We have now analysed the results in detail and it is clear that this was not the case.

The total marks scored for 300 images in Part 1 was 3043 – an average mark of 10.143
The total marks scored for 300 images in Part 2 was 3106 – an average mark of 10.353 – i.e. an average mark just 0.21 marks higher than in Part 1.

Of the 30 clubs competing 20 scored more highly (from +1 to +12) in Part 2 and 10 clubs scored lower in Part 2 (from -1 to -9)

Overall, it would appear that, far from indicating a more lenient marking regime in Part 2, these marks demonstrate remarkable consistency across both halves of the competition.

Martin Gandy, Vice Chairman, Epsom Camera Club

There is a precedent for the SPA publishing successful images as it produced a CD of the photos from the last biennial exhibition, although it was not made widely available. Since those who had images accepted were requested to supply them in digital format, it would have been simple enough to ask whether they were willing to have them displayed on the website as well.

As it is currently, the SPA website will never be a destination site for many due to its inherent blandness and concentration on purely administrative matters.

Mike Farley

(SPA Lecturer and Croydon Camera Club)

Martin Gandy, Vice Chairman, Epsom Camera Club

When I attended the meeting in Crawley to discuss this new format I personally disagreed with it but as my other two club members did agree, our club voted for it.

Initially I attended these proceedings to represent our club at the AGM but was obviously interested to see how we fared in the competition and I suppose also to see how my one picture was recieved.

With 600 images we needed some break in the middle so I suppose it made sense to hold the AGM at that point, and I guess this was a record attendance for a SPA AGM!

Back to the competition, the images came thick and fast like holograms from a machine gun and I did find myself agreeing generally with the judges scores ,but as someone has already pointed out the second half seemed more generous but in all I found it fair. When my own picture flashed up, like the others it was only there for a few seconds and then the score (11) was announced and another picture shown. So as a photographer I do not feel I gained from the experience in any way. It was a pleasure to see so many other images but obviously they weren’t visible for very long. Our club selection team did a good job in selecting images with instant impact and that seems to be the key for this format.

It is a shame that the ending was a little shambolic when we were left waiting to see the high scoring images and many people drifted away, so a reasonable competition ended on a bad note. I gave up and left to journey home.

Future print competitions in this format – Different altogether because of presenting so many prints. To extend proceedings as would be needed for the same numbers may reduce attendance because we all seem to have other things to fit into a day. We would certainly need to project the prints onto a screen as they could look like post cards from the back. I would certainly reduce the entries for this if it is to be in this format say down to twelve from each club.

Charles Pearson – Windlesham & Camberley Camera Club

The Reigate Photographic Society decided to take part in the competition once the rules had been relaxed, enabling a small club like ours to participate without undue recourse to use of less experienced members’ work. However, the late publication of the rules meant we were not able to take or select images specifically for this style of judging; we simply drew from our stock of PDIs submitted for our most recent internal open competitions.

We continue to be disappointed in the judging style chosen for this year’s Inter-club competition. In our opinion, a 5 second exposure of an image to judges cannot enable them to do justice to the effort of the photographer concerned, both in procuring the image in the camera and, as appropriate, in post-production work. Some of our members would even go so far as to say it is an insult to any photographer’s work of whatever quality. So in principle we do not consider that this approach should be continued, at least for SPA inter-club competitions, notwithstanding its use at higher level PAGB events.

We also noted that images in the second half were scored higher than the first half for our own club, and for others generally. Assuming images came up randomly, as ours did, this indicates an inconsistency in the marking technique, which further undermines the credibility of this approach.

Turning to the use of this “high speed, high impact” format at the 2011 event, our representatives reported very little audience participation or reaction during the two judging periods, and rated it passive and unexciting. Whilst we appreciate the SPA was trying to be fair to all clubs in choosing this format, we feel a number of changes could be made to the way it is operated, to make the judging procedures more interesting, and maybe even at times exciting for all concerned, if, despite our strong reservations, it is to be used in future years.

For example, at stages during the judging process we suggest a progress chart should be shown to the audience so everyone can see how each club is faring cumulatively – perhaps after every two or three images per club have been judged. This would give a hint on how the clubs are progressing relative to each other. (We run an annual competition of 12 set subjects, and display a marks chart after each subject round. We know this has the effect of ratcheting up interest in how each entrant is progressing relative to the others). We would also like to see the individual marks awarded by judges, but fear that if they knew the audience could see their own marks per image this might have the effect of reducing the use of the more extreme marks of 2 and 5 points. So we suggest that only when one of the judges records a 5 for an image, there should be some recognition of this, even though the audience would not know which judge liked the image that much – eg a bell or buzzer?

We are aware that the PAGB now uses this method of judging regularly in inter-federation competitions. However, by the time an image reaches that level, it is likely to have been exposed to more detailed traditional scrutiny by at least two and sometimes several judges. This is not the case with the SPA Inter-club competition where a club’s images may have only been seen by one, not necessarily greatly experienced, judge. There is great benefit in receiving independent well-informed and detailed feedback so that club members are able to work towards improvements in the images they submit in future competitions.

In summary, Reigate Photographic Society members remain unhappy with the new competition format. We cannot see how the format can be adapted to include a desired critique of images given the numbers that have to be judged. We are also concerned at how judges can maintain sufficient concentration for the necessary time to judge all the images, even using split periods. We are also disappointed at the lost opportunity for social and photographic interaction between club members around the Association. The venue could not have accommodated many more people, and only a select few from each club could attend, or would want to.

This in turn means our own time served (And Often very long serving) ‘A’ list judges are virtually surplus to requirements at anything higher than Club Competition level.

With far less thus to aim for I do wonder how we can continue to recruit potential new judges therefore for SPA. And how we can expect such as our existing ‘B’ list judges to even bother to aspire to join the ‘A’ list now given promotion will mean so little in the future with no Inter Club Competitions of any note left to deal with?

Why also one might ask should any of us continue trying to do our our best night after murky winter night judging at club level after our governing body has cast us adrift from our looking forard to judging anything more challenging?

Just a few personal thoughts these that as far as I know DO NOT reflect the views of such as those others on SPA’s Judges Sub Committee. Don Morley.