Learning To Judge - Judging To Learn
Ron Beam - March 6, 2006

Experiencing the learning process afforded through being a month-long guest judge at the Digital Image Cafe.

I am sharing personal insights on being authorized to guest judge Pictures of the Day at Digital Image Cafe for one month, with no indication as to which month that was. By way of preface to this article, my own thoughts should in no way be construed as containing any site guidelines nor suggestions for judging criteria. The diversity of judge's motivations for why a particular photograph moves them or speaks loud enough to earn that day's selection is (and should be) as varied as the personalities of those making that decision. In fact when sent the judging information, there were no administrative guidelines. The closest being a note that if the image a judge picks has a weakness that is obvious to the other judges or site administrator, that selected image may be overturned and the initial judge will be asked to choose another image for that day. I was happy for this lack of strict rules or regulation upon judging, since I feel diversity adds to the creative vitality of photography in general and specifically, the cafe.

Like so many photographers passionate about their craft, I am always learning. Always storing knowledge to be accessed at a critical moment with the hope of making a better photograph. Probably like most, I seem to learn more from my failures than my successes. But no experience in photography is devoid of some lesson that I feel privledged to have learned. While a great responsibility and a time consuming discipline, the month afforded so much information and satisfaction that I would recommend anyone qualified through winning 20 POTD's at the cafe to avail themselves of this opportunity to bathe daily in not only spectacularly accomplished images by some of the world's best online photographers, but to learn, in one month, more than a semester's Theory of Photography course could offer.

Rookie Judge

First day, Animals Category - Of 244 entries, only 7 could be eliminated as not being technically good enough to win; that is to say there were obvious shooting or processing flaws easily detected with a cursory viewing. That means 237 images were in the running for one POTD. Looking at the length of the tab travel along the right edge of my screen made me stop and ask, in what had I gotten myself involved? It was only a few minutes into the selection process before I then asked myself, "How the heck have I EVER won a POTD?" It is numerically easier to win a POTM; one choice from a maximum of 31 entries. Easier still to win Quarterly, since the judge need only pick from 3 photographs per category. But 237 eligible entries - oh my! Started by looking at each photo with a pad and pen nearby. Thumbnails to start, which BTW are about two-thirds again as large as the thumbnails seen on the front page of the cafe. These "Handnails" afford much more detail that can be quickly seen more clearly than its smaller cousin. Opened those images that caught my eye compositionally, through color sympatico/contrasts (tonal varients for B&W) or through subject matter. This meant opening about four of every five entries in order to study them as I would any good photograph in a magazine. Also opened and made notes concerning any obviously flawed shots for Bob to transcribe to the Forum thread "Why My Photo Is Not Winning." Wrote down titles of shots that impacted me as being a contender for my selection. After nearly one hour, I had completed the first run through the entire field of entries and had selected 10 as the finalists. Revisiting these, I looked deeper into each photograph as if in a museum looking at a hung piece. Searched not only for technical merit, but for energy and emotional transference. Producing a good image is great accomplishment, but transferring intangible feelings to the viewer is art. I found making the final selection, from the 3 or 4 outstanding final contenders, is akin to Sophie's Choice. After the selection was finalized (once that "submit" tab is struck, there is no changing it) my thought instantly became: I hope tomorrow the membership of the cafe fall in love with this image as deeply as I have today. Because it is always love, in one form or another, that is the final criteria for a POTD.

Another Day - Another Category

Today I am rotated to Digital Art Category and additionally one of the four Appetizer Categories. The way the appetizer section works sometimes initially confuses people. A member's photograph submitted to the POTD contest maintains its eligibility and remains in the judging queue for seven days. If an entrant has not yet been awarded POTD on ten occasions - excluding Theme POTD's - their image retains contest eligibility for an additional four days, in order to win in one of the four combinations of categories that make up the Appetizer Section found at the bottom of the front page. This additional eligibility can be waived by the entrant, if so desired. Upon entering the POTD contest initially, the contestant need only check the box that disables automatic appetizer entrance after the initial 7 day competition against the full membership of the site. The rationale behind the ability to skip the appetizer contest is if an entrant wants only to compete against the entire block of photographers, in order to avoid winning through any advantage due to competing against fewer members. While there are fewer entrants, usually the choices for POTDs in the Appetizer section demonstrate the highest levels of photography skills, just as in the Entree group. This makes sense since Richard Avedon, were he still alive, shooting and having joined the cafe, would have his shots in the appetizer queue an extra four days, until after his tenth win. I suspect he would probably get to ten POTDs faster than most of us, however.

Two very INSTRUCTIONAL picks today. Both my initial choice for DA and choice for Appetizer were disqualified upon approval scrutiny of the contest administrator. I had to reselect a POTD in both categories that I judged today. What a shame that two other members could have been tomorrow's POTD had one merely submitted a correctly sized image and the other had submitted their image into the proper category. I was so involved in image content, that I failed to see these two required submission details were not followed. Today I learned (again) that Bob is an amazing guy to wear so many hats and still guard the backs of all the judges and watch for these overlooked small details. I learned that I need to be aware of all those details as closely as I look at image content, so there need not be further correction of my picks.

Most photographers have already found that their craft is highly instructional in the area of that profound character asset called patience. Today the lesson was reinforced that improved photography also requires subscription to the highest levels of attention to detail. While the complexities of adjustments of f-stop, shutter speed, ISO, along with focus requirements and other camera functions are subordinated as a result of improved internal program chips and need only a photographer to select a mode with many of today's newer cameras, we still must give full attention to the details of composition, subject selection and elements contained within our viewfinder. Additionally, details heretofore unknown in the world of film beg for our knowledgable attention. Today's editing software can do more, produce more intriguing photgraphs, but it doesn't get any simpler to learn the total breadth of what that software can accomplish unless we pay attention to its details. How remarkable then, when the finished image has been thoughtfully cleansed, lovingly powered, diapered and given one last big hug, we dress it in the wrong sized pajamas or place it in the wrong crib!

Details and Patience are the twins in the family of Photography which, along with siblings Instincts and Art, require our constant attention if the family is to thrive and grow.

Name that Theme

Judging Theme category today. A bit of work relief since there are far fewer submissions to this category than in the others. Not sure the reason for that. Perhaps some creative minds tend to fight against the planning required in order to meet a specified theme. A muse-inspired scene that serendipitously caught the photographer's fancy may be much easier to shoehorn into an existing broad category, such as Stillife or People or B&W. But a theme, narrowing the sights of the gunslinging style of some photographers, may lack mass appeal.

Finding oneself in a themed gallery can be intriguing, however. The viewer in this area of art already has an initial sense of what the artist is attempting to convey. All that remains is to discern the interpretation; and that is where the viewing adventure resides. I totally enjoyed investigating the side-glance offerings of the creative photographers at the cafe and sought to pick the shot that spoke with the greater clarity through its creative composition and planned elements, in a language that I could be coaxed to understand by its author.

A Change of Scenery

Categories today are Scenic in the Entrees and Scenic/Stillife combined categories among the Appetizers. Another 250+ entries to the category of scenic, so I began with the Appetizer pick first, since the number of candidates there a quarter the size of the main Scenic queue. This allowed me to work into a "scenic frame of mind." My criteria for an outstanding scenic is a well-composed image that is not only presented through clear, rich tonal elements; but successfully evoking a sense of being in that place. If a seascape, I want to smell the sea. If a prairie scene, I want to hear the heads of the grain cracking in resistance to the wind. If a mountaintop is highlighted, I want to sense buttlerflies in my stomach as a result of anticipating having to climb that monster to the top.

How does one accomplish stimulating those feelings with only a camera and computer? I don't believe anyone knows the definitive answer to that, though many have offered partial theories. In my experience, emotive power in scenery is just THERE in some photographs while absent in others, no matter how well composed, lit and edited they are. I call my own sterile scenics, those devoid of hard emotional impact, "Calendar Shots." These exhibit beautiful colors, nice compositions of delightful natural settings; but somehow fall flat in the ability to stimulate the viewer's imagination. I use the term "Calendar shot" because the date is more important than the place. After looking at them a viewer is more apt to ask, "When was this taken?" instead of saying, "I feel as though I am standing where this was taken!" or "I want to BE there!"

A really great scenic (think Ansel Adams or Jim Brandenburg) will not only feed you smells, sights and sounds, but will sit you down in a place and make you reflect upon your life, in relation to its nature. Toward this evocative scene is where I hiked today as a judge in the cafe. It felt so good when I finally got there!

Stillife Is Not Devoid of Life

This is perhaps the most misunderstood category, not just for those in the cafe, but for most photographers. I usually think of a stillife as a photograph in which the subject(s) are found in arrangement (formal or candid) and shot at fairly comfortable range (not a macro) that leaves little doubt to a viewer as to what that subject is intended to be in the frame. Think of it as portraiture in which the subject is not breathing (insert funny comments here.) A stillife should be the category least dependent upon a title. If the photographer relies on a title to make the stillife statement, there is a problem. The title of a stillife may enhance, but should never define. In fact, this was the only category that I intentionally did not read titles, instead letting the image look at me and clearly speak its name, as if the first day of elementary school.

Frustrations arise when a stillife can't be heard and so not gain the acceptance that the photographer was so certain would follow once the finished print was made available to outside eyes. The tendency might be for the photographer to record an object or objects within a particular environment, natural or designed, that has struck a loudly-ringing chord within them and then can't understand why others don't "get it" or see the signifigance or feel the deeper meaning in the way they felt, when they looked through their viewfinder. In stillife the highest reward lay in how well the photographer can reproduce that chord stroke within the viewer through a relatively coldstart study of the image. And when I say reproduce here, I am not speaking about quality of camera, lens optics or post-processing accuracy; but the reproduction of the personality the stillife arrangement first generated.

From flat, shadow-free diffused illumination, to a dramtic single bright source, just as in portraiture, lighting is a key element in personality transferrence of an inanimate object. While judging, I learned hotspots are least tolerated (and most easily noted) in stillife, just as any other careless disregard for accurate exposure. And I am aware that for many creative photographers "accurate exposure" might, in fact, mean a slightly over- or under-exposed image. Having thought out all those critical lighting details prior to tripping the shutter is certainly very critical to successful transfer of meaning. I saw many photographs that were lighted or exposed in a haphazard manner and yet the subject was treated as sterling nobility through frame composition. This sometimes indicates an excitement to just "get the shot" and worry about the lighting or exposure details later in post-processing. That inattention to detail is the bane of many an image that could have been a great one - but like the '62 Mets - never had a chance.

As in portraiture, background (BG) and, to a somewhat lesser extent, foreground (FG) are so vital to success in defining how a stillife fits into its surroundings. A complimenting BG is an excellent device for not only placing and animating objects, but for defining the "personality" of the stillife. During my month, I noted far too many images entered in Stillife relied on a sterile, unnatural black, white or neutral BG as a way to give prominence to their compositions. I decided that while this is a profoundly inequivocable method to make the statement, "the one and only!" it is also the least interesting - particularly if the BG comprises more than half the frame information. That is not to be say that I feel it is never correct to use black or white or any solid color as BG, sometimes it is THE very best BG to catapult an object to life. My observation simply means that, like lighting, creative decisions for BG should be thoughtfully pondered - not skipped over in favor of what's quickly thought to be the only - read as "easy" - way to bring the subject into prominence.

Another valuable lesson for me was seeing a real stillife killer. A busy BG can destroy the personality of a stillife subject as rapidly as blown highlights. Depth of Field (DOF) operates in two directions. Sometimes I feel new photographers must get the mistaken impression that the more components that are sharply in focus throughout the entire frame, the better the shot. I know selecting the Scenic Mode in many of today's programmed cameras, will stop down the aperature as far as possible in order to achieve the greatest amount of clarity framewide. I think some of us must shoot stillifes with our cameras in scenic mode. Limiting the DOF by opening the aperature is a great tool to isolate a subject from BG and FG elements in order to help avoid a busy frame. A couple months ago, I spoke to one camera owner (note I did not call him a photographer) about the benefits of an opened aperature, to which he replied, "What button do I press for that?" If you are not accomplished in it already, try operating your camera in full manual mode (I can hear the shivering shudders now) for about a month and see what creative things you can employ on your own by thinking about the settings prior to constructing the composition in the viewfinder. I read once of a highrise office worker not going home one night because the doors of the elevator had failed to open ... the worker did not know there was a stairway.

Note: I am not saying there is something wrong with sharp BGs. Sometimes a sharp BG defines the subject within its environment perfectly. Again, the key is planning. Planning is what makes a good idea become a great photograph.

Abstract Ideas

For those of you who are knowledgable in what I am about to address, please indulge. Hopefully, this information will help answer some questions about a category many newbies find confusing. Today, judging the Macro Category that awhile back was expanded by cafe administrators to also include entries that are photos of element abstractions from a larger, more complete whole entity, or what are referred to as Abstracts. Abstracts and Macros are two separate styles of shots that many times overlap, though one need not be the other. Because there are separate meanings to this combined area of the cafe, there is quite a bit of diversity (and daily entries) within the category.

An abstraction is generally characterized by its nebulous subject structuring as a result of being part of something larger. Many times the viewer is just not able to determine what that whole entity might be. For this reason, the titles of many Abstracts (and Macros) are revelatory in nature e.g. "Apartment Stairs" or "Back of a Turtle." In a general sense, abstracts are usually studies in linear, color, shape and/or textural juxtapositions and compositional disciplines with merely a suggestion of a subject. Unlike most photographs that, analagous to books, read as a novel, fantasy, biography or poetry; an abstract is a mystery story that asks the viewer to ponder its clues and innuendo in order to determine its ultimate entertainment/educational value.

A macro is basically an extreme closeup, characterized by a very narrow DOF; many times fractions of an inch. The most extreme macros require a special lens or require activating a macro setting switch found on some fixed-lens cameras. When using a camera for a macro shot, sharp focus begins - dependent on the lens - a foot away from the subject or less, and can be adjusted to within as close as a few millimeters when adding accessories like bellows or lens power extenders. The faceted eye of a fly is the classic ultra macro photo, but using a longer lens at its greatest power and closest focal length to get in a tight shot of say, a flower head, will usually pass as a macro for many judges. A lot depends on how clearly the subject details fill the frame and the notion that that subject is seen normally as a very small object to humans. A high resolution closeup can be cropped and enlarged to appear as a macro if not much detail is lost to "pixel stretching."

Today I choose a wonderfully provocative piece that utilized a macro focal length to detail abstracted components of a choreographed subject setup in order to outline the author's take on a theme, into which the closer I examined, the more I was emotionally drawn. For me, it doesn't get any better than that!

It's All Black and White

I genuinely can get lost within a good Black and White photograph! The beginnings of my love affair with photography happened when nearly every published photograph was B&W. As a boy, I would search Life and Look magazines for featured photographs, almost always in B&W, studying them as one would a treasure map. My first formal photography course in college was producing B&W photographs. I remember the feeling of liberation in having control of what the final image would look like through knowledge of darkroom techniques. Up to that time, the finality of my photographs had been at the mercy of an unknown lab that printed thousands of images a day to a "One-is-All" standard.

Beyond the darkroom advantages of B&W, there is a vacancy for one's imagination in the Monochrome Motel that is not found around the corner in the ritzy Hue Hotel due to the reality convention taking place there. In the binary format, arrangement of tonal shadings can stand side to side with, and many times supercede, subject matter. Shades of gray can be filled in like a coloring book image, by the mind of the viewer. There are few washed out skies or muddy fleshtones to the viewer of these images. A successful B&W is more often a result of the skills of the photographer to choose and compose, not a nod toward the sophistication of accurate reproduction found with the camera or editing software. In fact, for many, the majority of their B&Ws require less editing than color images. A higher percentage are "out of the box" shots; meaning not only just as they came from out of the camera, but the thinking was more creative in the initial composition of the shot.

Since B&W photos can be entered into any other category as well as its own, I searched for obvious signs that a composition was exclusively intended to be a B&W shot from its inception. This was to be my winner. I dismissed a picture that told me it was really a color shot that was converted as an afterthought because maybe the colors didn't look all that good, or one which landed in B&W because some other flaw was being covered up through monochrome mechanics. I love this format too much to let an accident win.

I recall a forum thread where someone asked why there even existed a B&W viewing option on their camera since, when they shot in RAW mode, all the images appeared in color after initial processing through their conversion software. It seemed hardly necessary to advise them that composition of what is intended to eventually be a B&W image should be seen in that manner through the viewfinder intially during composition. And yet, one thread respondent answered that they never used their B&W viewing mode, even when intending a shot to be B&W. They went on to explain that their eye was so attuned to understanding the graytone shades that each color reproduces, that it was unnecessary to use the alternate viewing option. Man ... that is a major eye, there! Unless you have this supereye, I would advise anyone composing a B&W image, if they have the option on their camera, use the switch that previews how the final image will appear in monochrome. One needs to see color as shades of B&W because it is the richness and diversity of graytones that can make the image successful. Ansel Adams said that he felt the perfect photograph would contain the lightest white, the darkest black and every shade of gray stretching between the two; all in balance of coverage. A great goal for any photographer who wants to find and record their own imagination, allowing others to latch onto it and fill in the colors through their own experiences. That is one of the greatest introductory handshakes available through photography.

Aardvarks to Zebras

I have come to the conclusion that Animals is the most challenging category in which to win a POTD. There are consistently over 200 excellent animal depictions in the judging queue at any one time. Perhaps the appeal of a well made image in this category is the ease in which an image of an animal can stir the judge's emotions through a representation of a relationship enjoyed at some point in their life. Add to this the visual factors found in diversity of species - exotic beauty, degrees of visual impact, rarity of appearance - and you have the ingredients for an outstanding image of lasting profundity. To choose one winner from so many clearly appealing images is a job King Solomon would have trepidations about approaching.

I narrowed first to the most visually striking photographs; and there were many. From there, searched for display of the photographer's skills in creative composition, use of color or tonal shading (for B&W) and BG choices to best enhance the subject's features or tell the story the artist wanted to produce. Next I sought emotional responsiveness. Though not restricted to them in my final choices, I noted that, as with many other viewers of photographs, baby animals stir my heart the quickest, especially when pictured in a moment of intimate relationship with a parent. From the final 3 or 4 contenders that I felt were of equal merit as winners, I chose the one that was a day away from dropping out of the queue. I felt the other animals would have another chance with another judge on another day.

That an animal may so easily dial the combination to our emotional vault, is reason enough to look for winning photographs that not only depict a subject, but reveal a part of ourselves as well. Today's winner did this for me ... as well as warmed my heart.

It's Art - Without or Without Digitals

Digital Art is photography's Disneyland; complete with exciting rides, interesting exhibits and around every corner fantastic characters that might make an appearance! It is such an invigorating experience to look through the most creative shots birthed from the minds of the cafe's artistic photographers. Joy, pain, nostalgia and an endless array of emotions brought into being through imaginative treatment of photographs can lead to life changing introspection as certainly as the finest classical paintings.

There is a downside to judging these exhibits, however. There are no right or wrong subjects in this category, they contain a much more personal edge. A judge can be less apt to eliminate an image because of technical merit. Since subjective interpretation is key to digital art. Who can say this element should not be out of focus, or that shading is not correct because it has blown highlights? Anything the judge sees may have been reproduced exactly as seen in the artist's internal vision at its inception. There are basic guidelines of composition, color combinations, subject revelation and such, the adherence to which can make a piece contain more or less flow and energy. However, these "rules" are necessarily bent and broken to a greater degree within the category of digital art for the pursuit of artistic statement, moreso than in any other category of photography. So for the judge the question becomes "Why" instead of "What and How?" Interpreting the artistic vision of the creator of the piece becomes the paramount goal. An accomplished, well-presented experience that is shared in their lives by both artist and viewer is the hot button direct curcuit to art appreciation. If I feel sympatico because I have emotionally visited the area the artist is leading me, I am more apt to appreciate his/her rendering.

Among the criteria for a winner; I looked for the hand of the artist applied to the finished piece. If a photograph has merely been categorized as "art" through a mouse click on an Effects sub-heading, I was much less likely to consider it for POTD. There were some wonderfully beautiful images that fall in this area, but I feel they lack some personalized touch by an artist. I have many of my own images like this, that for one reason or another, I have treated with an artistic effect in my editing software. I love them for what they are; more as products of creative software than my ability to produce my vision in a non-traditional way. But my DA work closest to my heart has been smudged, painted, overlayed, distorted or otherwise manipulated through my efforts.

I Theme I'm Getting the Hang of This

Easiest choice of the month so far. Only 35 entries in the queue and the winner jumped out to me after the first look over the field. I didn't have to force it to happen or take any shortcuts - it just happened. Thank goodness! A person's heart can take only so much aching from making choices during hours of confliction.

The Scenery Changes

Things DO even themselves out; today's Scenic category task was the opposite of yesterday's ease. Without a doubt, today's field of 241 entries was THE HARDEST day I have judged so far. After narrowing the field down to nineteen outstanding images, the hard part began. I begrudgingly trimmed that group to eight in order to review a smaller batch of contenders. In reviewing them for the fourth time I thought, "Everyone of these deserve to be a POTD!" I recall a Forum thread written by Bob a year or so ago, while he and seven others were the permanent judging body. At that time there was no rotating member participation in POTD selection. The title of Bob's post was something close to, "A Judge's Thoughts." Among his thoughts was the line, "I hope they reenter this image because it will soon drop from the queue, it deserves to win, but I can only pick one today." I can totally empathize with that sentiment today. Because images remain in the queue for only a week, and because I can only judge scenic category once a week, my only hope to vote for today's second or third place image (which deserve a POTD) is if it is reentered before my month is over.

Random Thoughts the Remainder of the Month

I like helping others in the Critique Corner (CC) and so spend some of my daily Cafe time looking at images there. By virtue of my ability to see all POTD contest entries through my capacity as a judge, I have noticed some members seem to submit into both the POTD contest and the CC at the same time; sometimes within the same hour. It seems the prudent procedure would be to first submit to the CC (stating in the description box that the image should be critiqued for future entry into the POTD contest,) get feedback over the course of 2 or 3 days, make changes, resubmit to the the CC and then after being satisfied that everything is as good as can be presented, submit to the contest. Why ask for advise on an image you already felt was good enough for the contest? A down side to this duplicity is that a judge visiting the CC will see the identity of the image creator while the image is active in the contest queue. So much is built into the judging system to keep this from happening, that being active in both areas makes a judge shy away from the CC. Once that happens - it is difficult to get that critiquer back again, even after their judging month ends.

I have found the most popular title in Animals category is a derivation of, "Hi there." or "You looking at me?" I'm sorry, but in 99% of the cases, that is just trite and means nothing. Titles are titles and I never considered them as part of POTD criteria, but I will say that a creative or intriguing title could catch my eye and insure my opening a "handnail" to its full size, in the same way as a striking composition could. I once had a discussion with someone who always titled his photographs "Untitled" because a name doesn't matter. I asked him if he ever felt glad his parents did not feel the same way about their creative processes. Perhaps that guy will one day name one of his kids "Hi there."

When a tie-breaker was needed between equally great entries, because I know what a thrill it is, I hoped I was choosing someone's image who was winning for the first time in the cafe. Though impossible to know when this might happen while judging, I felt it a thrill to introduce new talent to the membership. When tie-breaking moments occurred, I looked for high quality, distinctive stylings that I had never seen on the front page before. I am happy to say that during my month of using this technique to break ties, I picked two first time winners. I also picked Heather McFarland's work twice. Just goes to show that the best artists are continually reinventing themselves in their stylizings and presentations.

Always went to the comments the next day to validate my picks. Just had to ... it felt as if I won a POTD too! It was always so rewarding to know that the skilled artisans of the cafe shared my love for a particular image. Sometimes the POTD recipient photographer would add their own comments. Among those thoughts might be the line, "I want to thank the judge(s) who picked this photograph." As a judge, I offer the following reply:

The pleasure was all mine. No need to thank me, because you did all the work. I merely initiated the sharing of your talent with your peers. It was worth all the time, scrutiny and inconveience I may have endured to know that you have been fairly and impartially recognized for producing truly artistic, outstanding imagery. It is I who thank you for the honor of pouring over the valuable harvest of so much wonderful work by the membership and pasting your piece onto the front window.

Have you written an article or tutorial that you'd like to share with members of the community? Send it to us at admin@digitalimagecafe.com