The development of digital technology in the past few years has rapidly led to it becoming the recording medium of choice for the majority of photographers.
Consequently Camera Club competitions and exhibitions have become heavily print oriented with several clubs and societies deciding to abandon slide competitions in the light of drastically reduced numbers of entries coupled with obvious signs of many authors dredging through old work as opposed to producing new images.
The emphasis on prints made a few new demands on judges who had to come to terms with the techniques used in "dry" as opposed to the traditional wet darkrooms. Once having learnt that the means of producing the print was not the prime focus of their attention most judges relaxed into appreciating a picture for it's photographic or artistic qualities with technicalities of production only coming into play if it was felt that they impacted heavily on the finished work. Unlike the early days when some judges reportedly resorted to sniffing prints or using hand lenses to determine the origin of a picture and appearing to criticise those of modern digital production. Sorry if any of you are still trying to remove imprints of my nose from your prints. Scotch Clean Art apparently works well.
Whilst we all accept for prints that different lighting conditions in the judge's home and the club room on competition night have little effect on the final marking of a picture there is a growing body of opinion that the same cannot be said for the recent development of the "Projected Image" in competitions.
Courtesy of Lottery and other grants (available before the 2012 Olympics were announced) many clubs now have ready access to digital projection equipment and are experimenting with the Projected Image as a separate category to prints. This trend is now finding its way into many national and international competitions and can be expected to grow in popularity, not least because it saves the cost of printing but also clubs can save a tremendous amount in postage by posting out a CD of images to a judge as opposed to boxes of prints.
This is where there is a potential for difficulties to arise in picture assessment. As we all know, what you see on your computer screen is frequently different from the image projected on to a club room screen. Here is the judge's digital dilemma.
We know that major competitions rely on calibrated projectors and computers to ensure, as far as possible, that entrants' images are consistently displayed. This doesn't however necessarily mean that they accurately replay what the author saw on their home computer display. In camera clubs however projectors are often not routinely calibrated and in many, where club members loan their laptops, there can be a regular disparity between laptop and projector so consistency of image quality cannot be guaranteed. Likewise most judges will be viewing submitted images on their computer and not via a projector and as a result their comments may seem strange to an audience viewing the projected picture.
So what are the answers, should Federations loan out a calibration package to ensure all judges on their list operate to a similar standard? This however wouldn't overcome the fact that Club projectors could be calibrated to a different standard, if at all.
Or is the simplest solution that Judges should make it clear that they have judged the images on their home equipment, whether via computer screen or projector, and that they will highlight any significant differences on the night? Is there a likelihood that this will impact on final marks?
I would have thought this to be unlikely as it would be very unusual for only one or two images to appear significantly different from when they were assessed by the judge at home.
Where a projector is really out of true, generally shown by a too high a contrast or a noticeable colour shift, all images are likely to be affected similarly and the judge can comment accordingly.
The Judges Committee is interested in your thoughts on the dilemmas raised by digital projection so that appropriate guidance can be given to judges on the Federation list if it is perceived that here we have a serious problem and that a consistent approach is required.
Richard Speirs DPAGB, BPE2*
(for and on behalf of the Judges Sub-Committee)