct evaluative viewing', even a colour calibrated -old-pc and crt monitor- for the digital files. It certainly would reduce the potential discrepancies judges can make .

All good suggestions worthy of consideration.

do we not have the facility to calibrate the projector /laptop, and if not does the club see the quality of the projected images an issue big enough to warrant expenditure of purchasing a calibration unit. We have such a good standard throughout the club, many who spend hunreds, if not thousands on their hobby I just wondered if any of the above would be worthy of consideration. Maybe I am just being too fussy as I do feel the images that Angie and I have submited are very very close to the images we get on our eizo and illyama screens.

I don't know if the ADAPS laptop is calibrated, but, like you, I didn't notice any great differences when my two images were displayed on the ADAPS screen than on my own monitor. I calibrate my monitor with a Monaco Optix XR.

The club is very good as what it does, it doesn't mean we can't get better

Absolutely. All the comments and suggestions in person and on the forum help us to take the club forward.