Judge complaint, model not looking at Camera

Rineke Dijkstra Beach Portraits, sorta! Accidental but it’s got a similar vibe and shows going the opposite of conventional thinking is also interesting. 

Perception said

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.. 

I think I know who you mean but I can't place the name either. My brain wants to say Sally Mann but I don't think that's who you mean. 

ThePictureCompany said

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.

Maybe I am terribly cynical but I don't think it's a mystery, at all. But I do think it has very little to do with photography, which might be why it's so hard to grasp in the context.

It's a lot more to do with authority, competition, convention and hierarchy.

All things that shouldn't affect your photography, unless of course they are the subject of your photography.

Camera club judges mark people down because someone has to be marked down and because they are the judge and they can do it. That's it. Someone has to lose. It's useless for the business of creating meaning or art.

Christ, I stay away for a couple of weeks and I've come back Che effing Guevara.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

Unfocussed Mike said

ThePictureCompany said

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.

Maybe I am terribly cynical but I don't think it's a mystery, at all. But I do think it has very little to do with photography, which might be why it's so hard to grasp. It's a lot more to do with authority, competition, convention and hierarchy.

All things that shouldn't affect your photography, unless of course they are the subject of your photography.

Camera club judges mark people down because someone has to be marked down and because they are the judge and they can do it. 

Christ, I stay away for a couple of weeks and I've come back Che effing Guevara.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

IMHO, your comments are offensive to the thousands of photographers who enjoy entering their work in competitions and salons.

Tabitha Boydell said

Unfocussed Mike said

ThePictureCompany said

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.

Maybe I am terribly cynical but I don't think it's a mystery, at all. But I do think it has very little to do with photography, which might be why it's so hard to grasp. It's a lot more to do with authority, competition, convention and hierarchy.

All things that shouldn't affect your photography, unless of course they are the subject of your photography.

Camera club judges mark people down because someone has to be marked down and because they are the judge and they can do it. 

Christ, I stay away for a couple of weeks and I've come back Che effing Guevara.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

IMHO, your comments are offensive to the thousands of photographers who enjoy entering their work in competitions and salons.

I love your work and admire it and you immensely, of course.

But on this point I really don't care. :-/

I know of several supportive photography groups and societies and friendship circles, but prizes and judges rule almost everything. I mean, look at how hard the Taylor Wessing Prize judges seem to be straining not to pick the redhead each year.

And that is the top tier; most prize competitions exist for the purposes of collecting entry fees.

But I say all of this just to support a contrary opinion about the process by which a photo like the OP's gets rejected. Who says that both the subjects of a portrait photo should be looking at the camera? Who says even one of them needs to be? Who says you even need their faces? Judges?

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

Tabitha Boydell

Might be right or wrong in whole or parts. Fails to offend me. Entering competitions for substantial money is an excuse to take them seriously, but even there a degree of cynicism is appropriate.

I'd not expect the particular index picture of 2 nicely formed ladies to win prizes, myself.

For calibration, I'd be interested to see the winner in that category.

A camera club judge is often just the tallest dwarf. My advice is to take great care over whose advice you listen to.

I have to agree that it does look like the girl on the right is distracted and not looking at the camera. It wouldn't be so obvious maybe if the other girl wasn't obviously looking at the camera. In essence there is nothing wrong with the model not looking at the camera, in a lot of fashion photography that is the norm as that makes the viewer look at the clothes she she is wearing, where as with a lot of make-up photography its the norm to have the model look at the camera to draw the viewers eye to the face. To my mind - and it is a personal opinion - the fact that one is looking engaged and looking at the camera and the fact that one is distracted and looking away does not work in this secenario.  As with all judgements and critique, it all comes down to personal preference and individual interpretation.

Lesson here, don't go to camera clubs. Bless them.

If you have to explain your picture to a judge then you've not done a good job in the first place... in my opinion.

If I listened to the bloke who ran the first camera club I attended I'd still be shooting jpg and not eating my images. I'm part of a decent club which is more a social event and networking type thing rather than your standard club.

I'd take anything the judges at these places say with a pinch of salt.

KernowPhoto said

 To my mind - and it is a personal opinion - the fact that one is looking engaged and looking at the camera and the fact that one is distracted and looking away does not work in this secenario.  

A question to ponder is what would tip it over the line into "working", for you as a viewer?

Like, I can see how maybe even a question of colour or sharpness or composition, or lighting, might further support that duality better.

If the camera club judge said "this can work but it's not working here, and here is why I think it doesn't work and what might have supported the intent", then I'd probably listen a bit more. 

The single most important piece of feedback I've ever received on my photos came in a fifteen minute conversation in a pub after my first exhibition, which was a shared thing organised by a local group of photographers and in particular one very motivating friend. One of his friends -- a great photographer and a really elegant, concise thinker -- who had come to see the exhibition said six words about my photos that helped me understand what it was that I was grasping towards. It was such clarity that it completely changed what I felt about my ability and insight, and why it was right to think about intent at all.

"Both should look at the camera" it was not.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

indemnity said

Lesson here, don't go to camera clubs. Bless them.

Your right but it's shocking that the stereotype is still the reality, it's 2024 not 1984

TheFuntographer said

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)

I will stop babbling but I just want to observe, possibly contrary to my previous comment about intent, that about ten million or so people every year queue up to see a single painting of a woman where it's not obvious if she is looking at the artist or even if she is -- famously -- smiling or not. Many of these people are so taken by this ambiguity they don't even notice she is also partly veiled, which combined with her apparently loose hair, adds another ambiguity that further complicates the interpretation of the painting.

Intent is important but making it obvious to a competition judge might be to over-egg it.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

Camera clubs will only change if fresh faces attend and join in - personally I've modelled and judged at some and I've really enjoyed the mix of members and all the activities involved and the social aspect.

Just need to keep them going and bringing new members in