During the Portfolio judging I was surprised to hear comments by the judges (Chick Harrity, William Snyder, Alexandra Avakian) such as: “The editing should have been tighter”, “If you have a doubt- take it out”, “Sometimes there are too many pictures” and “Sometimes less is more”. I have heard the first phrase many times because being in radio, the words in a story can always be tighter and the sound bites can always been edited better. However, I had no idea that an effectively edited Picture Story is one that is edited just as tightly and concisely as any 30 second radio spot. There second phrase – “Sometimes there are too may pictures” – also caught me by surprise because I never thought there could ever be too many pictures. What with all of the snap-happy paparazzi surrounding politicians all the time, who knew there could be too many photos in one’s portfolio.
I also found the judging very subjective; decisions of “in” or “out” were made very quickly without my debate between them. Now, I know that I am no expert on photography by any means, but I find it fascinating that the judges could look at a picture for an average of 2 seconds and decide whether it is a good picture of not. Perhaps if I learn more about photography, I will better understand some of the judging decisions made at the competition; because as far as I could tell, the judges really liked everything I didn’t like and visa-versa.
Near the end of the Portfolio judging, I began to pick up on some of the similarities of the finalists in the categories. The judges would make comments on “deep pictures” and portfolios without repetition and photographers with good “story-telling abilities”. I also thought it interesting when they all three commented on one portfolio and photographer having “potential” when, to me, that person’s pictures were just as good as everyone else’s. Though these words and phrases seem alien to me now, especially as a primary user of words and sound, I am excited to delve further into understanding what these things mean.
One of the few things I did manage to understand, though not in reference to photographs, was what the judges were looking for in the story-telling aspects of each individual portfolio. The judges wanted to see basic story structure, depth and focus – all things I could easily associate with a story written with words. But with a story described in images, I was at a complete loss. I am not a believer that a “picture is worth a thousand words” because without context and understanding, it is only am image to me. After sitting through that judging, photographic story telling is certainly something I wish to learn more about.
Other things that I learned was that a Portfolio is meant to give a sense of who the photographer is and that a portfolio’s singles are just as important as their picture stories.
I really enjoyed getting to see such a variety of professional-level pictures all at once. One of the portfolios had a picture story about the World Equestrian Games in Lexington, Ky., which I found interesting because I’m from there. I also really enjoyed seeing all of the powerful political pictures, especially the ones that managed to catch the sides of politicians that the public often doesn’t get to see. I also found the picture stories about Polio in Africa and the brain-dead West Virginia University very powerful and moving.
As mentioned above, I had a difficult time making fair judgments on the photographs because I really know nothing about photography, so I’m not really sure if the winning portfolio was good enough to be number one. However, I do know that the judges were a little disappointed that their original pick for the winner was disqualified due to a technicality and so they had to settle for the portfolio they had originally picked second. But I really don’t have enough education to comment on that.
In regard to the Political News Photo of the Year competition, I thought the judging moved lightning-fast for what I considered the most important contest of the entire competition. But I am pleased with the winning photograph as in I’m pleased with what it stands for more than the actual quality of the photograph since I’m not really sure what sets is apart from all the other ones entered into that same category. As a Kentuckian, I’m just glad the picture of Rand Paul in shorts looking like a bewildered idiot wasn’t chosen as the photograph of the year because that would mean his getting elected to the US Senate is the political story of the year – a story (and outcome) that I am more than ashamed of. That picture winning – and it made it to the final two of the contest – would have just added insult to injury; further reminding me that my home state is STILL the laughing-stock of this country for electing him.
In hindsight, I’m glad we were required to go to this competition because, for me, this was a great introduction to the art and skill of still photography. Even though all the photographs I saw were “good pictures” to me, I must admit that my interest was officially piqued and I now wish to learn more about what qualifies as excellent photography.
Caption: Me outside of the National Geographic Building hold the WHNPA Eyes of History 2010 booklet. Picture taken by classmate, Ashley M. Latta on Sunday, February 27, 2011
Reflection Word Count: 947 words
