Beginner's Guide to Photography Distinctions

[davidc]

Posted this online recently and thought several people in the club might be interested, seems to be well received! It's an intro to photographic distinctions, why they might be worthwhile, tips to achieve them and some common criticisms.

http://davidcandlish.photography/news/2 ... stinctions

[Rose]

Well done for writing a good guide David - I would point out though, that the PAGB judges individual images and not panels. The example CPAGB 'panel' you include may have been presented that way on his Flickr page, but each image would have been judged individually and anonymously, alongside all the other images up for judging at that awards session.

[Mike Farley]

A useful and informative article, thanks.

Unfortunately I was not able to get to the recent PAGB workshop hosted by the Surrey Photographic Association due to a clash of dates, but I followed up what went on with some of the other members of the club who did attend. The impression that I get is that the standards required by the PAGB are higher than for the equvalent RPS levels. As you rightly say, at the ARPS and FRPS levels especially, the RPS places a lot of emphasis on how the images look as a panel and this means that sometimes weaker shots have to be included to make the panel work. By contrast, as Rose indicates, entries for PAGB distinctions are judged individually and the assessors seem to be ruthless in weeding out anything which falls short of the required standard. I have been told about someone who holds a FRPS failing the DPAGB twice, for example.

Another difference is the nature of the assessment process and the number of people involved. The RPS has different categories such as Travel or Nature into which candidate ARPS and FRPS panels are submitted, whereas the PAGB makes no such differentiation. The PAGB has three judges and each image is displayed for a few seconds before being marked and a minimum overall score is required to achieve the grade. The RPS has seven assessors and all the images are displayed simultaneously according the plan submitted by the applicant. The assessors then take some time to come to a decision and one will give a short overview about the merits of the panel before the verdict is announced. This only happens at the L and A levels as FRPS adjudications are held without an audience.

Only LRPS panels are scored on a number of criteria and there is less emphasis on how the images look together, rather the RPS is looking for a demonstration of general ability. For ARPS and FRPS, the assessors simply have to agree that the required standard has been achieved. Some dissension is permitted for an ARPS, but unamimity is required for a FRPS and the decision has to be ratified subsequently by the Fellowship Board which seks to ensure that standards are maintained across the different categories. It is possible to get an ARPS even if one or maybe two of the images fall slightly short or there is some minor duplication, but there is no such leeway allowed at the higher level. It is certainly one of the challenges that the shots all have to look different, but work well together as a whole.

[Mike Farley]

Now for some scurrilous gossip. I have no idea of how much which follows is true, so it is best regarded as a work of fiction. For reasons which will become obvious, I have not mentioned names and any similarity with actual organisations or anyone living is coincidental.

A well known photographic society published in its monthly journal a panel which had been successful in achieving its highest distinction. Quite apart from the images all being a bit boring (in my opinion), there seemed to be a high degree of duplication which would not normally be allowed. It was, in effect, the same shot repeated 20 times with some comparatively minor variations. A while later I mentioned the panel to a friend and it transpired that it had caused more than a few eyebrows to be raised on account of the publicity it had been given.

My friend, along with some others, had been discussing the panel with a mutual acquaintance who had been one of the adjudicators. Apparently, the assessors had realised the extent of the replication and had the option to see more samples of work from the applicant before coming to a final decision. However, as they already knew the identity of the photographer and were familiar with the quality of their output, had decided to forego that step. This caused more than a little surprise as all submissions are supposed to be anonymous so that there can be no suggestion of bias. The images in question are like nothing else I have seen from the person concerned, who is indeed an excellent photographer, so it is not clear how their name had become known during the assessment process. Nor am I aware how the submission passed through the two stage scrutiny required by the photographic society's rules.

Like I say, this is a story and there is no insinuation that a distinguished photographic body, which might or might not actually exist, has acted with any impropriety.

[Rose]

As Mike says, the standard required for a CPAGB in particular,may well be higher than for an LRPS because of the assessment system. Not all images have to meet the same standard though, and there will be variation across the ten images submitted. Judges (and there 6 by the way, not 3 as Mike says) vote one of four ways for each image.

Yes - 4 points
No - 2 points
Near miss - 3 points
Likely to succeed at the next distinction level - 5 points

If a photograph is not up to the required standard, it should receive 6 “NO” Votes = 2 points per judge x 6 = 12 or, if it is well up to the required standard, it should receive 6 “YES” Votes = 4 points per judge x 6 = 24. However it is unrealistic to expect complete unanimity between 6 different Adjudicators and most total scores will represent a compromise between these limits. Scores above 24 are relatively unusual but can be achieved by the very best images.

The PAGB also say: "Photographs which would be best displayed as a coherent panel may score less well as individual images."

All applicants must also qualify and apply via their Federations. Entrants must have been active members of an affiliated Club for a minimum of 2 years for CPAGB, 3 years for DPAGB and 5 Years for MPAGB.

[Mike Farley]

Judges (and there 6 by the way, not 3 as Mike says) .......

Thanks for the amendment, Rose. That's the problem with doing these things from memory, not knowing which facts to check.

[davidc]

Thanks for the replies, I'll try and integrate these into the article. There have been a few from Facebook to include too.

Organisations awarding mates is absolutely unsurprising. Parts of these bodies strike me as being extremely cliquey indeed.

[Mike Farley]

Organisations awarding mates is absolutely unsurprising.

Never happened, of course.

[davidc]

I am nodding and winking across the internet