On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 11:03:33 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

I think it's a little different when you have member-to-member
critiques on a face-to-face basis. Members tend to be more
complimentary and more gentle in critiquing in that situation.


Obviously the members don't want to upset fellow members and risk
receiving adverse comments about their own work. It is mutual
admiration only, perhaps with a slight hint of 'damning with faint
praise'. It is just like actors' praise of each other, which quickly
achieves ridiculous heights, all because of the fear of what might be
said in return, perhaps at a later date.

Of course this can never be called 'critique'. It is about as far
from honest and objective critique as it could get. And this is
precisely where the SI finds itself.


Our critiques are by judges only, and the judges don't know whose
photo it is.


If the judges are truly independent, that's the best (or least worst)
way, but are the judges also members of the club? If so, their
comments will be bound by the same constraints as I described above,
and the whole exercise becomes pointless.

Three judges each competition night x 10 competition nights per year =
finding 30 judges. One of the three is always an outsider, and they
the club tries to get two outsiders if they can.

The remaining judges are members who are either professional
photographers or very experienced amateurs.

The grading is done prior to the meeting without knowing the name of
the person submitting the image. The name of the submitter, and the
points scored for the image, is given at the time the image is
projected on the large screen. The critique is given at that time.

A member judge might soften his critique once he knows the name of the
member, but point count cannot be changed.

The usual critique starts out "We liked this image (or some other pat
on the back for the photographer) but we took points off for ...".




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida