The feedback by the chairman concluded, "Your panel was a 'near miss.' It started with two strong images which were of high quality and showed your involvement with the subject. They also showed that you can achieve Licentiate standard. Some of your other images were less strong and we wondered whether perhaps you had included then 'for variety.' Variety can be shown with lighting, use of different lenses, depth of field and viewpoint, not just subject matter. We sensed that you probably have more suitable images in your collection already."
Well, I admit here and now that the panel was relying on the feedback of others rather than my own understanding of the rules. I mean, I got the main thrust of the Licentiateship as it was spelled out in the handbook, "To be successful you require a sound basic technical skill and you need to show that you are competent in all the areas set out in the criteria below." and I'll come back to that later. However, we'll take a look at the images that were presented.
There were three judgement sources at work here...
- An unknown mentor that gave feedback via the RPS.
- An FRPS qualified person in a club not too far away took a look at around twenty images and produced the panel from them.
- The feedback from the panel itself.
There was also a person I won't name, who helped me put together the images to present to the FRPS person from which to draw the panel.
Number one drew criticism from the mentor, "well composed but needs to be sharp from front to back. The foreground is out of focus. The choice of lens aperture and point of focus could be viewed by panel members as a technical problem."; yet the panel described it as one of the strong images which were of high quality. This shot was actually a 1:1 crop out of a shot I took of a bearded Australian dragon named, Aussie. It is, perhaps, a good example of how different judges opinions can be.
This image seemed to garner approval from all three sources (the unknown mentor, the FRPS and the panel.) There was a degree of blur and noise in the image which I think was hidden by the lights. I included this for variety of subject rather than the quality. I didn't crop this image.
The shot of BlueBell Railway staff came from the outside choices. It wasn't included in the original set of pictures that went to the mentor, but was a choice included by the FRPS. The panel, however, didn't like it., "Image 3 was probably an impossible scene - it needed either more detail in the figures or alternatively for them to be complete silhouettes." Two opposing ends of the spectrum there; but this was judged the worst of the panel.
This shot was, again, not one seen by the original mentor but the FRPS picked it. The panel didn't offer any specific comment on it so I assume it was included in the overall feedback above.
The same with this shot. Not sent to the original mentor but picked by the FRPS and didn't draw any specific panel comment.
This one was included as a result of a fourth person from a club. It was a crop at their suggestion. It was also moved to the left and I had to artificially create a portion of the right arm of the sofa. It was also selected by the FRPS but drew comment from the panel for the lighting. It required more light on the face. It is one of the grandfathers favourite shots, being up on his office wall at work.
This shot was actually a complete candid. The room was set up with soft boxes on studio light. The little boy was changing his clothes in between shoots and there was a soft box off to his left which just happened to give enough light for me to get the shot ... it was total chance. But it does have a nice tonal quality and it has attracted some comment. I am left wondering whether the panel are wanting to be too perfect here.
The flower was a lazy shot. The mentor picked it up as looking to be L standard and indeed the FRPS picket it out. The panel commented that it could have done with more DOF. I admit that I was lain on my back, on the floor, and the orchid plant happened to be above me. I just picked up the camera and took the shot as best I could without having to dig out a tripod. It did have a distracting section in the bottom right which the mentor picked up on, and the club member also commented about, so I cloned that out before it went to the FRPS and the panel.
This shot was a long beach exposure; the action of the water coming in and out is what created the mist effect. It was one of a number of shots I took and I considered the best of the bunch. It, too, drew no negative comment.
The flower was not seen by the mentor but was picked by the FRPS. I have to admit that it is one that I have on my wall; it has drawn a lot of comment from people who love it. The panel, however, didn't like it. They wanted the centre flower to be better lit.
Lastly a portrait which the mentor didn't see but the FRPS picked from the images. Again, the panel criticised it for not having enough light on the face.
And this brings me to my conclusion on the feedback from the LRPS panel. They are expecting people to use fill flash and reflectors for portraiture. If you are like me and effectively on your own, then using a reflector isn't going to be easy. For someone who is not used to modelling, it will be difficult enough for them to follow your posing instructions, let alone for them to handle a portable reflector as well. So for that, you're in trouble.
As for using a flash to fill ... ugh. It is a technique that can take practice and needs precise knowledge before you go out and try to use it to catch portraits. Candid portraits are difficult enough to catch in the first place; but to have to calculate fill flash as well makes it nigh on impossible. All you can actually do is put the flash on automatic and pray that the system will expose correctly.
I have seen pictures of people who have gained their qualifications some considerable years ago. In the length of time that has past, their pictures don't have the edge to the modern eye. Some decades ago, a colourful picture of a far Eastern village would have drawn comments of wonder. Now, we are all used to them and I have to wonder whether those same images would have passed the qualifications now.
It has come to the point where, perhaps, our experiences have jaded us to raw photography, to the skill of capturing the image as it happens. Maybe a natural image is now becoming unappealing to the eye. One thing is for sure, I dare not use any of my candid portraiture in a future panel, regardless of whether or not the tonal quality pleases me.
The mentor, the FRPS and the panel agreed on a good number of occasions, but in some instances disagreed strongly. This is, unfortunately, the way that any subjective process goes and if going for the LRPS yourself, my only advice is to keep it safe, keep it consistent and be prepared to use some light modifiers to amp the ambient if the main subject isn't isolated well enough from the background.
Post a Comment