It's Photography, Jim, ......

[Mike Farley]

The RPS announces the shortlist for its 2015 International Print of the Year competition. All I can say is that the judges will have a problem picking a winner out of that lot .....

http://www.rps-international.org/events ... finalists/

[Rose]

Hmmm....

[Nina]

+1

[Peter Boughton]

the judges will have a problem picking a winner out of that lot

There are some good images there for sure, but at the same time I'd have no trouble discounting over half of the ones I looked at - some of them really make me wonder at the shortlisting process.

[Mike Farley]

There are some good images there for sure ......

Agreed, but this competition has form when it comes to bizarre choices in choosing the top images. I would not be surprised if the shots you like are either not highly ranked or omitted altogether from the final selection. I went to see last year's exhibition to see if reproduction on the Internet was an issue, but the dross still significantly outnumbered anything which was at all decent.

[davidc]

Absolute garbage. While there could be gems hidden in pages 2-14, the state of page 1 means I'm already uninterested and unimpressed. The RPS continues to undermine its own reputation.

[Mike Farley]

The RPS continues to undermine its own reputation.

Many years ago, the results of this competition used to more on the lines of "camera club" style images and our own Roy King chalked up a few acceptances. Then the focus changed to what we have today and Roy's work was no longer valued. The strange thing is that the biennial Members' Exhibition is more representative of what people are doing and there is a better selection of images. I have never understood why the RPS is consistently promoting a style of photography that is so at odds with its membership's output, but then there are a number of aspects of the organisation which remain a mystery to me.

[Peter Boughton]

Is there no recourse for the membership to do anything about it?

As David says, it undermines the reputation of the RPS, and doesn't help those with distinctions - perhaps it'll be necessary to add BIWS for those wishing to clarify they earned their letters whilst the society still had integrity. :/

[Mike Farley]

Is there no recourse for the membership to do anything about it?

A few years ago I raised the topic with someone on the RPS stand at the photography show formerly known as Focus-on-Imaging*. The response I got was that it was down to the judges. Naturally I pointed out that the Society appoints (and presumably briefs) the judges, after which the conversation did not get much further. Short of travelling to Bath for the AGM, there is probably not much else to be done.

The membership appears to settle for the status quo. At the last election for Council, there were two candidates standing on mandates to shake things up. One stood down shortly after the ballot papers were issued for reasons which were never fully explained and the other was not elected despite having a successful business background. Personally, as an organisation which is supposed to support photography, I have never found the RPS to be that efficient. On the few occasions when I have had a query, it has not been able to provide a satisfactory answer. Once, I was put through to the previous Director General who promised to phone me back after he had made some investigations. It never happened, of course.

....... perhaps it'll be necessary to add BIWS for those wishing to clarify they earned their letters whilst the society still had integrity. :/

If I understand your acronym correctly, given the events I described happened so long ago, most holders of distinctions would need to add AIWS.

* Did you see what I did there.

[Mike Farley]

The RPS has just issued its report and financial statement for 2014 in which it writes (referring also to to the International Images for Screen Exhibition) "these exhibitions are enthusiastically received, and clearly demonstrate the quality and diversity of photography which The Society promotes"*. It also says elsewhere that the International Print Exhibition is "open to all genres".

When I visited the print exhibition last year, I left a highly critical comment in the visitors' book which was similar to what many others had written. Perhaps the RPS disregards anything it does not want to hear?

The report is available at this link: http://www.rps.org/~/media/Files/About% ... final.ashx

* I'll not pass comment on the poor grammar in this statement.