Photography judges

[RaymondC]

<p>I am with a local camera club and we at times invite professional judges and they judge for free. </p>

<p>Is photography competitions tend to be more artsy? Than just another clinche shot or another record shot? It seems to me competitions can be different to other forms of photography. </p>

<p>Appreciate your views. </p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

[starvy]

<p>Ray, you you talking about legal judges? I tend to think of those judging photography competitions as expert or experienced photographers, perhaps even pro shooters. Usually, most competitions tend to have a theme and the judging would be based on that.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Starvy - photography judges. Not legal.</p>

<p>There is a a theme but there is also a open category. The indication I get is that they want more arty shots or gallery type of photographs. Not particularly into portraiture or sport photography unless it intrigues... Not your typical postcard shot, night shot, wedding shot, landscape shot of water. He mentioned that it has to go further than just a photo, it has to intrigue or question ....</p>

<p>The photography judge we had had a reasonable background and it's been my indication having seen a few different judges.</p>

<p>To me at least it appears to be once in a life time shot, cos I do landscapes but maybe easier for people who are into abstract photography or documentary photography types...</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Once upon a time, back in the 30s to the late 40s, the "amateur" minicamera* scene had national and local salons, with elaborate judging.</p>

<p>It sounds like you must be somewhere where there is still a little of that still going on. I don't think you could find a legitimate salon-type judge within a hundred miles of where I live. I have no idea what a modern "professional" judge (surely they're not actually making a living at this, you must mean "expert"?) would be on the "artsy" scale.</p>

<p>_________<br>

*BTW, <em>minicam</em> often included up to 6x9cm folders. The alternatives were 4x5" up to massive view cameras.</p>

<p> </p>

[RaymondC]

<p>This particular one, teaches photography at a university and other tertiary education provider, have done exhibitions and been judging at a number of competitions ..</p>

[bluphoto]

<p>Ray,<br />Judges differ in what they like and dislike every but as much as photographers (or nurses or policemen for that matter). Of course in an ideal world they SHOULD judge on technical ability, aesthetic (the artsy bit) and concept.<br />In my opinion, there are many individuals on this site who posess the ability to judge objectively in this way, but may not have the time, the inclination, or the geographic location.<br />Similarly, there are many idividuals who have the time, the inclination and the right location, but not the ability!<br />In truth, people who posess the time, the ability, the inclination and who are in the right location are going to be few and far between.<br />In most cases, one or more of the above values has to "give", and as time, inclination and location are prerequesites, the value that gives ends up being ability - and in most cases , more specifically, objectivity.<br />As such, club level judges often go with their "gut instinct" rather than performing an objective analysis. In most cases, a judge, like any individual, has a preference to a particular type of photography, and these will often be favoured as a result. It's just a fact of life.<br />Of course, the "snapshot" club competition entry (even if it's a "once in a lifetime shot" will never score particularly highly - if pitted against a well planned and executed image.<br>

The fact that an event is not likely to occur again in your lifetime does not automatically make every picture of that event a masterpiece.<br>

Remember, what is being judged is your ability as a photographer, not your luck!<br>

<br />Hope this helps,<br />Guy</p>

[wood]

<p>Ray - It depends. In my limited club experience, the judges appear to favor those photos with the greater impact, whether they are "artsy" or not, assuming technical quality is decent. The range of abilities in a given club will also partially define how a judge will react to a set of photos. The judges I have seen will tend to score individual photos based on the relative quality of the entire set. For me, the true value of camera/photography clubs is the opportunity to display ones best work and hear comments on the strengths and weaknesses of each photograph. Whether I agree or not, it is instructive to receive the opinion of an experienced photographer even with their inevitible biases.</p>

[saskphotog]

<p>The trouble with all judged "sports" is that they are ..... well....... judged. Therein lies the flaw. There is no solution to the problems that personal bias create in any judged contest, and it is impossible to predict what those biases will be. </p>

<p>Personal opinions in photography are not without value as "critique", but they are also never to be taken as any sort of definitive dogma.</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>This is an interesting question.</p>

<p>I've been in judging rounds for some very high-end international photography competitions with renowned judges. I've seen the judging experience first hand and from close-up and listened to some very heated debates.</p>

<p>The images that win (in the higher echelon fine-art competitions, not the camera club) are those that stand out. This tends to mean those that are worthy of more than one look; that make the viewer see the world differently; or that interpret a brief in the opposite direction from everyone else. It also means images that are not derivative, not commercialised and that are substantial enough to demand (and stand-up to) some tough questioning. A winning image will usually do all of these things.</p>

<p>Images that are pretty but otherwise derivative (example - a beautiful landscape) tend to get cut very early. Images that don't pose questions or otherwise demand additional levels of insight get cut early too. Judges tend to prefer images that are complicated over ones that are easy, and respond better to challenging rather than pictorial subjects.</p>

<p>Often this can mean the judges selection becomes inaccessible to the everyman and has few of the qualities the everyman considers 'artistic' - often because it's not overtly pretty, or seems too obscure or ordinary.</p>