Volume judging is a matter of quick elimination by seeking out even a subtle negative impression. Sometimes the matting or framing cause rejection. As the offerings are culled of quick rejects, the process slows to an eventual series of compromises between perhaps a panel of judges. I suspect that it often comes down to a matter of a convincing presentation by a judge coming at the end of a tiring session.
Jack --- Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Didn't this already start to happen when Velvia came on the scene to > give us that over-the-top punchy color in slides? I'm sure our > viewing mediums have had some impact, but so has our social > environment. Today, information is thrown at us in a very fast, > concentrated way. All the media types do it - short, fast > commercials, movies instead of books, etc. So to stand out from the > crowd - there has to be something catchy. Photography is just a > follow on to that. > > Some of my thoughts... > > -- > Bruce > > > Tuesday, May 1, 2007, 11:12:44 AM, you wrote: > > mw> Doug Brewer wrote: > >> mike wilson wrote: > >> > >>>>From: Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Overall - it was a pretty interesting experience. I always > imagined > >>>>judges looking at my photos like I look at them - pouring over > them for > >>>>a long time, looking at the nuance and detail. I should of put 2 > + 2 > >>>>together - when you consider the numbers of photos they are > looking at, > >>>>it's a pretty snap judgment process. And the slightest technical > fault > >>>>can get your image booted... > >>> > >>> > >>>Your impressions coincide with my belief of the direction > >>>photography is going since the advent of consumer digital > >>>equipment. It would be interesting to get the impression of > >>>someone who has been regularly judging during the changeover from > >>>chemical to digital. > >> > >> > >> Not sure what you mean here. > >> > > mw> I think that the possible subtleties of "chemical" pictures are > being > mw> lost/abandoned in favour of "smack'em in the eye" colour and > graphic > mw> composition. It's only an impression, which I have no empirical > mw> evidence for, but two people on this list in the last month have > mw> mentioned it. My belief is that the preponderance of viewing > onscreen, > mw> using thumbnails to choose which pictures to look at in any > depth, > mw> reinforces this type of selection. > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
