Atherton & District Amateur Photographic Society

I really enjoyed the digital competition tonight (thanks once again to Keith for his efforts in helping it to run smoothly) but I'm still confused about the category "Record". If I heard the judge correctly, he said something along the lines "90% of these photos are not in the Record category" and I think he mentioned Victorian buildings, flat lighting, no shadows, etc. However the definition of Record on our ADAPS website is:

"A record photograph attempts to capture an image of something as though one were preserving it for the history books and should be a true representation of the subject matter, and should also carry a full and accurate title. This includes buildings, everyday objects, machines etc, but does not include nature, historical records or the record of an event." - this clearly includes buildings, and doesn't mention flat lighting, etc. Can anyone please clarify for me?

Also, do our category definitions line up with those in over-arching societies such as L&CPU, or other organisations such as the Bebbington Salon, and is there consistency across these organisations?

It's not a life and death issue, but it would be nice to know that our efforts in submitting photos into this category are not futile. Could we have some photographic examples of what are considered "Record" and what are not considered as "Record". The fact that "90% of the ADAPS photos are not in the Record category" is surely an indication that this definition is confusing the greater portion of ADAPS members, OR, the judges have different definition. It would be nice if we all sange from the same hymn book.

melbarnes wrote: "A record photograph attempts to capture an image of something as though one were preserving it for the history books and should be a true representation of the subject matter, and should also carry a full and accurate title. This includes buildings, everyday objects, machines etc, but does not include nature, historical records or the record of an event."

To use an excellent 'Record' shot from last year by John Riley as an example...

Seiko Cronograph


The photograph is a straightforward "record" of what the watch looks like. It is not enhanced, or shot 'creatively' or run through HDR. It is a "record" of what it actually looks like. If the watch was damaged or stolen an insurance company would be able to identify or replace it.

Sue and I were discussing this and as there's still quite a bit of confusion about "record" it might be a good idea to allocate an evening covering these definitions and looking at examples of images that do and don't fit the brief.

We should know in a sense what a record is, in its simplest form, that is, it shows something as it really is. So dramatic cross lighting would add its own imprint to an image, whereas what we want is an accurate record. A sheet of text could be reproduced as a record, square on, neutral and even lighting, accurate colour, etc. Now view it at a diagonal, make the lighting more dramatic and it's no longer just a record. It becomes "pictorial".

Now what's pictorial......

Pictorial adds feeling to the image, makes it a prettier picture if you like. A still life could be highly pictorial, say a pheasant spread across a wooden cheese board with a bottle of wine, lit by warm, diagonal lighting.....

Is this worth an evening in the syllabus?

We had a similar discussion over a pint last night John, and whilst the category definitions for annual competitions on the ADAPS website, do seem to be clear, it may make for an interesting evening's presentation, that may well provoke further discussion amongst members.
Regards

W

John wrote: Is this worth an evening in the syllabus?

Yes, but do it just before next year's annual competition, so it's fresh in peoples' minds.

Great idea to include it in the syllabus John - that should really help to clear up any confusion.

melbarnes wrote:Great idea to include it in the syllabus John...

Over to our Syllabus Secretary then....

Hi,
There is a motion at the AGM next week, already notified on the notice board to drop the record section altogether, (and also to introduce a sports section to replace it).
With all the discussions and arguments over what is and isn't a record I am inclined to support this motion.

To be honest, as external competitions secretary I am always looking for images for the club to use in battles and competitions and if we have images that fit the criteria of 'Record' as defined by the strict rules, then they are not what we can readily use as much as 'pictorial' images. Technically perfect doesn't tick the judges boxes usually.

So I think that incorporating the record images into the Open sections, colour and mono, where they will still be acceptable without question and where they will be marked without prejudice as to whether they should be in their own category, would be better for everyone.
At the moment the question of 'is it or isn't it' is overshadowing the images.

keith.

Mel said..

or other organisations such as the Bebbington Salon

.... and don't even think of getting me started on the Bebington Salon and their current obsession with the category definitions and rules!!

Competition alterations don't need a formal motion at the AGM, the items on the list are up for discussion but the Competition Secretary and Committee can then thrash out the details in more detail.

We can see what the general feeling is at the AGM and take it from there. As sports was mentioned it might be a good idea Keith to have a look at how many sports pictures were entered in the annuals?

There were eight sports images last night, but obviously having it's own category would encourage more entries.
We can discuss if members want to introduce a sports section next week, and get a feel of if it would be popular.
Keith.

I've just been on the Bebington Salon site Keith, and the Competition Rules don't seem to include a definition of the categories. Maybe you could start an Atherton Salon?

Paul Jones wrote: Over to our Syllabus Secretary then....

That thought had crossed my mind Paul, but let's not jump the gun.....

I agree that it is a good idea to clarify each category and add it to the syllabus for next year. I think we need to discuss it ourselves at a committee meeting first, ensure the descriptions are clear on the website, and then, as suggested, put it on the syllabus for say February when members are starting to think about the Annuals. Any time before that and all will be forgotten. I will leave that to you Mel!