What Do Judges Look For ?

[J.K]

Hiya,

 

When entering the competitions on here I always wonder what the judges are looking for. I know everyone has different tastes etc but if people where willing to post here maybe 3 - 5 points on what they would look for that would be great.

 

I will off with my top 5:

1. Quality - At the top of the list. There is no excuse for taking poor quality pictures with all the affordable great equipment about.
   
2. Originality - Is it a twist on a theme, has the person taken time to imagine what they want to achieve?
   
3. Composition - Is it a nice tidy frame with subject focus? Does it lead in the eye?
   
4. Lighting - Lighting can add a new dynamic to an image. However used wrongly, can wreck a photo
   
5. Colours - Having the colours shout out at you. Nice and bright but not over done to the point the look fake.
   

So dont be shy, post up what you would look for when judging the pictures. Hopefully this will further improve what is entered in the next competition

 

Joel

Edited April 25, 2007 by J.K

[MrWiggly]

Nice topic JK ...

 

So .. C'mon folks .. What are you looking for ???

 

Wiggly.

[Chippy]

All of JK's plus sharpness!

[poledark]

1,3,4 and 5 for sure.

 

Not sure about 2, for me the pic should immediately suggest the topic.

 

 

 

Den

[Clifftop]

For me a twist on a theme appeals but overall the pic whatever it is has to appeal to me visually.

If i think a pic has had any work done to it at all it doesn't get my vote. since i first entered these comps i have never agreed with any judges final three.Sometimes i wonder why did that make the final when there was at least three or four better pics entered. This is what makes the comp what it is,divercity of opion and altho i have never won a comp i will keep on entering as one day i will get a pic that stands out from the rest.

Its like that saying that we keep telling our kids; its not winning that counts its taking part what matters.

[RobStubbs]

What does it for me is quality of the picture, composition and relevance to the competition theme. I've seen pictures on here, including winners, that IMO have a dubious connection to the competition actually set. There are also odd examples of images that could have been better framed, more in focus and better composed. In general though the pictures on here are of a very good quality

 

Rob.

[chesters1]

i'm not sure quality is of prime importance in all cases ,i would rather see a bad photo of an extremely rare subject than none at all ,if pics are "binned" because they are slightly out of focus before the difficulty of obtaining that picture is seen then all you get is tripod based scenes that are boring ,i find scenes of the usual country side ,houses and other static objects a real turn off myself.

that also goes for 3 and 4 as well for the above reason.

some topics are only really for digital SLR users my compact couldn't get real closeups on wildlife without getting real close up and wildlife doesnt really like having a camera thrust in their faces most times.

the compacts are fine on landscapes and wide shots and "snaps" etc but maybe the pics taken are dismissed as everyday by the judges.

I'm not moaning about not being able to afford a "real" camera but hopefully judges are not swayed by a camera's technical prowess and cost over the difficulty some camera's have in getting the pics posted.

its nice being able to see some of the pics posted without withdrawing from life for an hour for the page to load ,still slow though BB is not much more than dialup here

Edited April 26, 2007 by chesters1

[Colin Brett]

In my case the photo needs to jump out and grab me instantly!

If it doesn't then none of JK's 5 wants matter to me.

If it does then sharpness/clarity are my number 1.

Hopefully this can come from cheap equipment as well.

 

An example is the Ferret by Hellbelly in the current competition. It really grabbed me!

 

Dislikes are the obviously staged shots [banana & 2 apples placed artistically] and the sometimes glaringly good shots that are almost to good to be true.

 

All that said I'm not at all competitive. I'm just happy to show my better images [not many of those then] for no reward.

 

Colin

[gozzer]

I've got to agree with a lot of what chesters said.

I'm not a photographer, just a 'happy snapper'. My P&S does most things I want.

It took me a long time to post a picture because I thought that some were too 'professional' and there was no way I could compete. (I think this puts others off too).

 

I don't like obviously 'staged' photos, where it looks like things have been minutely moved to create the 'perfect' angle. I suppose you'd call them studio type shots.

I do like opportunist pictures, the ones where you had to be there just at the right time. (Though I know some will wait for hours just to get the right shot).

I like quirky shots, with a 'twist' on the comp' theme.

What I'm really saying (through my ramblings), is that it's whatever catches my eye, regardless of technical merit, composition, or any other artistic, or photographic criteria.

I haven't always agreed with the top three, and I have seen members change entries from (what I thought) were better pics, to lesser ones.

 

Like Clifftop, I don't expect to win, and only enter shots that I like, (which may not be up to the photographic standard of some).

I enter because it's fun, and I enjoy looking at some of the pics.

To judge entirely on, technical merit and photographic technique, will, IMO, detract from a fun comp' and make it too exclusive to fewer members.

Just my opinion

 

John.

[J.K]

Glad to see this thread being used

 

Hopefully this will show people what ever stage they are at and what ever they use they can join in the fun

 

Joel