I’m a busy photography judge, but I’m not sure how that happened. Clubs just keep asking me to judge their competitions. In many respects, judging is a mysterious process. You look at 100 photos and are required to pick the best. How is that possible? By and large, the photos I judge are of high quality, and each photographer has so much invested in their images, I hate to disappoint. But I am required to be sparing in awarding 9s and 10s. I try to be objective by using technical analysis to help decide what’s good or bad, but that’s of little help when so many photos are technically faultless. It comes down to what moves me emotionally. But that’s intensely personal and, at the end of the day, is just my opinion. I love looking at, analysing and talking about photos. I greatly admire the skills of wildlife photographers, action sportspeople, macro workers, and street photographers and their pursuit of the ‘decisive moment’. How do they do it? I’ve often thought there should be points for the degree of difficulty, but apparently, that’s unacceptable. My personal preference is to photograph stuff that doesn’t move. That’s easy - then I process the hell out of it.
Panel judging can be very rewarding. With two other judges who are not high on ego, good discussion can result. It happened at the Edwardstown Annual judging this year (2023). The other judges pointed out things I had missed. I explained what I liked. We talked. Discussed. I changed my opinion. Someone at Edwardstown said it was the best judging session they had ever had. I enjoyed it.
Cameras and lenses are so capable these days. There’s no excuse for a poor-quality photo. But I still see faults and make mistakes myself. It’s the result of carelessness that comes about because our automated AI-driven cameras make us lazy. In reality, the human is smarter than the camera but prone to taking the easy option by letting the camera do the work. That’s when it can go wrong.
If the traditional ‘straight’ photo is commonplace excellent, how does one rise above the pack? Does the answer lie in artistic interpretation? A unique personal style, whatever that may be? [For more on this, see Thoughts on Difference]. But clubs are deeply conservative, and such approaches are outside tradition. Rules, limitations and conventions are everywhere in amateur photography. As they say, art is in the eye of the beholder. There’s no right or wrong—just opinions. But I sense a change. They say that painters add to the canvas while photographers subtract from the frame. Take the subtraction to an extreme, and you get minimalism. I often notice that the top images these days are minimalist - just the essence of something. Minimalism. It fits with my design ethic, but then, minimalist images have little emotional content.
Discussion of photos in small groups is a good idea. Lay your print down and explain it. Learn how to talk about photos. Listen to considered feedback from friends. Years ago, a friend and I initiated the idea of peer review. I’d like to think it was a first. I’ve noticed other clubs have taken up the idea. It works best with a small group of about four people looking at prints. There’s less chance for one opinion to dominate—projection before the whole audience doesn’t work. You get someone like me talking all the time. Not good.
Back to judging. Recently, a judge stood up and, with little commentary, shouted out numbers. Not good form. In my possibly misguided view, judging should be an educational opportunity. Not that there’s any reason for me to think I’m qualified in that area, but I have opinions, so I do it anyway. It probably produces grumbled complaints when I’m out of earshot. Judges are required to judge an image as presented. I fall into the trap of talking about other possibilities. After all, a good photo is all about composition - largely about composition. If I feel that the camera should have been rotated right or left to create a different composition, I’ll say so. But then it’s a different image, and people get upset if that approach is taken too far. Occasionally, I will offer an off-the-cuff comment, but when stated briefly, without explanation because of limited time, that can be more confusing than helpful—trouble for me.
Rules. What about the so-called rules of composition? Very famous photographers have rubbished the idea of rules. I don’t have to repeat that. Nothing brilliant was ever achieved by following a recipe. Boring competence, perhaps. But I’m conflicted. In my field of architecture, Modernism, with its ‘rules’ and aphorisms, was dominant in the 1960s. Admittedly, it had become boringly predictable. Sterile even. Too many rules? But then came Post-Modernism with its rejection of everything good and a baby-out-with-the-bathwater approach. The post-truth era had arrived. I felt sick. While there’s no place in design for rigid rules, general design principles still apply. They are amorphous and open to interpretation. Make of them what you will. Just read thoughtful authors and practice, practice, practice. Reading books is good. Stay away from YouTube. It’s full of people trying to outcompete each other by being ever more controversial. Confusion reigns there.