Russ, anything deemed good enough to enter in any competition should be free from glaring technical errors, according to most judges. Such as tilted horizons (unless deliberate), over/under exposure, etc. Why, because they are considered easily fixable in PP. Studio images are judged even more rigorously because the photographer is considered to be in control of his subjects and lighting. Beginners are given a break. Advanced and above are considered to know better. To be fair, the kind of work you reference is from a different era and from a genre not likely to be judged the same way. After all, most long time photographers in clubs are familiar with the work of the great photographers and would not downgrade their work for their so-called technical faults. The truth is, you don't see almost any "street" work in Camera Clubs. The category would have to be Urban or street for most people to want to enter such asn image. I suspect people don't like "street" unless it is extremely well done. OTOH, we see a lot of images similar to Keith's and Slobodan's, and lots of nature, architecture and portrait style images.
One good example would be arguments between members and judges about what is considered overexposed, or for that matter, underexposed. Tilted horizons in landscapes or architecture, that are deemed fixable and important to the image are downgraded in points. It is sometimes a fine line.
Just wanted you all to know, camera club people are not much different than LuLa members, especially if they have been around a while. I should have made my point differently. Just want to point out, digital imaging and PP, has had a great impact on how images are viewed and judged in today's photography. So I had to learn at least some PP and up my game to ensure my images are the best they can be. Never mind all the fake skies and other PP alterations, which I won't even go into.
JR
Thanks, John. You explained quite eloquently why it doesn’t make sense to enter stuff in “camera club” exhibits or competitions. I keep remembering the art competition decades ago at the Colorado Springs Fine Art Center in which I entered a couple woodcuts. I didn’t expect to win any prizes, and of course I wasn’t disappointed to find I was right, but the best of show winner was three blank canvases set at different angles. Wow! Sensitive judges.
The main problem with any “art” competition is that the real value of art is in the message the work conveys to what I call the “seer.” (
http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/TouchingTheSeer.html) It doesn’t really matter from what “era” a work of art comes. It either has the power to touch the seer or it hasn’t. And the problem is that if you have, say, three judges in an art competition, one or more may have a seer incapable of being touched by art. Even if all three are sensitive enough to be touched by the work, chances are they’ll be touched in different ways. So in the end it comes down to judging on peripheral points such as whether or not the horizon is straight, consideration of directly observable technical things such as exposure, etc. Judges don’t like street because many people – both judges and observers – are incapable of grasping what really good street photography conveys.
Yes, if you’re shooting raw, which you should be, you always need postprocessing – sharpening and brightness control, but if you’ve handled your camera properly you need damn little postprocessing.
And, yes: “. . .camera club people are not much different than LuLa members. . .” You can say that again. And, yes: in camera club competitions you’ll see “. . .lots of nature, architecture and portrait style images.” Of course you will. That’s the easy stuff. Shooting people doing their thing naturally, without posing for the camera is harder, and sometimes even scary.
