What Judging System or Method Does YOUR Club Use???

PSA Journal, August, 2001 by Jean Timmermeister

The single most discussed subject about which we read in the PSA Journal seems to be judging! There is usually a fair amount of "ragging" of judges, of "raking" judges over the proverbial coals, and more. But when reading an article closely, quite often it is apparent that the discussion relates to the experiences of the writer in a club that uses an entirely different style than any club I ever attended. Reading even more closely, it becomes apparent that the author often appears to believe that all clubs are using `his' system ... in fact, sometimes an apparent belief that there is just one system.

Periodically I hear discussions about "PSA judging" or questions such as "what does PSA want us to do when we judge?" or, worse "Our club has PSA judging" or "You can't do that: it's against PSA rules!" It becomes quite obvious that many clubs, as well as many individual members, (hence many writers) believe that what they talk or write about is what all clubs do. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Years ago when I was traveling in Cornwall, England, and attempted to find a PSA member there, I discovered that my local camera club's method of judging was hardly the same as what camera clubs in Great Britain used. I had thought there was a standard and that the standard in another country might be different, but realized there is no standard anywhere. I decided to poll a few clubs to learn how the clubs handled their judging.

Let us start with the first camera club I ever joined -- a fair-sized club in the Pacific Northwest. The group used three in-house judges with an outside commentator. Let me say at this point that the term "critique" is rarely used here as it tends to connote tough criticism of the work, whereas the term "comment" allows the photographer to feel a bit less intimidated when his image is discussed. (Northwest commentary might be described as "very soft critique.") It is the commentary together with the judging that often constitutes the most important education in a camera club! This metropolitan club says that the judges will use 1-15 points each for a possible high of 45 points, although the reality is the three judges use a rare 9 or 10, but usually 11-15 points each. Electronic scoring is used with a printout for the tabulator. The (former) size of the club required members to submit just one slide per competition night -- the only club listed here which allowed just one slide. The advancement from Associate to Fellow, then to Master followed by Advance Master is predicated on 600 points to move to the next level. Obviously to change the point system at the individual image level also would involve reworking the advancement system. All slides are judged together (and separated by category after the fact); all those with the highest score per category are First, etc.: they are not later selected or re-judged for First, Second and Third places.

Some other Northwest clubs have followed this same system, but a club in the next city uses 1-10 points by each of three judges plus an extra judge whose score is only counted when a regular judge's image comes up. They resist having judging "machines" or "boxes" and so they write on small pieces of paper. They rarely have comments or critiques as no one in the club feels qualified. A third Northwest club uses a related system with three in-house judges scoring 3-9 points, and in-house commentator, with all four of these positions scheduled so each member is taking a turn. This club judges the beginners and the advanced separately. The members, for the most part, have the option to be judged as a B or an A photographer. Ties are common.

Yet another club uses a popular vote system ... not at all common! But leaving the Northwest, I learned that clubs in some areas rely on a visiting `judge' who also critiques all the images. Such a judge may specialize in certain subject matter or not. My British photographer friend was certified, received about $150-160 to travel to judge and often when he was many miles from home, he had to stay overnight. The term he used was "We judge out of 10" and when the judge awards a 10 during the evening, the audience applauds the work. A 10 score is not nearly so rare as an elusive 45 or 27 in the Northwest! (Northwest photographers seldom give the top score.)

An area in California has the judge go through the entire lot of prints or slides and with a resounding "Out" he eliminates some of the work at once ... before he begins the so-called judging process. I wonder is this a double judging or pre-judging? This area has one club which uses judging machines with the rest using one non-member judge.

Lest any reader think that his club is having trouble with judges and judging in any given area, my "kamikaze survey" reveals a most interesting variety. I thought we would tend to see similar systems in geographic areas. A recent reference to breaking out places from the highest scores was written as though every club did the same: "You're kidding," I thought! How could one possibly assume or think all clubs do that? Note that I mentioned my British contact said he was "certified" or "approved." In given areas in North America, an attempt is made to teach judging. The Pacific Zone of CAPA (our Canadian counterpart) has regular all-day judging seminars for about $10 (Canadian) per student; a Northern California judging class put on by the Council prepares a fine handbook co-written by several judges specializing in various types of photography. The Northwest Council has had a series of 3 all-day judging classes teaching techniques, subject matter, lighting, composition, etc., and the Council then awarded certificates upon completion of the series. These classes were never about scoring, rather only about judging by learning the wide variety of work a judge will face.