Signing prints question.

Tom Stanworth said:

... but I disagree with Ralph that they suggest one images is 'better' than another in absolute terms and that this is somehow a problem. ...

Click to expand...

I thought it was obvious. They do suggest that one image is better than another by calling it '1st Prize'.

The question remains: Why rate them at all? Get the images out there, have them reviewed, critiqued... all of that, but why do we need a rating system? Do humans need to compete, and be better than at least one other person, to feel good about themselves?

That does not sound like creativity.
It's more like a nail in a coffin for photography art.

Yes, that's a bit of a problem.

Michael R 1974 said:

... based on what I see in magazines when they post the winners, runners up etc, you're better off with a technical gimmick. ...

Click to expand...

Agreed, and there is that word again: 'winner'. What a nonsense!

I think it's fair to regard being juried into an exhibition as competing for a place on the wall. I would much rather attend a show or art fair where there's been a sensible evaluation of the work presented than to have to look at a lot of chaff among the wheat. And, of course, galleries make such assessments as well when choosing to represent an emerging artist (in fact one prominent US west coast gallerist regards winning competitions and being shown a great deal as essential to being represented). The US Black & White magazine's single image, and portfolio "contests" are ranked, when selected in the first place, as Gold, Silver and Merit award winners.

It seems inescapable.

I agree, the ultimate judgment comes from the person buying your print, but competition judges are to art what pigeons are to statues.

LOL...interesting take, Ralph.

I can't totally disagree. I can only say what I always do about contest/competition judging -- when I don't place, they're all a bunch of hacks. When I do, I'm amazed by their vision and foresight.

As a guy who has some pictures waiting by the front door to drop off at the local amateur competition tonight, I appreciate what Ralph is saying. Everything I am entering is commercially printed and I hope to win some gift certificates to buy some paper/film; most of the photos are ones that would probably not hang in my house but are the type that win praise. I don't need the crowd's praise to know when I have a good image; rather I see it like buying a lottery ticket, with the hope that my little investment (entry fee) might provide some darkroom pleasure. I also do not enter any of my personally made prints - not only is a there a worry about damage/theft, but the subtlety of a good B&W print is overlooked by the brash contrast and over-saturated colours that people gravitate to.

Interesting side note: I am entering 4 prints (at $5 a print) and 1 for my 8-year old daughter for free in the Youth category. They had to remove the 12 print limit this year because people complained they had more than that amount. If I thought I took 12 really great pictures in a year, that would be a great year! Most people enter quantity over quality. I can also say that I will likely be the only person entering shots made on film (there might be 1-2 others but I sincerely doubt it based on camera club meetings).

Ralph, I knew there was a reason I liked you!!!

I too have been involved in Photographic Club competitions. I have done very well with prints I don't like, but I have also done very badly with prints I really liked. The problem with most Competitions is the judges only look at the pictures very briefly. I agree with Kevin Kehler above. If it jumps out at them, high score. If the picture is more subtle, low score. Also, I have found that most are judged on technical merit, not artistic merit. A small bit of self promotion (even if it mentions a digital picture I took) I even blogged about a bad experience I had. - http://weekendhackphoto.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/one/

I am currently in the process of trying to start up a group in my local city. While on the outset it will form the basis of a photographic/camera club, there will be two distinctions - Film/traditional process only AND NO COMPETITIONS. I plan to replace competitions with critique nights. The replies above has just given me more enthusiasm to get this off the ground

Anyhow, I think we are suitably off topic. I think this discussion could form a very lengthy thread!

hoffy said:

...If it jumps out at them, high score. If the picture is more subtle, low score. Also, I have found that most are judged on technical merit, not artistic merit.

Click to expand...

The way artists discuss their paintings is very interesting. Representational painters in particular, (my wife is a professional painter formerly in pastels and currently in oils), never discuss the subject being painted but always the control of value, the organization of composition and how it leads (or doesn't lead) the eye into and around the work, and the subtlety of color etc. They actually do discuss equipment on occasion, but only in the sense that a certain kind of brush, or particular paint, medium, or material that's painted on enhances the process of making the painting. Artistic merit is derived from the success of the implementation of all of the above.

Photographers are, by the nature of the medium, representational, but, like painters, are free to stray far from merely recording the subject which has begotten Kenna like night 'graphs, 10 stop NDF still water with sticks graphs, and so forth.

I wish our photographic discussions were more about the art than the equipment or the technique, because such conversation would elucidate the reason for and value of those techniques used to those ends.

Seems as though this thread got hijacked, kidnapped, tortured, and is being ransomed:

1) Hate signing. #2 graphite pencil on "verso", because it must be done on GSP's. Any ink pen that won't smear or fade on the border-margin of color plastic prints – because it just doesn't matter with non–archival media.

2) Limiting your editions is almost certainly a necessity if your intent is to sell through the "art market", uh galleries. The particular finite number is an entirely different kettle of stinky 5 day old fish (I am presently writing an article on the subject for my site and will post back here when finished).

2) Compete if you must win something (and sometimes that may be required). Otherwise, competitions seem to me to be a waste of artistic energy, although, a much needed source of income for those sponsoring and judging them.

The issues raised re photo comps are analogous to many aspects of daily life. You can't will them away, but you can decide when to 'play the game' and when not to. In competitions it is only implicit that the judges apply their subjective judgment and choose what they think it the best. I don't think it is ever the case that anyone thinks the jury verdict is empirical fact.

Competition results often leave me mesmerised, but thats not surprising for something based on opinion, which itself is based on wildly differing priorities! At no point do I think competitions mean much at all, but as I say, for those who steer clear of them, it is possible that they are missing out on potential opportunities to get their work moving in the right direction so it is subsequently seen and appreciated by the people that matter. I supposed it is analogous to playing the system rather than hoping to change it. The spectrum of photo comps range from the embarrassing ones publicised with plastic pictures to major grants for $30K. All require some form of competitive process, as does gallery representation (in that you compete with other prospective artists). Its pretty hard to get moving with a career (whether for money or not) in photography without 'playing the game' at least a little.

Many years ago I won the bronze medal for the shot put for the British Army. While it would be nice to think that this meant I was the third best in the army, but the reality is that I was not. At 180lb and a very lean 6'1" (and a 24yr old cadet at the time) I knew it was because my technique was better than most of the giants present and because not that many people turned up. Still, I'm rather glad I did and it still makes me smile!

@ROL Comps (where useful to further your cause) may not require any additional energy apart from in the submission process. I have only ever entered work that I have shot because I wanted to shoot it. I would never go out and shoot specifically for that project. That seems ludicrous to me, as well as a huge waste of time.

RalphLambrecht said:

I agree, the ultimate judgment comes from the person buying your print, but competition judges are to art what pigeons are to statues.

Click to expand...

Clever comparison. It does sometimes seem so.

However, judging and participating in competitions forces me to be more analytical and innovative than I might be otherwise. The overall winner (oops, Ralph, that word again!) in the professional division in a recent competition and exhibit was a quick set-up of a specific subject for a camera club contest. I shot it with a P&S digital camera for expediency, and wouldn't have tried it at all except for the club contest. Because it was to be judged, I did try to make it good. Because it fit a category in the later competition, I entered it.

When judging for other camera clubs, we have to make brief comments on the photos in addition to scoring them. Judging maybe a hundred prints can take hours. When judging in 4-H competitions, we have to discuss each print with the young photographer. Judging at its best is an education for judges as well as for competitors.

Thank you Ralph for your input on photo competitions. I was very involved in club competitions and it is only in the last few years that I have opted out of them for many of the reasons you have stated. The chief reason is that I believe photography is an art form and not a sport with only one winner and everyone else losers. General Custard once said "First is first second is nowhere" and that sums up camera club competitions, when it could be so much more.

The below is not entirely true. Being long listed for (but not winning) the Terry O'Neill award got my work a full page in the Sunday Times Magazine, which was useful for me at the time.

The reality is that if you want the best chance of being considered for things like grants, in addition to good work, you benefit greatly from history and 'credentials' i.e. other people or organisations having 'validated/recognised' your work, which in turn make donors feel confident enough to give you their money. How you go about that can be as varied as it is intelligent. High-profile competitions can help build that credibility. Whether you think it a good thing, or whether you think it should be needed, is a quite separate thing. Galleries pay attention too.

Comps are far from everything, but it is also not a 'win or lose' activity. Its about building a resume/CV and recognition by institutions, which depending on what you wish to achieve, may be irrelevant or hugely important. It can also be about learning how a panel of judges (whose backgrounds and activities you have researched) respond to your work. As always, it is personal choice.

Have a look at the resumes of many of the best known documentary and fine art photographers and you will see how many have won awards (posh name for competitions of some type or other). This has not happened because they are irrelevant, but because they are considered part of the 'costume of credibility' even for those whose work is blindingly good.

Vincent Brady (TEX) said:

Thank you Ralph for your input on photo competitions. I was very involved in club competitions and it is only in the last few years that I have opted out of them for many of the reasons you have stated. The chief reason is that I believe photography is an art form and not a sport with only one winner and everyone else losers. General Custard once said "First is first second is nowhere" and that sums up camera club competitions, when it could be so much more.

Click to expand...

Tom Stanworth said:

The below is not entirely true. Being long listed for (but not winning) the Terry O'Neill award got my work a full page in the Sunday Times Magazine, which was useful for me at the time.

The reality is that if you want the best chance of being considered for things like grants, in addition to good work, you benefit greatly from history and 'credentials' i.e. other people or organisations having 'validated/recognised' your work, which in turn make donors feel confident enough to give you their money. How you go about that can be as varied as it is intelligent. High-profile competitions can help build that credibility. Whether you think it a good thing, or whether you think it should be needed, is a quite separate thing. Galleries pay attention too.

Comps are far from everything, but it is also not a 'win or lose' activity. Its about building a resume/CV and recognition by institutions, which depending on what you wish to achieve, may be irrelevant or hugely important. It can also be about learning how a panel of judges (whose backgrounds and activities you have researched) respond to your work. As always, it is personal choice.

Have a look at the resumes of many of the best known documentary and fine art photographers and you will see how many have won awards (posh name for competitions of some type or other). This has not happened because they are irrelevant, but because they are considered part of the 'costume of credibility' even for those whose work is blindingly good.

Click to expand...

My feelings about competitions stems from a life spent in the amateur circles and are not meant to reflect on photographers who are attempting to make a living from their profession.
I did found a small group from within the camera club who wanted to discuss their own approach to photography and projects they were working on. Their was no competitions, only encouragement and exchange of ideas. It was a most enjoyable experience. Lack of a meeting place forced us to disband, but not before we held several exhibitions which brought out the best in us.

Vincent Brady (TEX) said:

Thank you Ralph for your input on photo competitions. I was very involved in club competitions and it is only in the last few years that I have opted out of them for many of the reasons you have stated. The chief reason is that I believe photography is an art form and not a sport with only one winner and everyone else losers. General Custard once said "First is first second is nowhere" and that sums up camera club competitions, when it could be so much more.

Click to expand...

In our club competitions, every single entry receives an oral critique. After that process is complete, the judge looks over all the entries together, and identifies (usually) five "winners" - 1st, 2nd, 3rd and two honourable mentions.

By the way, did you mean to refer to General "Custard" and not General "Custer"?

By the way, did you mean to refer to General "Custard" and not General "Custer"?

Sorry about that Matt, bad spelling on my part. Although there is a connection between both words, General Custer was know as 'chief yellow hair' according to the comics that I read in my youth and of course custard is yellow.
In your club I wonder how people would feel if the judge just left it at the oral critique. People have heard a critique of their work and can accept the judges words or not.

Cheers
Vincent

Vincent, Don't worry about the Custard thing. I took many years for the boy to become and adult and belatedly find out that was not his name. I was hugely disappointed, naturally. I guess that's fond memories of rhubarb crumble and custard, treacle sponge and custard and the enormous contribution custard had in my development. Up until hearing the bad news, custard had a real life hero. From that point on it was just not the same.

Vincent Brady (TEX) said:

...
In your club I wonder how people would feel if the judge just left it at the oral critique. People have heard a critique of their work and can accept the judges words or not. ...

Click to expand...

That's how I see it too. Once the prints have been reviewed and critiqued, opinion and advise have been given and shared, why the rating on top of it? I don't see the point.

Is it our societal conditioning? Are we brought up to compete? Do we need to support that habit by passing out trophies in photographic clubs?

Or would it be better we turned photo clubs into centers of creativity and started talking about photographs like painters talk about paintings?

RalphLambrecht said:

Or would it be better we turned photo clubs into centers of creativity and started talking about photographs like painters talk about paintings?

Click to expand...

If we did that, could we start signing prints on the image itself, like painters do?

An Le-qun said:

If we did that, could we start signing prints on the image itself, like painters do?

Click to expand...

Now you're just being silly

Interesting aside regarding my post, I ended up only entering 2 prints and one for my daughter. I didn't win anything but my 8-year old won first place in the youth category. While my lack-of-winning did not dampen my photographic love, my daughter is already asking when she can take more shots. However, more in line with Ralph critique, she wants to take pictures so she can win next year, not because it encouraged her love of art. These were the first shots I entered in 3 years, I can't see doing it again.

Back to the O.P., I sign the back with an acid free marker made for prints and am wanting to use India Ink for the fronts in the future. I generally sign the matte and just put my name and print reference number on the back.