CCC Forum

Send DPI images for the informal critique evening to Iggy.

Iggy is looking for 20-30 DPI images which will be shown to all members and critiqued by them using the structured approach we will learn. Don't worry, no names will be attached to the DPI images. There will also be an option to have print images critiqued in smaller groups using the same structured approach. Please send DPI images to Iggy. Those sent by Thursday 8 November will also receive informal comments from Roger.

Please also bring along on the night, 3-4 small print images (suggest 6x4 or 7x5) you would like informal comments on.

Check out: HOW TO REDUCE JUDGES' CRITICISMS by Roger Wates & much more
http://www.pagbnews.co.uk/sites/default/files/newsletters/en105271213_JudgingSpecial.pdf

Iggy

I now have lots of images that CCC members have kindly sent in for the Informal Critique / Judge It Yourself evening.
The evening will start with me presenting Roger Crocombe's slides on how he goes about judging images, which we will then attempt to replicate.
Additionally, Roger has kindly sent me his assessment on a good number of our CCC images that he received anonymously, which will be maintained.

The dpi presentation set up in the Hall naturally lends itself to 6 or 7 groups of 3 or 4 members per row.
Each group will collectively judge each image and record their result after which Roger's assessment of the image will be displayed for comparison.
We would hope to cover at least 20 dpi images (although we have much more than that).

Then Sarah will be in charge of critique of print images that members bring in.

Please find attached the Image Evaluation Matrix that I will bring along (x10) where each teams results can be jointly recorded.
Could you kindly bring along a pen/ pencil for this purpose.

It should be an interactive, fun evening, that gives us an insight on how to judge an image but also the problems that judges are faced with 50 to 70 images to judge in 2 hours!

See you all tomorrow evening!
Iggy

The evening yesterday went reasonably well with 20 + CCC members attending.
Everyone participated in the small group discussion and then most presented their views to the members at one time or another.

This took quite a lot of time and we were therefore only able to review, discuss and consider the judge's verdict of 15 images from the 40 + that were submitted. We did have a quick 10 sec look at 4 images submitted too late for a judge's review so that all 19 submitting members had their images on the screen.

Most had submitted at least 2 images, and I was able to get judge's reviews for most but not all, before the judge went on holiday. I will try and get judge's review for the rest.

Some members that submitted images did not attend but I could send you the judge’s review if you drop me an email.

A fair few members kindly brought prints in too that were passed round the room for members to look at and review informally within their own group.

The 20 + CCC members that attended found the exercise useful, although many times they did not agree with the judge review. However, some have still suggested that we have another session with the images that were not reviewed.

What are your views?

Regards,
Iggy

Hi Iggy

Thanks for organising this evening. Thanks also to Roger Crocombe for taking the time to provide his feedback on our photos.

While there is no one correct way to evaluate a shot, prioritising aesthetic and narrative appeal over composition and technical aspects works as well as any other method. That said, I have known more than one judge to dismiss an otherwise good image out of hand for technical reasons. I have even known one or two to invent non existent faults. The least said about those people, the better. What did strike me as curious about Roger's critiques was that very often the overall assessment of a shot was lower than his evaluation of the individual elements would suggest.

Hi Mike,
Thanks for helping by setting up the club laptop / projector system. I have presented several times at our club and elsewhere with my mini computer without any hi-cups! So not sure what the problem was. Seems to have recovered now!

I wonder what other systems judges from different federations are trained with?
There is the PAGB that I could chase up.
Also, Marie-Ange Bouchard brought a trainee judge when she came over to judge our 1st PDI Competition. So I will ask her about the SPA/ PAGB criteria for judging images.

Just looking at an old PAGB handbook, PAGB Recorded Lecture Service, there is: How to Judge or not to Judge by John Wigmore FRPS, EFIAP, MPAGB, APAGB on CD with a 2 min (??) introduction giving pointers of what a judge might be looking for. thios is followed by 2 halves of images, relevant comments and judging. Perhaps we could look at getting this sometime to fill another evening if need be?

Another CD covers PAGB Awards for Photographic Merit that could be a follow on for Ann Healey's presentation Distinctions & Accreditations; A Personal Perspective on 5 December 2018.

My interpretation of Roger's marking scheme A, B, & C followed by an eventual Gold, Silver or Bronze is that A = 10, 9.5, 9; B = 8.5, 8, 7.5; C = 7, 6, 5 and so on. This could account for the eventual lower marks (Bronze). With this system one does need an A in the Story, narrative or “mood” section that carries the lion share of the marks (55%) to do well overall.

When I have time, I will post the gold and silver images up on this thread. Any objections?

Best wishes,
Iggy

Irrespective of what values are allocated to A/B/C or what weightings are given to the categories, you cannot mathematically combine three categories and get a total grading that is lower than the lowest category grading nor higher than the highest category grading - i.e. category grades of B,B,B cannot be anything other than a total grade of B/Silver.

Either the listed grade was an error (C,B,B would produce a C overall) or the method of obtaining the total grade was not a weighted sum of the category grades.

Iggy wrote:Just looking at an old PAGB handbook, PAGB Recorded Lecture Service, there is: How to Judge or not to Judge by John Wigmore FRPS, EFIAP, MPAGB, APAGB on CD with a 2 min (??) introduction giving pointers of what a judge might be looking for. thios is followed by 2 halves of images, relevant comments and judging. Perhaps we could look at getting this sometime to fill another evening if need be?

I don't think there should be an excess focus on judges and what they do, but more on the process of how/why an image is good or not.

Not sure I'm clear with what I'm sayting there, but for example page 8 of the PDF you shared earlier in the thread has "What judges should be looking for?", which is an interesting and relatively concise set of criteria for judging, and at the same time provides a set of questions that photographers can ask themselves both at the capture stage and when deciding if/how to process an image.

Iggy wrote:Thanks for helping by setting up the club laptop / projector system. I have presented several times at our club and elsewhere with my mini computer without any hi-cups! So not sure what the problem was. Seems to have recovered now!

No worries, Iggy. Windows has a split screen option which means that what is displayed on the laptop is different to what is projected. I am fairly certain that it was in that mode on Wednesday. There is nothing like a computer to let you down at the vital moment!

Iggy wrote:I wonder what other systems judges from different federations are trained with?
There is the PAGB that I could chase up.
Also, Marie-Ange Bouchard brought a trainee judge when she came over to judge our 1st PDI Competition. So I will ask her about the SPA/ PAGB criteria for judging images.

SPA has a couple of pages on its website about what is involved in becoming a judge, although it does not specifically address the criteria for assessing images. I do know that the training involves two days of workshops which one participant I know described as "intensive".

https://surreypa.org.uk/?page_id=318

https://surreypa.org.uk/?page_id=368

What I have found with experience is that judges' comments have become predictable and tend to be formulaic. You have sent me Roger Crocombe's comments on the images I submitted and there was nothing in there which was a surprise. As an example, one of my shots featured a large amount of negative space. It invoked the inevitable query whether I needed to include it all. Yes I did; I wanted to convey the expanse of the scene which was in front of me. It would have been much less interesting if I had stuck to convention.

Among the images I sent in was one which I knew would find less favour with a judge. Sure enough, it was the one which received the lowest ranking. That does not mean it was the worst one, just that it does not fit neatly with what a typical judge wants to see.

In another thread in the Photo Sharing forum, I gave an example of an image I took recently which I like but I would not let anywhere near the average judge. For those setting out, judges can be helpful in identifying basic issues but can prove to be a limiting factor for anyone looking to reach the highest levels.

Iggy wrote:When I have time, I will post the gold and silver images up on this thread. Any objections?

No objections on my part and I would be happy for that to include the critiques.

Peter Boughton wrote:Irrespective of what values are allocated to A/B/C or what weightings are given to the categories, you cannot mathematically combine three categories and get a total grading that is lower than the lowest category grading nor higher than the highest category grading - i.e. category grades of B,B,B cannot be anything other than a total grade of B/Silver.

Either the listed grade was an error (C,B,B would produce a C overall) or the method of obtaining the total grade was not a weighted sum of the category grades.

The most glaring example was an image which received straight Bs for the individual components and then was categorised as Bronze.

Peter Boughton wrote:I don't think there should be an excess focus on judges and what they do, but more on the process of how/why an image is good or not.

Not sure I'm clear with what I'm sayting there, but for example page 8 of the PDF you shared earlier in the thread has "What judges should be looking for?", which is an interesting and relatively concise set of criteria for judging, and at the same time provides a set of questions that photographers can ask themselves both at the capture stage and when deciding if/how to process an image.

This is one of the areas which I want to explore in the talk which I am giving at the club in February.

Hi Peter,
Thanks for your comments which I saw just before going to bed late last night.
That threw my speculation into a conundrum!
Lying awake, I had to bring mental arithmetic to bear, without the help of an electronic calculator. Here is what I remember this morning of that bad dream.
At the Workshop, there were a few B,B,As that ended up with a Bronze.
With Story & Mood at 50%, Composition at 30%, Technical aspects at 10% and Judge’s Discretion at 10%, with lowest B = 7.5/10, and lowest A=9/10
Then {(50+30) x 7.5/10) + (10 x 9/10)} = {60 + 9} = 69 out of 100 or 6.9/10.
Hence just a Bronze with judge’s discretion to come.

Does the above make any sense or is it just a nightmare?
Let me know what you all think about it.

This is just my take of the scoring and I am not intending to discuss it with the judge.
Iggy

Iggy wrote:Does the above make any sense or is it just a nightmare?

Maths was never my strong point, but logically it cannot be right that an image scoring at least B ends up with a Bronze. Even accounting for the newly introduced additional category of "judge's discretion", it does not make any sense to me.

Iggy wrote:This is just my take of the scoring and I am not intending to discuss it with the judge.Iggy

I do not believe that we should as the judge was doing his best to help us, although there is nothing to stop him looking at this thread should he be interested. He has the option to respond if he so chooses.