Competitions ... Yes or no, why or why not?

If the individuals that currently judge competitions are able to give valuable feedback that allows you to improve - wouldn't they also be able to give that same feedback but just omit the scoring/ranking/comparison elements that turn it into a competition? Can't see why a constructive critique would be any more or less valid in either scenario - or rather the use of people qualified to judge.
 
Last edited:
Surely any club must have some members who are capable?

Edit to add - the post above wasn't there when I posted.

Gaz-J has said that when they had a judge just giving critique, he couldn't get out of the "17/20" mentality that I personally deplore; and even the "constructive" part seemed to be to advocate Photoshop without saying why.

To me, any critique has to begin with the image, and see why it works or doesn't work. Only after that do you go into suggestions as to how to improve it.

But remember I've never been a member of a meaningful photographic society, so I can only comment second hand.

(In case anyone wonders - a non meaningful photographic society is one like the one I was on the committee of at university - a club created solely to get SU funds to set up a darkroom, and whose annual meeting to elect a committee was held solely to meet the union rules.)
 
Last edited:
Now that's an interesting idea Chris, and one that I would support.

However, is unlikely to happen, because it wouldn't suit the competitive minded people, whose only real interest in going along to a camera club, is for the competitions.

So, I reckon compromise is the way to go, with a balanced programme of activity. This would go some way to towards encouraging people join, that have been put off from doing so, because of the overwhelming emphasis on competitions, by most clubs. Especially the long established ones.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Almost any "amateur" artistic endeavour seems to attract people who favour competitions. There are even people who list "competitions" as their actual hobby. I always find myself wondering if this need for competitions in the "arty" domain is because people don't really know what they are doing. Technical stuff you can quantify - are the highlights blown?; is the subject sharp? - but the art side isn't so easily quantitfied. Unless you're a judge, it seems, when you can give marks out of 20 :D. Do competitions let people feel that their work has been "validated" by a placing, and would it be better if instead they could be taught the underlying principles and given the self confidence to go their own way, regardless of others opinions?

So long as the view prevails that all art is subjective, and artistic ability is innate, I'm not sure that there can be much progress. But I'm going severely off topic, and I'll drop it here.
 
StephenM said:
Gaz-J has said that when they had a judge just giving critique, he couldn't get out of the "17/20" mentality that I personally deplore; and even the "constructive" part seemed to be to advocate Photoshop without saying why.
Click to expand...

Yup - although both he and at least one other person says that they feel competitions are a good way of improving their photography. I'm assuming this is due to the judges feedback allowing them to try something different rather than just the need to get a higher placing next time (although non-competitive me might not be getting the mindset at work here :) ). Maybe the overall value of the feedback depends on the individual judge and their approach rather than the process itself....

Maybe a compromise would be to have competitions but with at least some of them have the option to submit images marked as "not for scoring" - everyone gets feedback on their image but only those who want it get put into the competition arena..........
 
DaveS2 said:
Now that's an interesting idea Chris, and one that I would support.

However, is unlikely to happen, because it wouldn't suit the competitive minded people, whose only real interest in going along to a camera club, is for the competitions.

So, I reckon compromise is the way to go, with a balanced programme of activity. This would go some way to towards encouraging people join, that have been put off from doing so, because of the overwhelming emphasis on competitions, by most clubs. Especially the long established ones.

Dave
Click to expand...

So what would be a balanced programme Dave? Not one that would attract you but one that you think would attract all types of photographer.

I use competitions primarily for feedback. We've had some very good judges and also some that were so picky that they devalued the whole process. For them it was criticsm for criticisms sake.

I feel that technically I am quite proficient but I'm always ready to take on board hints and advice that will propel me forward.

If I went out with the intention of taking photographs for purely the sake of competition then I would feel it a pretty pointless process. First and foremost I need to enjoy the type of photography that I do and like the images that I produce.

I don't care if I win. I enter if I have something I like and have no problem with not winning.

There is no one size fits all and for those who don't like competition or don't feel the need to support them in their clubs that's fine.

Ultimately I am happy with the club that I'm a member of. I have no doubt that it could be better, and probably is compared to three years ago. But looking for the nirvana of clubs just to suit my own ideas will be a fruitless task as every one within 50 miles has a similar format. One has competitions every two weeks seemingly.
 
I was determined that I would enter the POTY (film) competition this year.

Very quickly realised, again, that comps just aren't for me. The process of shooting for a comp actually stresses me and I enjoy photography less.
 
Gaz J said:
So what would be a balanced programme Dave? Not one that would attract you but one that you think would attract all types of photographer.
Click to expand...

Isn't the problem that a sizeable number of clubs appear to have programmes that repel rather than attract some photographers; and unfortunately there is no way of quantifying whether the repulsive effect is outweighed by the attraction of competitions?

It always amazes me that a common remark I've seen when this topic is discussed (on other forums as well as here) is that without competitions there would be no feedback or critique at all in (some) clubs. Amazes and saddens me in equal measure. There is no monopoly on critique held by competitions; and from my perspective I simply can't see how anyone could give meaningfull critique without being able to spend at least 5 minutes (absolute minimum, far more far better) per image; and I find it hard to believe that competition judges are able to devote this much time before the "show" to really look and think. So, perhaps there is feedback - but I think it would be far better if more time were speny on it, and the competition format seems to prevent this.
 
"So what would be a balanced programme Dave?"


A programme of activity that didn't major on competitions, as is the case with most all of the clubs I have looked at (websites), and is certainly the case with the three clubs local to me.

A good mix of workshops, tutorials, interesting speakers, practical evenings (studio and lighting techniques etc), field trips to local places of photographic interest, social natter & chatter evenings, and of course competitions.

A programme that would aim the please most of the people most of the time, and hopefully provide something of interest to all members.

Such a programme, I have only found in one club, out of the many I looked at, and that was the one I joined. However, I have to travel to the next county to enjoy it, but for me, it is very much worth the effort.

They say that 'Hens teeth' are rare, but I reckon camera clubs that don't major on competitions, are rarer.

Dave
 
Last edited:
So its not something that can be defined as in 2,4, or six comps. Let me say that I didn't join the club because I wanted to enter competitions and I disagree with stephens comment that meaningful critique cannot be given in a short time frame.

I would like to see more trips, two summers ago we tried that approach and it was a disaster. Admittedly not helped by the weather but turn out was crap to put it mildly. What it was like on the trips I couldn't attend (due to work I can only make three out of every five) meetings I can't say. What happens now is that a couple of members get together and organise trips themselves outside of the club nights. Not ideal because having a few along would be great.

Saying that clubs have programmes that repel people from joining is all too easy, each of us have different requirements, but coming up with ideas that cater to all tastes is virtually impossible. I would wager Dave that in your club there will be someone who doesn't like some aspect of it but puts it aside because the club fundamentally suits their needs.

The issue of in house critique interests me but I can guarantee that very few members would put up anything for critique due to the fact that they don't want to hear negative comment from a fellow club member or members.
 
Gaz J said:
I would wager Dave that in your club there will be someone who doesn't like some aspect of it but puts it aside because the club fundamentally suits their needs..
Click to expand...

I'm sure that would be the case Gaz. As I've said before "you can't please all of the people all of the time".

If there is a particular aspect of the programme they don't like, they can of course choose not to attend on the evening(s) that cater for it.

With most clubs, at least those that I have looked at, if competitions aren't your thing, and you avoided those evenings, you would hardly attend at all, because that's pretty much all they have to offer.

If the programme is varied, then there would hopefully be something in it, to suit most members.

Each to his own, but I found a club that suits my needs very well, although I had to search long and hard to find it.

I am not competition minded, but have joined in the process, because they are not over done, and I don't take them too seriously for the reason stated earlier in this thread. That's not say that I don't take the image (print or dpi) that I enter seriously, because I do. Its the competition thing and the judging that I don't take too seriously.

Before somebody jumps on me I should say that, I do find the judges comments interesting, if only to understand what they are looking for in both the positive and negative context. I also respect, their views, even if I may not agree with them.

Looking forward to this weeks meeting, as its a practical one, based around studio type portraiture, with the lighting and backgrounds etc to go with it, under the guidance of someone who understands the subject. Its a bring you own camera, and have a go evening. :)

Dave
 
Last edited:
Some more interesting opinions. Like Dave's club, ours has a good varied programme of summer outings and " have a go" type sessions. But the subject of clubs offering a form of non-competitive critique crops up pretty often. We are aware the this is something that is lacking in our programme and I love the idea of being able to enter work for critique on comp nights without it being given a score. Definitely something to explore and I may sound out the views of one or two folks who judge at our comps.

However, this begs the question of how to achieve that critique in a club setting unless it's also part and parcel of a competition event. Our members vary in ability, experience and interest, so we would need to get outside "experts" in to offer their views.

As a first thought ... How about? ... We have a number of specialist speakers (who we pay) throughout the programme, talking about topics such as portraiture, landscapes, urban, wildlife, sport etc. I wonder if it would work if we were to ask those people if it would ok for members to bring samples of their work where that work is relevant to the talk topic (and thus the speaker's specialism) and have him/her spend a reasonable time critiquing each image after their talk. Not to the point where the critique becomes the point of the evening, but if there were say 8-10 members images that wouldn't take too long and anyone not interested could leave after the main event. Obviously, the speaker would be able to decline if they wished, and the club would have to have a process in place to select those images which were offered for critique. Thus, a landscape specialise, for example, would have a small number of members landscapes to look at, and over a year it ought to be possible for all members to put something of theirs in front of a pair of impartial and expert eyes.

Just a random musing but thoughts welcome of course .... Might run it up the flag pole at the next committee meetings and see who salutes ....
 
That's what its all about Sara, thinking 'outside of the box', and breaking away from the 'status quo' that probably hasn't changed for years.

I think your idea of inviting 'specialist speakers' is a good one, because many amateur photographers, myself included, tend to be 'jack of all trades, but master of none' when it comes to particular subject matter.

By that, I mean that I like to photograph everything and anything, basically whatever catches my eye. Therefore there is probably a lot I could learn from a specialist in a particular field, such as Landscape, and Portraiture for example.

However, there are quite a few boring speakers about. A good speaker must be able to pitch his or her talk at the right level, so as not to bore the more experienced members, but at the same time not to talk over the heads of less experienced.

The big 'turn off' is the guy who comes along and gives a talk and slide show on his last holiday trip to the Far East, or his interest in trains and such like.

Dave
 
Last edited:
That, according to the post, the critique was "I'd give it 17/20, or 19/20 if Photoshopped". I hope that there was something more constructive as well; but my main concern was that even when asked for critique the first thought was to give a score - something that in my opinion has no place in art.
 
On the subject of having the speakers offer critique:-

Would they get any time to preview the images? I don't know how experts do it, but I need a fair amount of time to study an image before I offer any opinion. It's easy to have a mental checklist of things to look out for (I have one) but sometimes it happens that an image has features that are deliberately "wrong" bit are needed. I demonstrated this on another forum by offering two critiques of the same still life. First time out of the box I pointed out all that was wrong with it, all the things that needed fixing to make a good image. The second half took exactly the same points, and showed why they were actually necessary to convey a meaning.

I have found in the past that something I thought was pretty poor actually grew on me as I spent more time looking and thinking. On this basis, I'd be worried that without adequate "thinking time" the critique might be counter productive, in encouraging people to "tick the boxes" and miss the main point (if they want to convey some meaning).
 
I follow your logic Stephen, and understand what you say regarding having time preview an image, then perhaps going away and coming back to it, as you will probably see it differently. A bit like buying house, you would be unlikely to make a firm decision to buy, on a single viewing.

I have only ever witnessed the judging of one competition, and the first time the judge saw an image, was when it was put in front of her for judging. That said, I think she did a reasonable job, and the image I thought should win, was the very one that she chose to mark the highest. On the second and third places, I disagreed. But then who am I, certainly not a "qualified" judge.

I think you should re-phrase your comments, from "all that was wrong with it", to "all that you considered was wrong with it", and from "all the things that needed fixing" to "all the things you considered that needed fixing".

The whole judging and critique thing is subjective, not a precise science.

Dave
 
Last edited:
I have acted as Judge to a couple of clubs on the YPU circuit StephenM - in some cases I have had the images 2 weeks in advance, in another I see them onscreen as they appear on the night. I actually find having them for ages to study makes for a boring crit - so the few times that's happened I haven't actually looked at them for more than a few secs, and my on the spot spontaneity has worked really well for me, and those being judged !!! And I know that as I was invited back :D

I always crit from the PoV of finding what's good and then what I may have tried to do differently

At the end of my judging I have an open Q&A session too for anyone to discuss any aspect of any image (or photography in general) without it being obvious, to me at least, whose image is which - the last time I did this we ran over the allotted time by 40 mins as the questions just kept on coming, no probs :)

Dave
 
Competitions are the reason why I don't belong to a camera club. I've tried a couple over the years both of which were primarily (70%) focused on competitions and league tables. The only occasions there was any social interaction was in the summer breaks when we had walks and pub nights all of which I was an enthusiastic supporter of. I don't mind the odd, say three or four competition per season as I could happily find something else to do on those evenings but there were just too many for me so clubs are a no no.
 
velocette said:
Competitions are the reason why I don't belong to a camera club. I've tried a couple over the years both of which were primarily (70%) focused on competitions and league tables. The only occasions there was any social interaction was in the summer breaks when we had walks and pub nights all of which I was an enthusiastic supporter of. I don't mind the odd, say three or four competition per season as I could happily find something else to do on those evenings but there were just too many for me so clubs are a no no.
Click to expand...

That was exactly my position Peter, and I avoided the clubs for many years, because of the over emphasis on competitions.

Then last September I found a club that had just two competition evenings throughout their entire September to May season. I joined, and have enjoyed every meeting since.

Dave
 
DaveS2 said:
I think you should re-phrase your comments, from "all that was wrong with it", to "all that you considered was wrong with it", and from "all the things that needed fixing" to "all the things you considered that needed fixing".

The whole judging and critique thing is subjective, not a precise science.

Dave
Click to expand...

I actually stand by exactly what I wrote. Perhaps you'd like to re-think and see if you can see why.
 
Hmm?, I think I would have had to have seen it Stephen, in order to understand exactly what you were trying to prove.

Just reading what you wrote above, came across to me, as I described it.

If I misunderstood you, then I apologise.

Dave
 
Last edited:
DG Phototraining said:
I always crit from the PoV of finding what's good and then what I may have tried to do differently
Click to expand...

I could make a case for doing it the other way round - find what's bad (either according to the "rules" of composition, or what sticks out like a sore thumb but isn't covered by a rule) and then think about it to see if that point or those points were actually deliberate, and provide the real meaning of the image. Doing it this way, I've often found that the photographer did it exactly right; but starting from the opposite side blinds you to this possibility.

PS - I attempted to explain myself to Dave in a PM.
 
StephenM said:
I could make a case for doing it the other way round - find what's bad (either according to the "rules" of composition, or what sticks out like a sore thumb but isn't covered by a rule) and then think about it to see if that point or those points were actually deliberate, and provide the real meaning of the image. Doing it this way, I've often found that the photographer did it exactly right; but starting from the opposite side blinds you to this possibility.
.
Click to expand...

Shoot em down and try to build them back up make work in the Army but it sure pee's off Photographers FAST IME :D

Not only have I never seen a judge do it that way, but I know how judges are taught to do it too and its not that way - maybe there's a reason for it not being the norm ;)

If you get yourself onto the circuit as a judge by all means try it, it may work as a refreshingly different approach :)

Dave
 
I was advocating a method of attempting to understand what the photographer intended rather than reading in what you thought, and I honestly thought that my use of the word "think" might have helped you to realise this. Ah well, I give up - this game isn't worth the effort :(.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top