My final LRPS panel selection

EnglishMack said:
They pretty much said what I suggested may be some of the reasons as to why your photos didn't get accepted. There's no apparent reason as to why you've photographed what you have photographed, other than you've simply shot a series of images that just look nice, which means that you're lacking in depth and substance.

A series of photos for me need to tell a story, who are the people in the photographs? What relation do they have to the photographer? Does each image associate with the other images in the series? Would be the first and most basic questions I'd be asking myself.

I think your photographs are great but if the RPS are finding your images lack depth, maybe it would be an idea to do some theoretical reading and then undertaking a project that's more personal to you?

A couple of books I'd recommend are Geoff Dyer - The Ongoing Moment and (especially) Liz Wells - Photography: A Critical Introduction

I don't mean to sound patronising, but I've been in a similar position and I've absorbed more theoretical practice and it's helped me loads. Obviously you could tell me where to stick it, but as I say, your work is really good.
Click to expand...

I think you're pretty much on the ball there.

Maybe picking a subject and following it through. The only example I can think of, off the top of my head is the story I read on the BBC site yesterday where a chap in work was following the demolition of a landmark in Flint, photographing it daily. With something like that you could get photos of the demolition, people doing the work, surrounding area/events, etc. Not the best idea, but you see what I mean.

I'm curious about their cropping comment though. I'm assuming (not having looked at the size of the shots you submitted) that they are mostly cropped shots, rather than the full shot. I have to admit that I find that odd, especially looking at what's on there already. I assume they want full, uncropped shots so they're more "professional". Okay, a lot of the work is really good, and some is really bad, but what is clear is that there are hundreds of shots that break these rules one way or another. Have you been unlucky and caught them as they're starting to become strict with the rules?
 
Last edited:
V-Spec said:
Why not give it another try?
Click to expand...

Because im starting to question the integrity and value of the RPS. I probably just sound like a sore looser, but even looking in the RPS magazine, a large amount of the pictures hold little technical or artistic merit imo. As mentioned further down in my post im all up for a challenge, but only as long as I deem the challenge fair and worthwhile, which is what im starting to question. Im not saying ive made my mind up yet, but I definately need to do some more thinking. Also having to pay £90 a year to retain any awards brings out the cynic in me.

EnglishMack said:
*snip*
Click to expand...

ElDude said:
*snip*
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestions, but unfortunately your both wrong. What you are saying is true for the ARPS and FRPS, but the LRPS should show a variety of work to demonstrate technical competency.

"Editing, selection and sequencing should be considered to display the portfolio to its best advantage. The overall impression should be coherent with sufficient variety of approach even within a narrow range of subject. Repetition of similar images should be avoided"

Ive seen panels that have passed that contain black and white, colour, portraits, landscapes etc etc that seeminly don't flow as far as im concenrned. Ive also seen a panel that passed that entirely contained masks from Venice. This is what is annoying me, I read and reread the instructions over and over again before submitting the panel, yet the judgement seemingly doesn't stick to their own rules. Hopefully Margaret will be able to answer some of my confusion.

Tooks said:
I would try again, but then I never give up!! It depends on you obviously, and also whether you really want the right to put LRPS after your name? What was your motivation for applying by the way?

One thing I would do if I was re-submitting, is to make sure it was on print. That removes the reported problem of 'imperfections' showing up more readily when projected.
Click to expand...

I origionally wanted to get an LRPS as a challenge to myself, as well as an addition to the creative side of my CV. Im all up for a challenge, and its not the not getting the LRPS that has dissapointed me, but the fact that im unfortunately starting to question the intergrity of the award.

If I do decide to resubmitt I think I will be using prints.

ElDude said:
I'm curious about their cropping comment though. I'm assuming (not having looked at the size of the shots you submitted) that they are mostly cropped shots, rather than the full shot. I have to admit that I find that odd, especially looking at what's on there already. I assume they want full, uncropped shots so they're more "professional". Okay, a lot of the work is really good, and some is really bad, but what is clear is that there are hundreds of shots that break these rules one way or another. Have you been unlucky and caught them as they're starting to become strict with the rules?
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is something id like an answer to as well. Most of those shots are full frame or at least very very close to full frame. And I personally wouldn't have cropped them much differenty anyway. *shrugs*
 
Here is my own view at the panel, trying to use the 'camera club competition rules'. Note that judging is /always/ all over the place, RPS or not. It's a complete russian roulette.

Anyway, here's what I would say if these were coming up in front of me, being in nitty picky 'mode' etc.

#1 I would have cropped a square around the front of the building, having a bit more front subject and less sky
#2 is too dark IMO. There's that black patch top/right with no details at all.
#3 is nice effect, but the composition is not clear. It could possibly have been cropped square ?
#4 is too much like other others, there isn't any subject, the eye doesn't catch anything.
#5 is very nice
#6 is great, but I wish the helmet was fully in the frame OR the crop even tighter on the head.. Here it could looks like you didn't frame properly
#7 is very nice too... but then again it's my style of shots :-)
#8 is great, but I think it needs serious cropping to remove some of the sky; extra brownie points if you put someone in the frame :-)
#9 is a great shot, however the church is not vertical -- also I'm sure the judge will want to get rid of the useless space bottom right.
#10 is very nice, but it's again a 'long exposure water shot'. I would also have liked more pebbles :-)

I don't really like competitions, and thats probably why I skipped on the {LA}RPS so far. I think it would help a lot if you were to not just watch, but talk to people with successful panels. In particular the "art of paneling" is fairly involved and just ordering images is quite a headache.

You should re-apply IMO, you already invested a lot of time/work in this panel...

Buze,
http://flickr.com/photos/buze/
 
They all look the same, cant you process your pictures any differently? Good compositions though.
 
Hello there,

Just read through this thread, and have a few quick comments. I haven't read through all the replies, so feel free to tell me to get lost.

All the images, on their own, are good, however, what I see, is 10 individual pictures, not 1 portfolio of 10 images. There is no flow, story or message in the images. It is although each one is a technical exercise in it self, rather than a coherent piece of a story.

My first impression of the portrait of the miner was WTF, why is that there? That image needs to be replaced with an image which stitches together the sea with the fisherman, and replace a sea image which brings together the theme of the sea, with that of the land.

Try looking at more images by some of the 'greats' each image they select adds something to the story they are trying to tell.Try looking at HCB and Mccullin, spend a few hours in a borders with a good photo section.

PS I wish the photos I took were as good, technically, as the ones you take.

NB
 
This is why i dont really like artsy fartsy official people, they're too anal about absolutely everything, picking up on things that dont matter on what are undoubtably amazing photos. it's possibly because they look and and discuss so many photos that they look at them in more detail that normal people. But the way is see it is they're trying to get you to change your photography, for better or worse (obviously better in their eyes), to conform with their guidelines so you can get the recognition.

Photography is a personal expression, not something that you should have to change just to get some letters after your name and recognised by artsy fartsy people :)
 
NinjaBill said:
Hello there,

Just read through this thread, and have a few quick comments. I haven't read through all the replies, so feel free to tell me to get lost.

All the images, on their own, are good, however, what I see, is 10 individual pictures, not 1 portfolio of 10 images. There is no flow, story or message in the images. It is although each one is a technical exercise in it self, rather than a coherent piece of a story.

...snip...

NB
Click to expand...

Thing is (and has been said earlier) the submission guidelines for the LRPS panel, don't ask for this theme. You are supposed to show competance in a range of different skills, (which mostly I think that MK did), whether the images are linked or not should not eally matter. There is though a presentation element in how the images are displayed that does count. Mostly though I think that the display equipment that the Panel viewed the submission though must have significantly altered the balance of the shots submitted. Personally, my preference would have been to submit prints....
 
I can see where the panel are coming from, there is a lot of repetion, particularly with images 3,4 & 10 all displaying very similar effects. Personally I feel a better variety should have been included.

I also felt there were areas where there was a loss of detail due to blocks of shadow or light, and the sky in image 1 does look a bit off to me.
 
I have just received the following email (by way of Flickr mail) ...

I assume you're the martinturner on Overclockers who commented on Messiah Khan's failure to gain his LRPS recently. I agree his pictures are stunning and when I first saw that particular set, I thought he'd get it, no problem. BUT, after he failed and I read the reasons why from the chair of the assessors, AND I took a closer look, I could see why he failed. You have to take into consideration that he submitted his set as digital files on cd and they are projected eight feet (2.5m) wide, any technical flaws are magnified and immediately pounced on. It's a pity, but I think he just picked the wrong set, he's got the pictures he just didn't show 'em.

Why have I commented here? Coz I registered on Overclockers to reply but it's taking too long to get approved. BUT my main reason is I'm the SW of www.theoxfordstudio.com/sw/ who you thought you wouldn't offend. You did! Not liking my photos I can live with, enough people disagree with you to pay me for my work. What gets me though is that you seem to suggest that I was accepted as an LRPS because I came from a wealthy and respected family. If that were true, I'd be offended on behalf of the RPS, who don't work that way, BUT I'm from Fishponds, the home I was born into housed not just my parents, but my grandparents and great grandmother too. At that time, my dad worked for Woolworth's and my grandfather worked as a boilermaker at Peckett's. So, as a fellow Bristol boy, I think you owe me an apology. What do you say?

Steve

I guess I feel it fair to post my reply (which I have mailed back). I would also like to apologise to Steve, as I do feel I was a bit harsh with a previous comment, although do feel SOME of his images lacked artistic merit and technical ability. I think its a case, that as much as I am never going to agree, nor am I ever going to respect an organisation who clearly are not balanced in consistancy. The response MK received is not consistent as others have been passed who should have failed in the same respects.

Steve,

Thank you for your message.

I do apologise as I have tiled you with an inappropriate generalisation and you have clearly taken offence; this was not my intention. My post, was for 'morale support' for MK who clearly deserved to do well and was clearly very disappointed and rightly so. I used yours as an example as I just cannot see how you could have possibly got an award for? Admittedly, 4, 8 and 9 are very good, but the others are just random to say the least (the first three in my opinion are 'holiday snaps'). I do apologise, but I just cannot see why yours got through and his didn't. They are technically superior (in my opinion).

I would also like to add, that I had not seen the results of his panel until after I posted. It may be the case that when using digital files are blown up on a projector you can see flaws. Although to be honest, I disagree, it should be based on an accurate representation, not a light projected image which in no way can be deemed a fair tool for judging said images.

So, I apologise once again for the generalisation.

Martin
 
Last edited:
I just had a look at that guys photos and I think you are being as harsh on him as you think the RPS are being harsh on MK. One of the things MK was saying early on was that the RPS specifically look for "flow" in the photos. Personally I can see a very clear flow in that guys photos, whereas I can't in MK's.
 
Bubo said:
I just had a look at that guys photos and I think you are being as harsh on him as you think the RPS are being harsh on MK. One of the things MK was saying early on was that the RPS specifically look for "flow" in the photos. Personally I can see a very clear flow in that guys photos, whereas I can't in MK's.
Click to expand...

And that is why I have apologised for my initial comment. Yes, there is an apparent 'flow' between images, although having flow does not mean I agree with the opinion - I still feel MK's are technically superior and deserve greater merit.
 
As far as I can see, they're different styles of photography, so you can't really compare. I have to say though that the SW shots do seem to have a more polished presentation due to the "flow". You can see a clear link from one shot to another. I quite like them actually :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom