What are they for……… part 2
Jan 13th, 2012 by Keith Chaloner
This topic has now produced its 11th comment, shown below, and I have taken the liberty of starting a second thread to make it easier to follow (and possibly contribute) for those members who are interested in, and concerned about, this important subject.
Keith
The following comment is posted for John Ellis:
Points Cup Competition et al – A new Member’s “Tuppence Worth”.
I have read with interest the wise words posted by established Club Members and I have had some varied experience of submitting images myself.
I wonder if some of the problem emanates from a misuse of the Points Cup Competition (misuse may be too harsh a word but I cannot think of another that fits). Clearly the event is a competition and should provoke all the interest and challenge that competition evokes; traditionally, every image entered has been critiqued and evaluated before a judgemental decision has been taken by way of an awarded score. It is expected that, alongside the competition score per se, there will be informed comment from the judge on each and every submitted image. Perhaps this is a luxury that has to be addressed in that it can no longer be afforded either in terms of time or Judges’ nervous energy and due consideration. After all, in an angling Competition, there is no erudite analysis by an eminent Angler of why all the losers failed to catch more than a minnow.
My proposal would be: (a) To retain the rules pertaining to the allowed/desired number of images submitted per competitor per round of the Competition and the four sections (assuming the demise of slides is regrettably inevitable which will reduce the pressure on time a little), (b) To revise judging procedures by asking Judges to make a preliminary elimination of an appropriate number of images, without a commentary to leave potentially high scoring images sufficient time for more detailed critique and informed justification by the Judge of the points awarded.
The revised arrangements are based on the assumption that, however awry we may sometimes feel the points awarded may appear to stray, Judges would generally agree on which images are likely to score highly and those which will not be contenders for the coveted 8 through 10 points.
One must ask however, if the Points Cup Competition is also being used at the moment to satisfy a broader objective which needs to be addressed as a separate issue?
This is mentioned by Peter Gafney in his post this week, and I must confess to using the ‘competition’ as a vehicle to seek informed opinion of my images as I certainly cannot yet aspire to being a cup winner at the end of the season, although the occasional high mark does gives a good feeling!
Could it be that format of the Member’s Work Appreciation Evenings could be revised and be allocated a monthly slot in the Tuesday evening programme to involvement of a practicing judge in a non-competitive environment to assess a selection of the Member’s images that did not qualify for the benefit of consideration during the Points Cup Competition to describe and discuss how and why he/she might arrive at a suggested score?
Finally, in these long ramblings, if I may be permitted a comment at this early stage of my membership; I have formed the view that the Club is performing a tremendous service and succeeding well in its aim “to promote a wider understanding of the art and craft of photography in all its aspects”. The annual programme is incredibly varied and interesting and the support for improving practical competence quite remarkable. I may be mistaken, but I think I am not alone in missing an opportunity to assess the success, or otherwise, of my personal efforts in the field other than in the competitive context of the Points Cup. Perhaps this is one reason why the Competition finds itself with the problem.
As Colin Cross said, “Isn’t it nice to be a victim of our own success”.
John raises some interesting points.
The Points Cup format satisfied two different objectives (the competitive marking and the appraisal) and worked fine when the total number of images was around 50. The appraisal element presumably started out as part of a process that concluded with the evaluation of a mark, and justified it. It is this element that is particularly useful to the less experienced who thereby ‘learn the rules’ and progress.
However, to satisfy the competitive objective the appraisal is a lot less important than the mark. Speaking personally I would rather hear the judge say ‘10’ rather than an explanation of why he likes it.
It seems clear that there is the need for both short and long term solutions to the problem. The programme is fixed for this year and the problem will have to be reduced by limiting the number of images in some way.
For the long term more radical measures are surely desirable.
John offers one solution; an initial selection to remove weaker entries. This sounds brutal but if linked to a revised ‘Print Appreciation’ evening with a judge (as John also suggests), and marks awarded, it could be made acceptable and even welcomed by many members. There might even be an ‘Improver’s’ cup. And it might be that some newer members would, of choice, submit to the alternative rather to the main Points Cup competition.
The alternative to selection each time could be the establishment of two ‘leagues’ based perhaps on an average mark over a minimum of entries in the previous season. A criterion to ‘fast track’ experienced new members should not be difficult to produce.
If either solution ‘had legs’ the Print Appreciation evenings would need to follow the Points Cup evenings and be the same in number. This would of necessity introduce more ‘judged’ events at the expense of other topics. However, given the popularity of Points Cup evenings this may not be a problem. Particularly with more emphasis and time given to appraisal of images this may indeed be desirable.
Another benefit could be the use of in-house judges for the Appreciation events; these by definition would be from the most experienced members whose images would not (usually) be selected for these evenings.
Finally, it would seem that there is plenty of time to reflect on this issue and get the long term solution ‘right’. In this context a short term ‘fix’ will no doubt be more acceptable.
Keith
Between John Ellis and Keith I believe we have the makings of a very acceptable long term solution. Assuming that the membership as a whole is in favour, I am all for it. We have at least four SAPA judges in our membership, so internal judges would seem to be no problem. As far as points cups are concerned, I have a radical suggestion:- Limit any individuals entry to no more than one in any category and no more than two in total. eg 1 colour print+1 DPI. This would spread the marks more and make for more open competitions. It would make 59 1/2 or 60/60 over the year almost impossible.
Whilst the proposal to use ‘in-house’ resources to critique the entries of relative beginners sounds sensible to me, I would be concerned if that approach bit too deeply into the rest of the programme if Tuesday evenings were to be used.
I would be less attracted to restricting entries to fewer than three per competition. We’ve already reduced numbers from four in my memory. I don’t quite see the advantage in welcoming Points Cups winners who accumulate a smaller grand total. I see nothing wrong with the occasional tie, or with winning with sixty (or maximum) points. It’s happened only twice so far, we believe, anyway. If ties were to become a problem then I think a satisfactory solution is more sensibly to be found in persuading some/most judges to be more discriminating in their awards of the maximum mark!