P3D More PSA judging

[Derek Gee <73157.2172@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry for the delay in replying, but between the snow, illness, and my
job, things have been mighty busy.  This thread has gone on way too
long, so this is the last I will comment on it...


>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?

OK, I'm sorry, I should have used a less emotionally charged word like,
"unwise".  I still disagree with your decision and believe you made a
mistake.  So far, I've read nothing from you or anyone else that would
cause me to change my opinion.


>>>>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?

At least two DSS members have watched George judge in Cleveland and 3-4
officers watched him judge in Detroit.  I am really uncomfortable
discussing all this personal stuff about George in public.  I think
George's own words speak for themselves:

"Billy Turner is fully justified to "give me a hard time" because I have
absolutely no experience in judging PSA salons and limited experience
in judging stereo slide competitions in general."


>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.

According to Bill Turner, we've had judges from a few other
clubs, such as the Chicago Stereo Club.  I don't know of any
international judges, though.  I guess I'll have to ask Bill.


>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.

As I stated previously, the place to get judging experience is at your
local photo club - before you judge a PSA Salon.  No one has to struggle
on their own at the DSS - there are nine competitions a year for
someone to learn about judging in.  There may be something to your idea
about creating a panel to assist new judges.  Maybe allowing a trainee to
"role play" with other experienced judges using some photos in a pretend
contest might be possible.  I'll bounce the idea off of the DSS officers
and see if we can come up with a workable format.


>>>>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. 

Thank you for the examples.  Perhaps you and Boris knew what you meant,
but I and maybe others did not.  None of the ideas you offer seem
"fresh" to me.  I've seen them before - most even in 3-D.  I would
agree that they are underused, however.  This month's
competition topic at the DSS is "Creative Blur", which was suggested
by one of the members and selected by the officers because it was
a tough assignment that would force people to do some more creative
things than a simple landscape.  I would argue that the all of these
ideas can be judged mostly on technique and that appeal should be the
remotest thing in the judges mind. 


>>>>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.

Yes, I judged several years worth of DSS contests before being invited
to judge the 1992 Detroit International Salon.


>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?

Indeed, that's exactly what we do our local competition awards, with a limit
on the total number being placed at 40% of the total number of entries.
PSA exhibitions are judged differently. 


>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. 

I think it is somewhat rare that when you get three slides that
are all identically technically correct.  I've never seen it 
happen.  In the unlikely event that this should happen, you will
be forced to make a decision based on opinion alone.


>>>>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.

I see your point.  Personally, I don't ever want a judge for the
Detroit International Salon who doesn't know how to judge 3-D, and
to date, we've never had that happen.  Still if it were an emergency,
I would prefer an experienced 2-D judge to an inexperienced one.


>>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!

According to Bill Turner, the documents are the "Consolidated Exhibition
Standards" and the "Aids and Standards".


>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. 

Personally, I make a point of re-reading my judging references every
year or two so I stay in practice.  It's very easy to forget about
what you've learned and just start voting on instinct.  I hope whoever
you've selected as judges are not so narrow minded to think that a
little reminder/refresher would be an insult.


>>>>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).

Well, since you hadn't defined the phrase, I made an attempt to define it.


>>>>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.

Well, if PSA doesn't change fast enough for you, you can always form
the Blair Photographic Society (BPS)...  :)


>>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. 

Mark should review George's own comments (see above).  I also hope he
continues to participate in PSA and have fun.  I think the most
important thing I can say is - to thine own self be true.  Don't worry
about what other people think.  Just continue to improve your own work
and others will eventually take notice.  


>>>>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.)

No, not really.  I have never come across any slides that I couldn't
compare on technique and decide a winner.  In the unlikely event
that it should happen, you are forced to judge on appeal.  But like
I said, I've never seen that happen.


>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.

Have you seen a large number of slides that were technically perfect,
but offended your aesthetic sense?  I haven't.  If you've got the
technique down, you often get the beautiful.


>>>>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. 

I see no way that your approach can work.  If you can't consistantly
apply something like technique, then all you're left with is a
popularity contest.  I can pick any three humans at random to give me
that - why bother to train them in judging photographs?


>>>>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.

Honest, if someone has a judging system that works better, I'm willing
to listen!  I just haven't seen one yet.  I'm disappointed that nobody
else has shared another judging system with us.


>>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."

No, there are lots of technical errors (trust me, I've made a lot of
them over the years learning photography).  This however, isn't
one of them.


>>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. 

I agree with George, consistancy is key.  I don't think the length
of time spent during the judging is the issue.  I've seen examples
of this problem during club judgings that may take only 15-20 minutes.


>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.

Are there clubs using only one judge?  We use a panel of three judges
with a fourth serving as alternate in case one is unable to show
up for the PSA Salon.  I agree that having multiple judges is a must!
I disagree with your statement that "most people are already qualified
to judge" for reasons I set forth in my earlier posts.


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

>Amen!

Amen and pass the judging box!


                                Derek Gee
                                President
                                Detroit Stereographic Society


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 3169
***************************