PDA

View Full Version : Catagories?? Where do judges draw the line?



Tracey_Taylor
06-30-2006, 12:44 AM
I am wondering where Judges draw the line between digital art and portraits? Or are they all in one category?

I attended my State competition this last weekend. I received 3 "merits", 2 prints and my album. As we were watching the awards ceremony, I was getting confused about the catagories. Where is the line drawn between a "Portrait" and digital art?? Most of the images that won Tropies were so digitally enhanced that they were nowhere near the original image. Don't get me wrong, they were beautiful works of art, but to me, they were not "Portraits", they were "Digital Art".

Why could there not be separate catagories for "Natural" PHOTOGRAPHIC images with minimal photoshop work and DIGITAL ART??

Any insight on this would helpfull, and if you are someone that feels the way I do, is there anything that can be done?? :confused:

Kaela_Domenico
06-30-2006, 12:49 AM
I saw at PPA in January that they did a decent job of separating digital art from portraits (although I didn't get to see it all since they kicked us out early!!) but I think there definitely needs to be guidelines drawn up about what constitutes a digital art piece and what is simply enhancing a regular portrait. Is there anything in the rules online about that?

Wilson_Hitchings
06-30-2006, 05:37 AM
Congrats on the state-wide merits, that's not to be overlooked.

David_A._Lottes
06-30-2006, 05:17 PM
I was wondering the same thing.
I asked a friend of mine who has been on the board of a small affilitae for the last several years and she told me this.
If the maker has captured the image and then manipulated it in photoshop it is basically up to them. If they want to enter it under Portrait, Digital, Wedding ...whatever. If on the other hand they have only done the PS work it can only be entered under Digital. Like a retouching artist who has done a spectacular job making a really acne scarred face look clean or a water damaged print restored to original condition etc. Hope this helps - David

Tracey_Taylor
06-30-2006, 05:19 PM
I am very happy and proud to have won those 3 state merits,please don't missunderstand this post, it is just confusing to me.

I just feel that the judges are leaning towards the heavily photoshoped images, and the ones that are beautiful "portraits" with minimal photoshop enhancements are being overlooked. I have discussed this issue with other local photographers in my area and they all feel the same way... there should be a separate catagory for the heavy photoshop and painter effects. And the "Portrait/Wedding" catagories should be for left for minimal enhancing of the images.. maybe even and explination should be included with the image as to what exactly was done, and let PPA decide if it should be in the "Portrait/Wedding" catagory or the "Digital Art" catagory.

Again, don't get me wrong here, even one of my merit images had some photoshop work done to it.... but on the background, not so much on the subject. It still looks like a "Portrait". I have posted it here, and maybe even it would qualify for the "Digital Art" catagory if this were to be done.

Thanks so much for reading and listening to me, I am just hoping there are enough of us that feel this way that MAYBE a change can be made. And maybe I am just ol'school... even though I have only been in the business proffesionally for 2 years, maybe this is just the way things are heading and I had better shine up my photoshop and painter skills if I want to become a Master Photographer someday!! :)

David_A._Lottes
06-30-2006, 06:34 PM
I was at an affiliate judging in 96 when PS and digital were still pretty much a mystery. It was the first year that this group had a digital category and they realy didn't have the guidelines set-up yet. Anyway a group of several children recieved the highest score in the Portrait group so now it's down to the awards and they are going to give it Court of Gold Portrait Award. Then one of the judges spots some digital work on the print and moves it into the digital category. Now it is no longer the highest score in it's group and the maker is fuming! She didn't even know her lab had used digital retouching to do some work on the print. I can't remember what was done but it bumped her off the awards list. I for one miss the categories. I think weddings are different than portraits and illustrative is a whole other world. But time marches on. - David

Holly_Howe
06-30-2006, 09:18 PM
Hi Guys! I asked Keith to post on this thread but he is just too busy - literally 14 hour days all week. So over lunch he kinda told me what to say. If I get something wrong, I apologize in advance.
First off at national judging there is a portrait open (PO) and an electronic imaging (EI) catergory, plus album etc. In PO the entrant must have created the original ohotograph and something in the image must be recognizable as a photograph. The enhancement and artwork - digital or traditional, does not have to be done by the maker but must be done under his/her control or direction. So if you take a photograph and have someone else enhance it - it must be entered in PO. For EI the subject matter, while of course adding to the impact and effecting the overall score, is not as crucial as in PO. In EI the judges are rating the work that has been done, the degree difficulty and how well the enhancements were done. It is not necessary to include a guide print or original but it usually is helpful. If you are particularly successful with adding or subtracting elements, the panel may not even notice what you actually did. If guide prints are included then they know what to look for.
In EI the entrant can be the original photographer but not necessarily, as the judging is done primarily on the enhancements not on the photography. So a digital artist can enter EI without ever taking a photograph. Or a photographer who created the image and did his own PS'ing can enter in EI or PO.

As far as the issue of how much is photography and how much is artwork - that issue has been creating controversary for 30 years. Long before digital was a word in our vocabulary, some photographers were complaining that the high scoring entries were more the artist's work and not truly that of the photographer. That is one of the reasons Keith pursued his Master Artist degree - so his entries were truly his own work, and did not have any contributions from a traditional photographic artist. Through his education in traditional artwork, he became a firm believer in getting it right in camera. Once he knew how much effort it took to correct problems, he learned it was quicker and easier to take care of it before the shutter falls. This will probably still be an issue 50 years from now when instead of photographing seniors we clone them and enhance the clones.

At National judging and one regional (SE we think, not sure) PO and EI are seperated. At other affilated judgings there is no official EI judging, and non affliate judgings are at each state's or local's discretion.

Jurors are charged to judge the image put in front of them. They cannot question if an image should be disqualified from the catergory (PO or EI) that it is presented in. That descion is completely up to the jury chairman and in non-affilate judgings the print chairman may also have a say. In an affilate judging there is not the option to move a print from PO to EI and vice versus. If it does not meet the criteria in the rules, for the catergory declared by the maker, it will be disqualified. It cannot be moved to the other catergory. In David's example, it would have to have been the jury chairman and not just a juror and it should have been disqualified under todays rules. The maker was given the benefit of the doubt and instead of kicking the print out, it was kept in the show and moved catagories. So while it was sad to not receive the award it was better than being disqualified all together which probably should have been done - if this was in fact an affiliate judging. And as David said, in the mid 90's everyone was feeling their way and trying to be as fair as possible. So that's probably why it was moved and not DQ'd. As far as the maker not knowing her lab was going to do digital artwork, well it has always been part of the rules that the artwork is done under the makers direction and control. It's kinda like back when there was a thickness rule. If your lab screwed up and didn't make the print thick enough, it was still your responsibility to make sure it met the requirments.

This is me talking now - not Keith. Someone mentioned about liking it better when prints were judged in catergories like wedding, portrait, commercial etc. I agree with that to a point. However say a photographer gets a model and spends a whole day photographing her in locations and conditions of his choosing. The model happens to be wearing a wedding dress so the print is entered as a wedding, competing for head to head awards with a bridal image created in 2 minutes on the wedding day. Shouldn't that first print really ethically be considered a portrait? And what about a truly gifted scenic photographer who consistantly scores in 90's and by putting a small tiny person one inch high in the corner now enters that image under portrait?
I think grouping everything under portrait open was an attempt to judge each print on it's own merit, not asuming what circumstances it was created under. I would also like to add that just like any organization or group, PEC is never going to please everybody all the time. There will always be some members who think it should be handled differently. If you have noticed the official rules have been drastically cut in length the last year or two. I think it was in an effort to allow photographers more freedom and make it less resrtictive and easier to enter yet maintain enough consistancy for a fair judging. These are however strictly my opinions and I could be completely off in my assumptions.

Holly

David_A._Lottes
06-30-2006, 09:43 PM
Thanks for clearing all that up Holly. I know what you mean about the models. It was fairly common practice at one time to hire models for competition prints. Take a look at the old loan books and you'll see what I mean. But even if it wasn't supposed to be that way when the judges looked at a wedding image in the wedding category they did keep in mind that it was created under the gun and not after hours of work perfecting. I don't think they were supposed to do that but they did. I can remeber judges saying things like "Come on guys this was a wedding not a portrait session!" While arguing for a print. I also remember sitting and watching judges say things like "wait a minute if the tree with the lighting bolt gets a merit how can we deny this one!" At which point the chairman would hurumph and say "NO COMPARING PRINTS GENTLEMEN" As if they didn't anyway. Oh well these are old stories and times have certainly changed. Thanks again Holly.

Buddy_Stewart
07-01-2006, 02:44 PM
Good reporting Holly! Keith has given some great info to the process. Holly says "At National judging and one regional (SE we think, not sure) PO and EI are seperated." There are three competitions, one each to correspond with each of the degrees. Photographic Open (PO) for the Master of Photography degree, Electronic Imaging (EI) for the Master of Electronic Imaging degree and Art Tech (AT) for the Master Artist degree. Southeastern Professional Photographers Association (SEPPA) is designated the Regional for Commercial, AT and EI for all of the country. All other Regionals are for PO only. Most of the regionals do not want the expense of assembling a panel for the AT, EI and Commercial so PEC designated a Region who wanted it to host those competitions. This gives those participants a second chance to compete and to hang their four images in those competitions if they desire.

There have been some rumors that the Art Tech degree is going away but this is not so. PEC did change the entrance requirements for AT to include ONLY traditional artwork for the degree. This means only brushes, pencils, oils, etc. may be used. No electronic work may be entered. Those who had merits in AT were given three years to complete their degree using any medium (including electronic). This grace period ended last year and any merit achieved in AT must be done with traditional methods.

There have been many schools of thought about "limiting" the methods of producing the entries in PO. There are some who think that we should enter only what we sell and those that think one should enter only work done totally by the maker. In the first case we would only grow as much as our client base allowed (pretty stale IMO) and the second would take a lot of folks out of the competition just on the printing end. I think that the competition should be a stretching of our abilities and imagination to inspire ourselves and those who look at our exhibits. Limiting those would not be in the best interest of professional photography.

A post in this thread made reference to awards. PPA and PEC offer only the degrees (Master of Photography, Master of Electronic Imaging and Master Artist), Photographer of the Year desiginations and the Imaging Excellence desigination as awards/desiginations. PPA and PEC do not award places (1st, 2nd, etc.) courts of honor, any ribbons, etc. to those entering competitions. Those are awarded by the hosting association for their own members. Likewise, the Regional Association does not own the regional print competition, they are the host of that competition. PPA's jurors judge the awards part of some regionals as a courtesy to that group. Some regions choose all their awards by the score given during the judging rather than re-judge them again against one another. Judges are used only to break ties.

IMO the competition is not about awards but the education derived from the process. Even if a person does not compete the education is there for them in the challenges made during the course of a competition and the studying of the images deemed worthy of the merit. Every photographer should be entering just to improve their work.

With all considered our system of judging is the very best of all systems judging the arts. We have the fairest system with the most checks and balances. I also assure that the PEC is constantly working to improve our system to keep it that way.

Buddy Stewart, PEC vice-chairman

Leon_Adelstone
07-01-2006, 04:58 PM
........

As far as the issue of how much is photography and how much is artwork - that issue has been creating controversary for 30 years. Long before digital was a word in our vocabulary, some photographers were complaining that the high scoring entries were more the artist's work and not truly that of the photographer. .......Jurors are charged to judge the image put in front of them.
Holly

Absolutely correctamundo ! There's often been a lot of "sour grapes". -Normally coming from those struggling to get "mercy" scores in the low 70's. If, instead, photographers used salon as a learning and growing tool, these things would not be an issue.

I look at it like this: If a craftsman is building a table in his workshop, it doesn't matter (to the viewers of the finished table) what tools were used in it's creation. Similarly, it doesn't matter whether he "knocked it out" in an afternoon, or invested 6 months building it. When it's finished, it is what it is.

Similarly, an image is what it is. Whether a scenic was made by the photographer with a "quick snap" while driving by on a highway, or whether he scouted the scene throughout two years worth of seasons, and waited for the perfect time of day and perfect lighting.

The image doesn't know or care how it was created. It is what it is, and should be judged for what it is.

Holly_Howe
07-01-2006, 05:25 PM
To continue on your train of thought Leon - There is that story about Picasso(?? think it was him not sure). He was sitting in a sidewalk cafe and drew a sketch of the woman next to him on a napkin. She asked him how much and he replied $3000. To which she responded "$3000! It only took you a minute or two." He answered back "No Madame, it took me a lifetime."

Holly

D._Craig_Flory
07-01-2006, 07:50 PM
Hi Leon and Holly;

Your posts reminded me of something I was told about a very famous retoucher ... this was BP (before Photoshop). If anyone sent her a 16x20 to enhance, and just told her to make it a merit print, she would send it back. She wanted the photographer to know enough about the photo enhancing end to tell her what they wanted done.

I agree with you Leon. There have always been ways to enhance a competition image whether it was dyes, or pencil work, an overlay matte, or a step mount. ( the old way with a thin mount board, accent layer material, and the final mount board)

Criteria for a merit print has changed over the years. Here in Pa., we have a collection of all prints that won our top trophy over the years. A lot of the early winning images would barely get a 76 now. By the same token, judging, and judges, have changed as well. Years ago you might have heard a judge give a low score and explain that he, or she, just didn't like kids or pets or whatever the case was. Opinionated judges, like that, have been weeded out. The requirement to take judging school and submit images to be an affilated judge has really helped.

D. Craig Flory PPA Certified, Cr.Photog., ASP
floryphotog@mindspring.com

Buddy_Stewart
07-01-2006, 11:12 PM
Leon, you are right on-
The image doesn't know or care how it was created. It is what it is, and should be judged for what it is
We have also worked and taught our judges not to care either. We judge results. If it meets most or all of the 12 elements positively it will do well.

Buddy Stewart, PEC vice-chairman

Keith_A_Howe
07-02-2006, 04:59 PM
[QUOTE=Tracey Taylor]
I just feel that the judges are leaning towards the heavily photoshoped images, and the ones that are beautiful "portraits" with minimal photoshop enhancements are being overlooked.
[QUOTE]
Tracy - I don't think that it is all about heavily PSed images. In fact when I am judging an image with a lot of PS or painter or .... filter over the image, I make a effort to question would the image be as strong w/o the effect? Is the use of the effect trying to cover up a mistake, if so is it well handled? Does the effect ADD to the impact of the image? I personally have hung the traditional HS portrait, traditional wedding images and albums as well as PS'd stuff. The traditional indoor portrait can and does hang but just as anything else styles come and go. Something different that we haven't seen before has more impact just because it's new. Remember poloroid manipulations. At first they had lots of impact and almost always hung. Then after a couple years, it had to be really good to hang. Anything with a photoshop effect used to almost always do well, then the novelty wore off and the bar was raised. Lucius arts is another example - new - unique IMPACT! After you've seen a bunch, the effect alone is not enough to create impact. Remember the 12 elements when looking at an image and especially look for Impact!
One more thing to consider. Was the judging you refered to an affialiate or non affiliate judging? The reason I ask is in non afiliate judgings, the panel can be made up of inexperienced jurrors(usually but not always). Most non afiliate judgings I've seen, have at least 1 or 2 affiliate jurrors on the panel or acting as the Jury forman and maybe a couple of people that are trying to become jurrors and a couple of speakers or degree holders, maybe a neighboring state's president etc. If the panel was less experienced then maybe the impact of lots of PS or Painter may have swayed them. I can't say for sure as I was not there! Also if 90% of the images were heavily PS'd then it stands to reason that a lot of the awards would be from a PS'd print. Law of averages!
Another thing to remember is you have personal feelings about the prints, you liked the subject or it was a breakthrough in some technique for you or you spent extra time on that one etc. The judges don't know any of that stuff. All they know is what is in front of them. I NEVER can guess which of my prints will score the best. At our last regional, my highest score was a 91. Holly had to really convince me to even enter it as I didn't think it would hang. So don't feel bad if your favorites didn't do as well as your other prints. My favorite this year got a 79 (grumble grumble).

You made a comment about about having to shine up on photoshop in order to get your master's. You are probably right. You cannot stop technology. No matter how much I want to play my 8 tracks and BETA videos it's just not realistic. But the more important thing is you are gonna need those skills just to deliver clients work. There is very little I do in PS that I didn't also do with traditional artwork or in the darkroom. However PS allows me to do it faster and more accurately. Clients are no longer dazzled by the effects we can do or the speed we can turn it around. It has become the norm.
Keith

Tracey_Taylor
07-04-2006, 03:37 AM
Thanks to all of you for your input, this all is helping me understand all of this more.

I said earlier, that "most of the images that won trophies" had heavy photoshop work done to them... I did not say that 90% of the enteries were photoshoped... I would say probably all of them had some sort of photoshop work done to them to some degree, who does not anymore... what my concern is where do they draw the line between photoshop for "enhancement" (ya know, fixing blemishes, turning to bw/sepia and what not) and photoshop to the point that it is no longer "Photography" anymore, it is "Digital Art"!

As far as the judges, they were all master photographers from the state, with the exception of one that I know of and he was one of the speakers from California... pretty sure he is also a master photogrpaher.

Keith_A_Howe
07-04-2006, 06:41 AM
Tracy, I really can't tell you why the judging went as it did. I obviously was not there and can only surmise from what you have said and my past personal experiences. First of all I know you did not say that 90% were mostly PS. I was just trying to illustrate a point that if the majority of images were heavily PS that by law of averages a lot of the awards would go to heavily PS prints. I can understand your frustration and confusion. It seems to me that you feel there should be more distinct or strict guideline for how much PS is allowable in Portrait Open and when it should instead be judged as Electronic Imaging. Is that a fair understanding? Let me ask you a few questions. What do you think that distinct guideline should be? Would you make the rule according to how much time it took in PS? Should it be based on how many square inches of the print look like PS and how much looks like photographic? Should it be a judgement call on the part of the jury chairman? How are we going to detirmine the "line in the sand" that seperates the difference? You can't just make a rule that says if it looks like a lot of PS has been done you can't enter it in open. Who says what "a lot" is? At the far ends of the scale it is easy to see, but what about the print that falls in the middle? Who makes that call? And how would you feel if a jury chairman came to you and said "I disqualified you because in my opinion you have too much PS on this image". If you have a definitive answer on how to make this distinction I am sure that PEC would like to hear your thoughts. I can also tell you that while there are probably hundreds of members who feel as you do, that there is too much PS on some portrait open entries, there is an equal amount of members who would say that PEC was hampering their creativity if they tried to limit the amount of PS allowed. As the rule stands now and I said in my last post, some part of the entry must appear as a recognizable photographic element. However as I've drummed this point to death, at a non- affilate they do NOT have to follow National rules.
I said in my last post the issue of artwork has been around long before PS. Is a photograph that is completely painted over with heavy oils less of a portrait? This extreme was entered years ago and the same issues were brought up then. Not all images look good with the same treatment, the trick is to know when a given treatment enhances or detracts from the image. We all have the right to decide (and to what extreme) to enhance our images. We make some of those choices with depth of field, vignetting, color balance, lighting ratio, etc. Cropping, presentation and PS are just other tools. It's up to the maker to choose what tools to use.

As I said before, I do not know what occured at your judging. In non- affilated competitions it is up to the association holding the judging to set any catogories and how they want to administer them. The judges are "charged" at the beginning with how the judging will be handled. Also, just because someone is a Master, does not necessarily mean they are an experienced judge. Some Masters earn their degree without ever working on a print crew or even observing an actual judging. I'm not saying the Master's who judged your competition were inexperienced, I don't know. I was just offering that as one of the possible explanations for the results you described.

Perhaps the best way to understand why a judging went the way it did is to talk to the actual judges (after the end of judging). Ask them individually why your prints scored where they did how they would suggest improvement. Ask about other prints at the high and low ends of scoring. Every judge brings different experiences and viewpoints to the table. By visiting with as many different judges as you can, you will get a broader perspective.

Keith

D._Craig_Flory
07-04-2006, 04:28 PM
Hi group;

Photography keeps changng and evolving. How many people remember when photographers started doing "color" using Marshalls Oils ? (yes, I did some images using Marshalls) How many remember when some photographers kept resisting switching to color from black and white ?

I know that high key images, in competition, where a cookie was used to break up the background did better than solid white ! I remember when the "Baltrami Effect" got a lot of blue ribbons and merits ... till it was overdone and "old hat".

So "the more things change, the more they stay the same". In other words ... whether it is a Photoshop technique, lighting pattern, or whatever you do to get tired, bored judges to sit up and take notice ... that is what we should all aspire to do. From coming up with a title, that gets the jurors to sit up in anticipation of the image that goes with a great title, to a print that is has so much impact as to make a few problems be overlooked .... we all need to constantly evolve and change. Competition can be addictive. Whether you get good scores and look forward to more good scores OR that you felt you deserved better scores and compete again to prove that point ... COMPETE, COMPETE, COMPETE. Don't hold back and don't be scared ... just do it !!!!!

D. Craig Flory PPA Certified, Cr.Photog., PPA C.P.P. Liaison, ASP

floryphotog@mindspring.com

Auralee_Dallas
07-05-2006, 08:31 PM
Since many of us have sent in our entries for this year's PPA competition, this is an interesting discussion. So I went and took a quick look at last year's loan collection book and general book. I didn't look through all the images, but what I saw were many with heavy digital enhancement AND many beautiful straight portraits. This seemed to be the case for the landscapes as well--some heavy with techniques and others just looking like excellent photographs. So, I personally think the judges are doing a good job following the 12 elements of a merit print.
One thing that I have often thought about though is that if you are a print competition judge and you've judged a bezillion images, I would think it would be more and more difficult to "be wowed" by a traditional print.
A few year's ago the hand-colored print was a big wow, then it was black and white, now it seems to be the digital techniques. Change is always in the air and we as business people must be aware of trends coming in and going out. So excellence must stand on it's own.

David_A._Lottes
07-09-2006, 12:18 PM
With all considered our system of judging is the very best of all systems judging the arts. We have the fairest system with the most checks and balances. I also assure that the PEC is constantly working to improve our system to keep it that way.

Buddy Stewart, PEC vice-chairman

I think there is an 800 pound Gorilla sitting in the living room that no one wants to talk about. As membership grows and the number of prints entered into competiton increases it is simply impracticle to spend hours sorting print cases into piles of "Wedding", "Portrait", "Illustrative". Especially considering that this is a volunteer organization and frankly not enough people are pitching in enough to help. This goes for me too! I agree that a 80 is an 80 regardless of how it was captured but if this were applied to other forms of competition I don't think it would have legs for very long. This could explain why the scores were elliminated along with the categories. For example lets say your child were denied the valadictorian designation for his graduating class because he got a B+ in AP Calculus and blew his straight A average. Meanwhile the student who maintained their straight A average did so by never enrolling in anything more difficult than P.E. or Applied math. While your child goes on to Cambridge and becomes a astronaut the class validictorian barely makes it through community college and winds up managing a Hardies. As you can see by my spelling this was never a concern for me. Anyway even the simpleist childrens video games acknowledge higher scores for accomplishments achieved under conditions of greater difficulty. I think PPA could learn something from Playstation.

Maybe this is sour grapes but I am proud to hold six general collection merits and two loan collection merits and I'll be the first one to admit that there are images by others of less asthetic value than mine that I admire more than mine for the incredible effort taken to create them. I wish those makers would get more than a "nice try" for their hard work.

Buddy_Stewart
07-10-2006, 02:25 PM
David writes
<the number of prints entered into competiton increases it is simply impracticle to spend hours sorting print cases into piles of "Wedding", "Portrait", "Illustrative".>

Actually, for the first time in many years, the competition is growing. We are up about 100 cases (400 prints) over last year and should be just over the 5200 mark in entries. Our best years (back in the 90's) was about 7700 entries so you see we are in a growing mode now after a decline. While wedding albums are seperated for judging, the wedding prints, portraits and illustrative prints are judged in one category (Photographic Open). There isn't as much sorting as you might imagine. This is also done by a paid staff in Lincoln prior to the judging. Also FYI the entire judging is done with less than 20 volunteers who handle the prints. Our judges also do the set-up and tear-down of the judging equipment. They are not the prema-donnas that many think.

David adds < I agree that a 80 is an 80 regardless of how it was captured but if this were applied to other forms of competition I don't think it would have legs for very long. This could explain why the scores were elliminated along with the categories. For example lets say your child were denied the valadictorian designation for his graduating class because he got a B+ in AP Calculus and blew his straight A average. Meanwhile the student who maintained their straight A average did so by never enrolling in anything more difficult than P.E. or Applied math. While your child goes on to Cambridge and becomes a astronaut the class validictorian barely makes it through community college and winds up managing a Hardies. As you can see by my spelling this was never a concern for me. Anyway even the simpleist childrens video games acknowledge higher scores for accomplishments achieved under conditions of greater difficulty. I think PPA could learn something from Playstation.>

And how would you have the judges know what the "greater difficulty" is? Just as my clients don't care that their 2 year old is more difficult than some others, they only care about the results. I have seen Paul Skipworth take the worst of small children and get them to do anything (in front of an audience of 200) while I can't get a similar child to do what I need in the privacy of my studio. Difficulty range: for Paul - easy; for Buddy - difficult. Yet both our clients don't care about the difficulty range, they just want the best portrait we can give them. As participants in PPA's competition every entry will have it's own degree of difficulty and it would be impossible to know the difficulty for each. The only way to have the knowledge of the difficulty is to give everyone the same assignment. What a dull exhibit that would be. With all that said PEC does have for discussion at our upcoming meeting adding "Degree of Difficulty" to the 12 elements chart.

The Merit level (80 and above) is and must be above what is good work. One scoring consistantly in the Above Average (77-79) category is doing very good work, probably higher than most of the photography delivered to paying clients. Yet the Merit level is a step above but attainable by most. The Merit is the level necesary for the Master of Photography degree.

Buddy Stewart, PEC vice-chairman

David_A._Lottes
07-10-2006, 02:41 PM
Thanks Buddy
I appreciate the detailed response.
I'm like those country music fans.
Sometiimes I need peope to talk slower :D

Buddy_Stewart
07-10-2006, 08:12 PM
We actually talk real fast. Have to in order to get all them syllables in durin any conversation! Keep Grinn in'.
Buddy Stewart, PEC vice-chairman

Holly_Howe
07-10-2006, 09:35 PM
We actually talk real fast. Have to in order to get all them syllables in durin any conversation! Keep Grinn in'.
Buddy Stewart, PEC vice-chairman

Gee Buddy! I always assumed the reason jurors talk fast is because the jury chair was waiting to slap their fingers with a ruler if they talked too long! I'm grinn in'.

Holly

Buddy_Stewart
07-11-2006, 01:59 PM
Holly,
Just referrin' to Southern jurors!

Buddy Stewart, PEC vice-chairman

Holly_Howe
07-11-2006, 02:01 PM
Holly,
Just referrin' to Southern jurors!

Buddy Stewart, PEC vice-chairman

Good, I won't pack Keith's padded gloves the! See ya Saturday, I'm working print crew.

Holly

Buddy_Stewart
07-11-2006, 09:14 PM
Lookin' forward to seein ya'll.
Buddy