PSNZ Honours 2006

Kia ora tatou:

As some of you know, I have been in Auckland for the annual PSNZ (Photographic Society of New Zealand) Honours Board awards. This year there were a massive 113 submissions, a new record!

I was elected to the Board last year, and ‘06 has been my first time on the panel. A few of you approached me to get help with your sets. I refused, since I really didn’t know the procedure, being the New Kid on the Block, and I was afraid I would put you wrong. I am glad I stuck to that, since the process has been a steep learning curve for me. I thought however, that I would share a few observations from the process that might be of help to those of you thinking of going for your letters in '07.

I am convinced that every attempt is made to do the right thing by people who submit for their letters (and yes, I do know who made it and I don’t know who didn’t. Please don’t ask-you will find out in due course….)

Let me explain the procedure.

There are 6 people on the panel. All are Fellows. All have a long involvement in photography. All are specialists in a particular area. They come from all over the country. The procedure goes something like this:

1. We start with Licentiateships in a particular area, say slides. We then do Associateships. Fellowships come last. Then we move on to Prints. After that AV’s. This year there were 113 submissions.
2. The session begins with a discussion on procedure and marking criteria. Then the work begins.
3. A few sets are put up so we can get ”our eye in.” These are then put aside and left until last. The title of the set is read out, along with any titles of individual works. Then the panel considers the work in silence. Each of us has two counters, a white one, showing we believe the work meets the required standard, and a red one to indicate it “falls below the bar.”
4. At the end of the consideration process, each of us casts our vote. The votes are counted and read out. 6 reds and the work is rejected. We then analyse the weak points and attempt to generate comments helpful to the candidate for a re-submission. We are never told the name of unsuccessful candidates.
5. If the candidate scores 6 whites, the work is accepted and the successful name is read out.
6. If 1 red or white is cast against the flow, the caster is invited to comment. He/she does not have to speak. The rest of the panel listen, and if the argument is convincing enough, there is a re-vote. The result is binding. Some of us occasionally cast a counter-vote, because we want to ensure that there is discussion. Sometimes the rest of the panel are convinced to change their minds. Sometimes they are not.
7. 2 counter-votes and the dissenters are expected to defend their position. Occasionally their arguments are sufficient to convince the remainder of the panel to rethink and change the recommendation. Occasionally they are not, and the result stands.
8. If there is a tie, discussion is mandatory. At the conclusion there is usually a re-vote. The result is again binding. If the tie remains, the applicant is judged unsuccessful. There must be a majority for the submission to be accepted.
9. There is continual cross-referencing to other submissions. Consistency of marking is critical.
   

Some observations from 2006.

• The standard of work submitted this year was generally mind-boggling and some of it wonderfully creative (especially the Fellows). If you want to see the best work in each category, take the time to get along and see the successful candidates at this year’s convention in Christchurch. If this is the standard of work being done in clubs, then amateur photography in Aotearoa is in fantastic heart.
• The number of slide sets was quite low, relatively-speaking. I guess this is as a result of people moving to digital.
• The base level of technical competence was really high. When exposure and depth-of-field errors occurred, they were quite obvious and intrusive. I wonder if digital and the ability to ”chimp” is responsible for this increased technical control.
• A lot of people seem to be doing their own printing. In some cases that was really obvious. Their choice of paper, printer and control of the print process was shaky and, in some cases, let down really good work. It is really important to get this under control. Look for a future post.
• In many cases the images were so oversharpened that they lost detail and had really noticeable halo-ing. Sharpening is a taste thing. It’s a bit like salt. Too much on your food and it is ruined (yes, I know it’s supposed to be bad for you!). Again watch this space.
• There were almost no look-I-found-the-filters-menu-in-PhotoShop sets. There were few, if any, sets with clouds A superimposed over landscape B shots. Praise be. That was old hat in PhotoShop 3!
• I didn’t see a single backlit-sheep photograph!
• It is really important to be clear in your own mind what is you are trying to say. Photography is a form of communication. An individual image needs to have something to say, a bit like a sentence. A submission is a superset of this, a chapter if you like, that makes a similar statement, only on a larger scale.
  

Anyway, I know that a number of you are thinking of going for your letters. Let me know what you think. I will add more as I think of it, and attempt to respond to any comments.

Ka kite ano