Diffuser

PSA Journal, August, 2000

"O Little Town of NAZARETH"

In his article Nazareth 2000 in the March issue, Moshe Geizler writes that "Bells ring out ... to welcome visitors to Jesus' birthplace." In paragraph 3, the author states that "Nazareth is known throughout the Christian world as Jesus' birthplace, ..."

Although Bethlehem is mentioned in scripture 43 times in the Old Testament and 8 times in the New Testament, I would suggest a reading of at least one verse:

"After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem." (Mat 2:1)

During this next Christmas season, should we sing "O Little Town of NAZARETH?" I don't think so!

Richard Leffler

Response:

"Due to a mixup in the translation from Hebrew to English, the place of Jesus' boyhood (Nazareth) was inadvertently rendered as "birthplace." Mr. Geizler apologizes for the error and any resulting inconvenience."

Moshe Geizler and Sammy Somekh (translator)

Is it What's on the Screen That Counts?

It has come to my attention that a local camera club is including the difficulties of obtaining a shot as one of the criteria for the judging and scoring of contest entries. Recently I saw a slide in such a competition judging that received a top score primarily because of the complexity of shooting the subject matter. I do acknowledge that it was beautifully executed, but it was lacking in composition and impact and was judged basically on technique.

It has always been my impression, based on many mentors, that it is the final image on the screen that counts regardless of the problems the photographer has overcome and/or the expense in securing it. Emphasizing the difficulty of taking the picture gives the maker a definite advantage. The problem could range all the way from a dangerous camera position, to the requirement of very specialized and expensive equipment, or to a costly trek to some exotic place at the end of the earth. Recently I contacted a PSA Division officer regarding judging, and he concurred with my above opinion. A few weeks ago I also queried the judges at an International Salon judging and they reinforced my thoughts on the matter.

Does anyone out there have any thoughts on this subject? I am a multi-starred exhibitor and have nothing to lose or gain by raising this question. I still think that if local judgings are purported to follow PSA rules "it is what is on the screen that counts."

Lois E. Clarke, FPSA. EPSA

Star Rating Impropriety

I am very disturbed by the results of the 2000 Garden State International Salon. I realize that the mentality of some people is win no matter how!

I have always lived by the premise that you should earn any reward you receive, but after this salon was completed, I wonder about that ideal.

We thought that if we included Commercial Color Print Class, our entries would increase as we had seen in other salons. Instead what we found was that people who formerly had entered Small Color Prints are now entering Commercial Print. Now, one must wonder if they ever made their own prints or have made false statements.

Our Color Print usually had 22 entrants; now for 2000, we had 12. Strange ... yes. Our commercial class had 37. I think that Star Rating should have a study and if it is found that certain titles used for Color Print Star Rating are also being used for Commercial by a maker, then the star should be rescinded. This is dishonest and does PSA a disservice.

Dorothea M. Otto, FPSA Director, Star Rating Monochrome Division