Judge complaint, model not looking at Camera

Well there not wrong model on right is not looking at camera it’s pretty clear to me tbh as for if that takes away from image is up to their scoring rules I guess

Essentially... you don't.

What would you be trying to achieve?

What are the implications?

The judge had done what they have been asked to do - make a judgement. And you don't agree with the judgement.

Nothing will happen other then you will be seen to be making a fuss over nothing.

It's not as of the judge called them 'girls' ... is it?

Well, the thing is, she looks distracted and thoroughly uninterested. If I was judging, I'd mark it down for that.

Judging is subjective and opinions may vary - however it's feedback for you. You can choose to ignore it and hope for better feedback next time, or embrace the feedback and try and learn from it next time.

Wouldn't worry about it to be honest.

Judges have tend to have formulae that they follow / work to, and it takes something exceptional to get them to veer from the given path.

A bug bear of mine when shooting / submitting motorsport images is that the most often used 'critique' is that you can't see a riders / drivers eyes (often through dark tinted visors).

It's possible she is actually looking at the camera but because her head is turned slightly to her right - it does give me the impression she isn't doing so. Either get her to look direct at the camera - or have her turn her head away more (then it's obvious it's deliberate)

"Not appearing to look at the camera" is exactly correct, as far as I can see?

You know, I swore I was going to quit using the groups because they are little help to me, in much the same way as I think camera clubs are little help to their members' photographic ambitions, but here's how I can be of help to you:

Camera club judges judge camera club photographs. It's very often drain-circling BS.

The sooner you get comfortable with taking photos they don't like, the better. Think about what they'd like and do the opposite, with intent.

And I would hire K8 to not look at the camera if I was more local. Do a whole series with her not looking at the camera in as many different ways as you can think.

And then print one of the photos, roll it up, and insert it in the camera club judge. No maybe not that. Waste of a print.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

TheChrisS said

Well, the thing is, she looks distracted and thoroughly uninterested. If I was judging, I'd mark it down for that.

Distracted? Maybe. She looks like she has something else on her mind, but that's quite different. Whatever is on her mind looks like it is important. Get that in a photo and you're starting to get somewhere, IMO.

Personally I think the fact that one of the subjects is engaging quite intently with the viewer, and the other is somewhere else entirely, is the beginning of a thing, not the end of a thing.

Failing to appeal to a camera club judge is just a bonus.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

Ah, yes, camera club judges. Reason #2 that I was only a member of one for one year.

(Reason #1 was the patronising and sanctimonious attitude from the chairman, who got voted back in year after year)

Unfocussed Mike said

TheChrisS said

Well, the thing is, she looks distracted and thoroughly uninterested. If I was judging, I'd mark it down for that.

Distracted? Maybe. She looks like she has something else on her mind, but that's quite different. Whatever is on her mind looks like it is important. Get that in a photo and you're starting to get somewhere, IMO.

Personally I think the fact that one of the subjects is engaging quite intently with the viewer, and the other is somewhere else entirely, is the beginning of a thing, not the end of a thing.

Failing to appeal to a camera club judge is just a bonus.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

Hehe true, I’m assuming it was accidental but it reminds me (tiny bit) of that famous female photographer who made portraits of non model girls on the beach in bikinis, which where that fine balance between smidge boring and oddly captivating how their lack of confidence was secretly her subject matter. Its actually the seeds of somthimg interesting.

I could never work out the thinking of club judges sometimes, that why I stopped offering pictures to be looked at.  Just like here and FPI's sometimes I think thats amazing and it gets rejected and sometimes I see images and think my dog could do better.  Its all a mystery.  I would say that the lady on the right does not look comfortable in her expression and so its hard to say if she is looking at the camera as would be liked by a judge so I can see why it was marked down.

Carnt remember the name. I tried googling- famous photographer, girls beach bikini. Results didn’t quite go where I expected it too esp as I was sitting on the couch with the parents.. 

Edited by Perception

As someone who has judged before, don't take it too much to heart. It's part of the job to critique and it's a small critique - from a first look, it looks like she's looking just off to the camera, a closer look is different.

Don't keep entering the same images to competitions, the fun is in making new fresh images to enter :) and most importantly, take photos that YOU are proud of and as long as you like them that's the main thing. Entering photos into competitions is fun but just remember that judging art is a very personal thing. And quite difficult sometimes!

Perception said

Unfocussed Mike said

TheChrisS said

Well, the thing is, she looks distracted and thoroughly uninterested. If I was judging, I'd mark it down for that.

Distracted? Maybe. She looks like she has something else on her mind, but that's quite different. Whatever is on her mind looks like it is important. Get that in a photo and you're starting to get somewhere, IMO.

Personally I think the fact that one of the subjects is engaging quite intently with the viewer, and the other is somewhere else entirely, is the beginning of a thing, not the end of a thing.

Failing to appeal to a camera club judge is just a bonus.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

Hehe true, I’m assuming it was accidental but it reminds me (tiny bit) of that famous female photographer who made portraits of non model girls on the beach in bikinis, which where that fine balance between smidge boring and oddly captivating how their lack of confidence was secretly her subject matter. Its actually the seeds of somthimg interesting.

There is also a series of duo photos Francesca Woodman took with her friend or boyfriend where only he is engaging with the camera and she is avoiding it, averting her gaze etc.

I saw one years ago (a Woodman fan friend -- who also introduced me to Julia Margaret Cameron, as it goes -- showed me) and then I sort of forgot about it until recently when I saw it in the Woodman/Cameron exhibition and I realised it has been subtly affecting me ever since I first saw it. It's crept into several of my duo photos, even two that are here.

Gaze is not something one simply allocates to pointing out of the photograph; any judge who would just casually dismiss averted gaze as a failure is not worth listening to.

Unfocussed Mike said

You know, I swore I was going to quit using the groups because they are little help to me, in much the same way as I think camera clubs are little help to their members' photographic ambitions, but here's how I can be of help to you:

Camera club judges judge camera club photographs. It's very often drain-circling BS.

The sooner you get comfortable with taking photos they don't like, the better. Think about what they'd like and do the opposite, with intent.

And I would hire K8 to not look at the camera if I was more local. Do a whole series with her not looking at the camera in as many different ways as you can think.

And then print one of the photos, roll it up, and insert it in the camera club judge. No maybe not that. Waste of a print.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

Yes but they can be entertaining...