P3D Judging

["Andrea & Scott Blair" <asblair@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

WOW! What a lively topic this has become. Where do I begin? This is 
rather long, but I have gathered the comments made over the last few 
days and addressed them all at once. I hope I have kept the quotes with 
the originator. My apologies if I have credited you with saying 
something you didn't.

>>>>Derek Gee: I resent being dubbed with the "old school" label. 
Inviting people that are unskilled in judging photographs to judge a PSA 
salon is not "innovation" to me, it's just plain stupid.<<<<

Let me start by saying that I probably resent being called "stupid" a 
lot more than you resent being dubbed "old school." Let's quit the name 
calling and have a decent discussion, shall we?

>>>>Derek Gee: Öplease don't stereotype us just because our opinion is 
different from yours.<<<<

Who's "stereotyping"? You are part of a group of people that share the 
same views; I am part of another. Our views are different, that's all. 

>>>>Derek Gee: There is no magic number that determines qualifications 
for judging the Detroit International Exhibition. The main qualifying 
factors are that the judge should be an active stereographer, should 
have a year or two of active judging experience, and has been able to 
demonstrate to his peers in the club (e.g. the Awards Chair and other 
officers) that they can judge accurately and fairly.<<<<

Sounds like George T. is your man! Why the hesitation is having him 
judge the Detroit Salon? Does he need to judge at *Detroit Club* for 1-2 
years? Why don't you (or a DSS rep) go to the Chicago club and watch him 
judge sometime? It also sounds like you don't have anyone judge your PSA 
exhibition that is not a DSS club member. We invite people from around 
the world to judge the Potomac and Chesapeake exhibitions.

And where is a person to get judging experience if nobody wants to have 
an inexperienced judge (including clubs) to start with? Everyone has to 
start somewhere. Personally, as a competitor, judge, and exhibition 
chairperson, I would prefer to see someone gain experience on a panel 
than to struggle on their own. It's hard to judge a competition by 
yourself, especially the first couple of times. Seems to me that a panel 
would be a better way to help train new judges before they had to go at 
it alone.

>>>>Derek Gee: Why am I the only person trying to define the phrase "new 
ideas", which you (Andrea) introduced to this thread? Neither you or 
Boris has given your definitions of this vague phrase. I was trying to 
put something concrete to this expression.<<<<

Maybe because we already know what we're talking about! New ideas are 
not techniques, per se, but concepts. As in "a fresh perspective" or "a 
new look." Real world examples might be shooting a building while lying 
on the sidewalk instead of head on, tilting the camera askew, blur, 
zooming during the exposure (you RBT owners could try this!), multiple 
exposure, freeze action, etc. We're talking creativity and artistic 
expression. Techniques are used to capture these ideas. You can critique 
the execution of the idea (the technical side), but the resulting image 
must be judged on "appeal" to the individual judging. 

>>>>Derek Gee: A judge is not supposed to consider personal preference 
when judging - period. If I don't happen to like flower pictures or kid 
pictures, then is it OK that I downgrade them just because they don't 
appeal to my personal preferences? Of course not. It's fair to judge on 
stereo effect, composition, lighting, etc. Please leave your personal 
preferences at the door when you enter the judging room.<<<<

>>George Themelis: Something is wrong with this... If a judge does not 
take personal preferences into account, then what does he/she take into 
account? Why does he/she give a 7 to one image and a 5 to another? 
Stereo effect, composition, lighting... Is that all? But these are more 
or less objective qualities. We don't need 3 judges then... Life would 
be much simpler and really a computer could eventually do the 
selections.<<

Let me ask you a question Derek - have you ever judged? I am only asking 
because it doesn't sound like it and I don't want to assume. What am I 
supposed to do after I judge all of the technical aspects, if I can't 
judge aesthetic qualities, i.e., things that appeal to me? If I were 
judging at DSS and ended up with 3 images with the same score or rating, 
would you give 3 first places? How would you expect me to rank them if 
all 3 are "technically correct"? No, I would not expect you to toss a 
flower picture just because you don't like flowers. I would expect you 
to judge all of the images equally on technical value first, so the 
technically correct flower would at least have a chance at an award 
instead of being tossed up front. Unfortunately in the real world it 
doesn't always happen that way. Some of the best lines I've heard from 
judges for expelling technically correct images: I don't like 
sunsets/sunrises, landscapes, spiders, the color green (honest - one 
judge said this), etc. 

>>>>Derek Gee: While Boris is a fine stereographer and artist, that 
doesn't tell me much about his judging experience. If I was the 
exhibition chairperson, I would feel more comfortable if I knew he'd had 
lots of 2-D judging experience rather than none at all.<<<<

I would rather have someone with limited judging experience, but who 
understands the stereo concept and photographic/art technique in 
general. After all, isn't that why we are doing this type of photography 
- because it's different. Unfortunately, a lot of 2-D photographers do 
not know how to judge 3-D images if they are not familiar with the 
concept. I have seen some very poor examples of stereo images (i.e., 
poor mounting, non-creative window violations, etc.) win awards because 
the 2-D judges looked at them as 2-D images - not stereo. But, I have 
also seen some obviously great examples of stereo effect but poor 
technical composition win as well. A good stereo judge will be able to 
judge both stereo and technique, and use his/her personal judgement for 
the final choices.

>>Andrea Blair: That means that most of the time one judge was voting 
inconsistently with the other two. Since the other two were veteran PSA 
exhibition judges, <snip>. Should we send our veteran judges back to PSA 
judging school since they disagreed?<<

>>>>Derek Gee: Actually yes, I would have your judges review either 
articles, or the PSA slide program on judging prior to your Exhibition 
judging. If your judges are disagreeing by four and five points, there 
is a problem. <snip> Bill Turner <snip> suggested that you examine the 
PSA rules for international exhibitions. It is obtainable directly from 
the PSA, and you should be able to find the answers you seek there.<<<<

What exactly are the articles you are talking about? The Consolidated 
Exhibition Standards? Please give me the titles of all appropriate 
literature and programs that are related to exhibitions and judging from 
PSA. I would like to order them immediately and study them. After 
consulting with another exhibition chairperson, I have been told there 
are no PSA standards on judging, i.e., how things MUST be done. And it 
is not answers I am seeking, I want to see if these documents need to be 
revised and/or updated!

The judges for the Potomac slides and Chesapeake cards were 
intentionally choosen by the chairpersons of both exhibitions, knowing 
there were diverse backgrounds and interests, to get a range of results. 
We accomplished our goal. I think the judges would laugh in my face if I 
even hinted that they go back to "judging school." These are very 
experienced stereographers/photographers. They obviously looked for 
different qualities in the final images. What was consistent was the 
*quality* of the images selected. All of the judges did well in 
eliminating poor technique (mounting, composition, lighting, etc.). So 
it seems, again, it gets down to aesthetics for the final choices. 

>>>>Derek Gee: Could anyone elaborate on just what "enthusiastic, 
innovative and fresh ideas" (from Mark Dottle) were talking about here? 
I see a need for improving the clubs we associate in by constantly 
evaluating new proposals, but if an idea is rejected on sound grounds - 
I see no need to label it as the "same old rut" (from Andrea Blair).<<<<

Good argument; but you are responding to your own definition of this 
phrase, not the one that was intended. We're talking artistic expression 
and concepts, not technical issues like digital imaging (which has 
generated it's own thread).

>>>>Derek Gee: I have been partially responsible for diverisfying our 
club's exclusive focus on Realist (w/some European) format slides to 
expose the membership to the world of View-Masters, 3-D movies, 3-D 
television, and stereo prints. The last couple of years we have 
sponsored a stereo print competition to satisfy a small number of 
members desire to show off and compete with their stereo prints. Our 
club officers often go out of our way to make things that members have 
suggested happenÖ<<<<

That's great! Kudos to your and your officers. I think everyone who 
holds a position in a club tries to do what you and I and others have 
accomplished - introduce variety and entertain new ideas. Keep up the 
good work and encourage others to do the same.

>>>>Derek Gee: Big organizations like PSA are always somewhat slow to 
change. Andrea, you are obviously frustrated with the pace of 
change.<<<<

Not so much frustrated as disappointed and discouraged. There are a lot 
of people I have met that refuse to join or rejoin PSA just because of 
the type of thing we are discussing here. The rigidity, stiffness, and 
close-mindedness in the approach and handling of activities puts people 
off. By forming the PSA Mid-Atlantic Chapter, we have not only created a 
way to recognize local people's achievements in PSA, but we are an 
outlet for the frustration and confusion. We encourage people to ask 
questions and make comments about PSA at the meetings. The Chapter is 
the voice that will take these ideas, opinions, and questions to PSA. 
There are enough "fresh voices" that things will eventually change, 
though. It's just a matter of time.

>>Mark Dottle I am so stunned that "T"s experience or competence has 
been questioned with regard to judging.......and this is probably why I 
have given up before I've entered anything in PSA.<<

Mark's comment is a fine example of the above statement. I hope he will 
reconsider and at least enter the Potomac (I really want to see some of 
his images using his technique - or is that artistic expression - for 
adding colors). I also hope that he will stay a member of PSA and help 
us create a more positive and welcome impression for others. 

>>Boris Starosta: Here's a "new idea:" let's judge entries for their 
innovativeness and artistic content! Technical excellence should be a 
given - it is qualities beyond technical excellence that should matter 
most among the highest scoring images. Technical merit and artistic 
content are two different things. The first can be judged 
"automatically," that is, by application of rigid guidelines. The latter 
is far more subjective, and so relies upon the personal reaction that a 
judge may develop with the image - I believe a judge cannot leave 
personal preferences at the door, and still be able to judge artistic 
content. Nothing can be more discouraging to an artist who wants to 
present work that transcends technical challenges. I seek examples of 
artistic novelty, challenging messages, beauty. A few of the stereoviews 
honored by the PSA Stereo Division have these qualities. But most do 
not.

>>Michael Kersenbrock: I agree. When I'm a judge at CSC, I'm probably 
one of those bad judges. I'll rate an image that impresses me and I like 
higher than another that I think dull and uninteresting even though they 
both are technically equivalent.<<

>>John Roberts: I *mostly* agree, but if there are technical errors that 
ruin my appreciation of the photo, I would take that into account, and I 
might forgive some technical errors in a photo that's especially good 
for other reasons. If personal preferences were not important to judging 
artistic merit, there would not be a need for more than one judge.<<

>>>>Derek Gee (in response to Boris): I believe you are mistaken. 
Technical excellence is NOT a given in a Salon. It should be, but it 
isn't. If a slide is innovative and artistic, it should get additional 
points on top of those it receives for being technically excellent. 
While technical merit and artistic content are two aspects of a photo, 
you cannot just judge a slide on artistic content. If you consider all 
of those things you should be able to come to some kind of balance that 
lets you take everything into account. I believe personal preferences 
can be minimized, but perhaps not entirely eliminated. I do believe it 
is vital for a judge to be as unbiased as possible, and that means you 
gotta keep those preferences in check.<<<< 

Are you changing your tune, Derek? {;>) This sounds noticeably different 
than your earlier posts. (Quote: A judge is not supposed to consider 
personal preference when judging - period. Please leave your personal 
preferences at the door when you enter the judging room.)

There seems to be a lot of support in for the "technical merits first, 
aesthetically pleasing final" type of voting. From my experience, this 
is consistent in club, council, and (some) PSA exhibitions.

>>Boris: It appears that the PSA encourages judging heavily weighted 
towards technical excellence. If the PSA wants to encourage technicians, 
not artists, this is the way to do it.<<

>>>>Derek Gee: How would you suggest that PSA include creativity and art 
within a judging framework that can be consistantly applied and not 
allow a person's biases to overrule logic?

It can't. You cannot consistently apply an opinion across a group of 
people. It is expected that a judge will (or should) keep his/her biases 
in check, but creativity and art is in the eye of the beholder (or the 
judge, in this case) and will be the determining factor in the end after 
all of the technical issues are examined. These are the fine lines one 
walks when judging. 

>>>>Derek: I'm not so hung up on PSA methodology that I would insist 
that a judge should be trained in only that way before judging a PSA 
Salon.<<<<

Really?! From everything you have said so far, it sounds like you are.

>>John Roberts: For example, I have heard it claimed at PSSP that using 
a fast shutter to freeze the motion of moving water is a *technical* 
error, as opposed to an artistic issue. I happen to disagree - I think a 
photographer might want to freeze motion for artistic purposes, and that 
shouldn't automatically be regarded as a technical error.<<

I agree with you John. There are probably very few true "technical 
errors." Artistic expression, creativity, and techniques are hard to 
define as "right" or "wrong." This is where personal preference comes 
in. A particular technique may appeal to some people and not to others. 
That's part of the fun of art. Seeing how others express their visions.

>>George Themelis: The local stereo club competitions and the PSA 
exhibition system, in my mind, offer a way to present our work to our 
peers and get some satisfaction from the appreciation of this work and 
also be motivated to improve. Some people say that they do not need this 
structure to be motivated... Others see this system restricting their 
creativity.<<

Good points, George. Those who compete, choose to compete. Nobody forces 
them. There are (or there should be) other ways for members to share 
their work in their clubs without competing. PSSP has "Show - n - Tell" 
every meeting. At another club (2-D), I introduced a "Member's Forum 
Night" where club members brought in all sorts of things to discuss. 
This was an informal gathering (no program, no competition, no business) 
and we showed a lot of images. Sometimes people would ask for feedback. 
This was a popular activity and well supported.

>>George Themelis: Is there such a thing as judging training?<<

Yes, but in my opinion there are only guidelines, which are someone 
else's opinions, not rules. It is not an exact science of right and 
wrong.

>>George Themelis: IMO, the most important characteristic of a judge 
must be *consistency*... i.e. the ablity to score an image the same way, 
no matter at which point in the judging process it is seen. Sounds 
simple but in practice some people have problem with this...I have seen 
judgings where the scores very clearly are drifting towards lower or 
higher numbers as the judging progresses. This is the only problem, IMO. 
and the only area where experience and training can help.<<

If you commit to being a judge, be prepared to see lots of images. 
Usually the organization you are judging for can give you a time 
estimate for their competitions. If you do not feel you can devote your 
full attention for the entire time - don't judge. 

>>>>Derek: There must be other photographic organizations worldwide that 
hold competitions, whose judging methods would qualify someone to judge 
in a PSA Salon.<<<<

As George and Mark stated, most people are already qualified to judge. 
Our local camera club council holds two competitions a year (2-D). There 
are approximately 1000 slides and 500 prints judged during the day. Each 
medium ideally has a panel of 3 judges. The judges are picked 
intentionally with differing backgrounds, such as commercial, nature, 
portrait, architecture, photojournalism, teacher, etc. Each of these 
persons is highly qualified to judge on technical qualities, but they 
bring their own perspective on art and creativity. Each one is looking 
for something different, thus scoring differently for the same image. I 
feel a panel judging is fairer to the photographer in the sense that the 
scores and/or awards reflect the consideration of several opinions. To 
me, having impressing three different people at the same time is much 
more rewarding than impressing one, and gives me a better idea of the 
overall quality of my images.

>>Gabriel Jacob: Just point your browser over to 
http://www.hyperzine.com/scripts/hzget.cgi?1365 and read an article by 
George Glasser titled, "You be the Judge".<<

Does this link work? I didn't get anything.

>>Jon Golden: We had the collective knowledge, and experiences of 
3Dwoman Jan Burandt, Dick Koolish, Mark Damish, Linda and Ralph...<snip> 
After initial review on screen with a laser pointer, we tweaked and 
optimized images...pointing out ghosting, convergence, vertical, window, 
cropping, depth ratio, rotational and stereocard copying (to slides for 
projection) issues.<< 

Sounds like qualified judges for exhibitions to me! Watch out, guys, you 
may be called upon to serve!

>>Michael Kersenbrock: Judging is a difficult job and often a thankless 
one.<<

Amen!

Andrea Blair
asblair@xxxxxxxxxxx


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


------------------------------

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 3147
***************************