judging a photo contest: have you ever?

A recent thread in this forum got me to thinking about the only time I was a judge of a photo contest. I was one

of three judges, all photographers, with respectable portfolios of different styles.

 

The "winner" of the contest was a photo that did not make my first cut--in addition to being cliche, it was an

ordinary, out of focus, poorly composed, poorly lighted photo. So, why did this photo win the contest?

 

I kept thinking I was missing something, trying to see why one of the judges argued vehemently for this photo,

finally deciding that she needed to "win" what she interpreted as an "argument." For this "win," the other

judges agreed with me on the runners-up, one of them changing her vote to mollify me.

 

Figuring we can all learn from others' experiences, anybody else ever judged a photo contest? What was your

experience? Thanks. --Sally

<p>I do not judge photo contests.</p>

<p>As a former news photographer I do not appreciate the "artsy" photo.</p>

<p>The photo must have a story.</p>

<p>It must have "punch" to backup the story.</p>

<p>It also must be technically correct.</p>

<p>Mine do not always make the grade.</p>

<p>I've never judged, although I've been a judge. That is to say I was derelict in my duties. I participated in a local club for a year, and the focus of activity seemed to be the monthly anonymous contests, with anonymous judging. We were each given a blue, red, and white ticket, for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, and we were to drop them into cups to vote for each photo we thought deserving of a win. I just tucked my tickets into my pocket and took them home. I guess judging artwork is against my religion. ;-)</p>

<p>Since moving back to Vancouver we've become active in a local photography club - which is truly about the photographs. After 4 months of attending we've had one conversation about camera equipment, none about film vs. digital and lots about photographs. There is a monthly anonymous program of projected photos with maybe 35 entries, and a separate monthly anonymous print program with less entries. Judges come from a pool of those who have taken a CAPA (Canadian Association for Photographic Art) certified course which actually is quite intense, requiring several months of classes. Scores are not done competitively - there are no winners and losers per se each week - your photo receives a ranking from 1 through 5, based on the level you're at. Photographers move up through levels based on accumulating points. It doesn't appear to be "contesty" really. It works - but partly because the judges are trained and actually have to explain each and every decision. I've learned a lot as a result.</p>

<p>Sarah</p>

<p>You were not derelict in your duties.</p>

<p>You were honest.</p>

<p>I've been judging the photography section of a local village show for the past four years. Luckily its just me, theres not a panel of judges although I am helped by a steward who does all the hard work. The biggest problem is the very wide variation in standards of printing, and in the styles, size and quality of the mounting. These are not entries from established photographers. Typically there are four or five categories. Its difficult to separate your perceptions of the quality, size and mounting of the pictures, from the image content itself. But its good fun and the most important part is putting as many constructive comments as possible on the cards which accompany the entries.</p>

<p>I was told this story by a camera club judge whom I know well enough to be confident it's true. He was asked to judge a competition at a camera club in a nearby town, and happened to choose pictures by the same photographer to win two of the categories (he would not have known who the photographer was). During the next few days he received three abusive telephone calls from different members of the club, accusing him of bias, favouritism or whatever.</p>

I have not judged a photo contest.

Once, against my better judgement, I

entered one. But never again.

 

Photo contests/competitions are stupid

things. The only 'prize' worth having is

your photos shown, by whatever

means, to a wide audience.

<p>In one of the three years I served as the fine arts superintendent for a county fair in northern Arizona (long story, that), I was also drafted as a judge. I was not really comfortable with it since I'd had no prior experience. Fortunately, the other two judges were very helpful and easy to work with, and I think we did a creditable job. Even so, it's not something I would care to do again...</p>

<p>Sounds like someone thought the winning photo was 'artsy.' I don't think anyone needs any specific training to be a judge given the subjective nature of art. Just because I have a master in fine arts, for example, doesn't mean your opinion of a piece of art is any less significant than mine (just and example - I do not have a fine arts degree). If I were to judge a photo contest, assuming there was a theme, I'd simply pick the photo that I felt best portrayed the theme and that also had some uniqueness to it. For example, if the theme was 'Sunrises and Sunsets,' I'd choose one that not only had interesting colors but that also had something of interest in the foreground. My first inclination would be to page through the photos and set aside anything that made me go 'Ahhh,' and I'd just continue to do that with each smaller grouping until I found the one with the biggest 'Ahh factor.'</p>

<p>Bill, thanks for reminding me. The elusive "Ahhh" was a definite element in judging, along with the more commonly occurring "Meh" factor and the always lurking "Yuck" factor. The only time the three of us had any problem with the process was when the votes for a particular work came were 1 "Ahhh", 1 "Meh" and 1 "Yuck". This would require a round of rock, paper, scissors to resolve the issue. Okay, the RPS resolution is a lie, but we did joke about it. At least, I think we were joking...</p>

<p>I did this once. I apologize to all other photographers for having done so. It will NEVER happen again.</p>

<p>William, RPS is probably as good a method as any when judging competitions. Case in point, the Westminster Dog Show...</p>

<p>It makes sense to me that a photo contest would be judged by people who would have more than the average person's opinions . . . for instance experience, exposure, understanding of different genres and how to produce different sorts of photos, etc. Unless the competition is being billed as a popularity contest, there seem to me measures of photographic expertise that can be used in selecting judges. Art is more than opinion. And art is more than a PN put-down or smear. It's history, it's craft, it's symbolism, it's interpretation, it's understanding, it's context, and a bunch more. There are, IMO, people suited and people not suited to be judges. Everyone, on the other hand, is entitled to their opinion, which doesn't always carry much weight beyond the individual who holds it. Art is subjective and more. It's also communal, social, cultural, can be political, has historical context, and is most often shared.</p>

<p>Never have judged a photo contest myself.</p>

<p>Ah, Fred, it's kind of an initiation rite, like crossing the equator. You only have to do it once, and add it to your laurels forever more... ;-)</p>

<p>Fred, I agree that, at least from a technical standpoint, it would help to have people who know at least a little about photography judge a photo contest, as they could be most helpful on things such as exposure, contrast, lighting, level of difficulty, etc. But from the standpoint of what really constitutes 'art,' I believe that art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I do think it's desirable to have 'experts' judging contests, and you might also want to have experts on the theme (for example a nature writer in a nature-themed contest), but I also think it's good to have a 'regular Joe.' After all, it's the 'regular Joe's' who typically keep the artists in business, so their opinion is no less significant than any other.</p>

<p>Some of the silliest 'art' I've seen hangs in the national galleries in Washington D.C., and many pieces wouldn't even place in an art contest. That's ok by me.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have been asked to judge a few photo contests over the years. I have always declined.</p>

 

<p>I've judged a few and found the experience beneficial in terms of attempting an objectivity of approach to critique where it is in fact a highly subjective exercise. I quickly found my limits in attempting to judge and would not particularly enjoy having to repeat the experience. Doing so personally is something I avoided and happily there were 2 or 3 other judges at the competition, which allowed for discussion of the short listed works before finalizing choices. </p>

<p>Perhaps one of the best judging scenarios I've seen and been involved with (as a competitor) is to have all the works anonymously presented before the judges (on a lit stand, one at a time) for about 3 to 6 seconds each before the judges then view each work for a longer period and assign marks for originality, technique, impact or whatever criteria are used. Then with the final 10 or 15 highest marked works per category displayed in arbitrary order at the front of the room, the judges would individually, and finally collectively, arrange the works in order of appreciation. A week or two later, one or more of the judges would be invited back to answer questions from the photographers as to what they liked or disliked in a few of the images presented by each photographer. </p>

<p>In one case, a locally well-known professor of art at the local university was one of the judges at a few of the salons, until it was discovered that he gave very high marks to the images he preferred and very low marks to others in order to skew the overall results (average of three from the judges present) in his favor, whereas the two other judges provided more nuanced and balanced judgments and hence less widely different judgment points to the images presented. The subsequent better control of the judging process aided future judging experiences.</p>

<p>Judging one's own works (approach and direction) is tough enough. I think I prefer, apart from some critiquing at Photo.Net for images that interest me, to restrict my analysis to that, and occasionally to that of artist or photographer friends, the work of whom I am familiar. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do think it's desirable to have 'experts' judging contests . . . but I also think it's good to have a 'regular Joe.'</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bill, seems reasonable, yes.</p>

<p>I guess I prefer to keep the contexts separate. So, for instance, though I love to sit around with friends "judging" Olympic competitors, I'm kind of glad none of us are actually up there judging officially. And, though it's good to have the People's Choice Awards (which I actually never watch because there's only so much public opinion I'm interested in), I'm glad the Academy Awards are given out by experts in each field (even though it's often more about publicity than merit). I guess I feel similarly about photo judging, if and when it's going to be done (and it's not something I'm that interested in participating in though I can understand its place). Here on PN, for example, I've been a vocal advocate when people claim not to be good enough or experienced enough to offer a comment on other people's work. I LOVE hearing gut reactions from everyone about my own and others' photos. And I love hearing those, and can gain significant insights, from people who know nothing about photography or how to take a picture. But, I guess if I were to enter a juried contest of some kind, I'd want that limited to "expert" judges. I'd get my "regular Joe" fix elsewhere.</p>

<p>I've had to decline the last two invitations to judge photo contests due to other commitments, but hope to be asked again. I've judged high school speech/theater forensic competitions and it was fun.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"...I love to sit around with friends "judging" Olympic competitors..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Me too! The only sport that fires up my inner judge more than boxing is figure skating and ice dancing. Especially when I catch myself cussing like a NYC subway series baseball fanatic. "Waddayew, blind or wot? She shorted that toe loop, ya idjit! And her partner was hauling her around like a sack of turnips."</p>

<p>My biggest issue, Fred, is defining an art 'expert.' What is it exactly? If I go into a gallery with a proclaimed expert, and out of two different paintings we happen to be observing, I prefer the one and he/she the other, does that make the one he likes better? If so, in what respect would it be considered better? A technical expert would be able to point out flaws in exposure of a photo or possibly be able to describe the difficulty in taking a particular shot, but in terms of subject matter, composition, and pure aesthetic, I don't think he'd have an edge over anyone else viewing it.</p>

<p>And I too enjoy the Academy awards, but often wonder what the 'experts' are thinking. Of course, most of us who are fans of the show realize there is plenty of politics that go into the choices.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I go into a gallery with a proclaimed expert, and out of two different paintings we happen to be observing, I prefer the one and he/she the other, does that make the one he likes better?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If this person is an expert, no, it doesn't necessarily make the one he likes better, but it will likely mean he'll be able to give coherent and perhaps even convincing reasons why he thinks one is better. Again, if he is an expert, he will likely communicate some things that might very well get me to see each photo or painting differently and often will affect my level of appreciation.</p>

<p>What is an art expert? Someone who's studied it, has historical perspective on it, knows what's already been done and what might be more cutting edge, has a facility with visual meaning, has a sense of what's cliché and what's not. We're talking something different from popular taste here. There's the "American Idol" method of appreciation and there are other methods, too.</p>

<p>It's likely a personal thing. Many of my friends are content to look at the audience meter readings of Rotten Tomatoes and decide about films based on that. I'm not. Generally, I go to the movies before I read anything about them. But, once I've seen something, I'm more likely to read a review of the movie by a critic I've come to respect than by random audience members. That's how I've learned a lot about film. One of the best books I have on film is <em>The American Cinema</em>, by Andrew Sarris, who used to write for the Village Voice. He's taught me not only about certain matters of film technique and craft, but about looking at films aesthetically and within a variety of milieus. I don't always agree with him, but if he likes a film a lot that I was luke warm on, I'll sit up and listen, may see it again, and have found on more than one occasion that I appreciate it more and differently the second time around, once I've internalized some of his insights.</p>

<p>Fred (or anyone else interested in the conversation), did you see the Woody Allen Film 'To Rome with Love?' If so, the character Michael Sheen plays is what I often view an art expert to be. Apparently Woody's come across a few.</p>

<p>We are in agreement that an expert is a valuable commodity, but perhaps not in agreement as to how valuable. Movie Critics are an excellent example (and appropriate since film is a form of photography) of just how subjective even the expert view is, as there is rarely universal agreement on any film. If I'm not sure about a movie, I will often look it up on IMDB.com to see what the user (i.e. non-expert) reviews are as well as the critics' reviews, as I've found that professional critics are often less reliable because they seem to want to put deeper analysis into many films than is required. For example, I don't think 'Step Brothers' or 'Dumb and Dumber' got particularly good reviews, but both crack my wife and I up every time we watch all or portions of them. Mind you, we don't limit ourselves to only the light-entertainment films. </p>

<p>So basically, when I look for judges of cinema (and I think that would carryover to photography as well), I look to both experts and non-experts, with a slight emphasis on the non-experts. Though there are certainly degees of both, and you can often tell which non-expert opinions have more significant thought behind them.</p>

<p>Bill, really, to each his own on this one . . . and <em>vive la diff</em>érence.</p>

<p>Just a word about Woody. His job is kind of to make fun of everyone, so I wouldn't necessarily single out his caricature of the art expert. In any case, Woody would probably even make fun of himself making fun of art critics, and rightfully so. It can be an endless loop. I've even read some put-downs of art critics/experts right here on PN that themselves read more as caricatures than the art critics they are trying to skewer. Now, that's fun! (Not your remarks in this case, btw.)</p>

Thanks for your thoughts and experiences.<br>

<b>Sarah</b>, I'm converting to your religion.<br>

<b>Les</b>, me, too. I apologize and promise never to do it again. --Sally

<p>Every time I see the word, "expert" it reminds me of my favorite definition: An "ex" is a has-been, and a "(s)pert" is just a drip under pressure...</p>