Projection Division Update

Featured Image: Ruby-throated Hummingbird by Maggie Tieger ◇ 1st Place ◇ Division ◇ September 2021

Changes to the Division

In these extraordinary times that we live, TPS members have not come together in a physical meeting for over eighteen months. We have been holding our meetings virtually via ZOOM, and uploading and posting our images to an online contest gallery.

The way we have been judging and tallying the popular vote has been stretching the rules laid out in the TPS Bylaws. The work required to manage and update the Division Competitions has become quite a bit larger than it was with in person meetings.

Change is required and changes are being made. We

  • have new leadership
  • have new rules

Please continue reading to understand these changes.

Leadership Changes

Dick Knudsen, our Secretary, has decided not to continue. Judith Lilly, our Member, at Large, has moved to Sequim. And Trinda Love, our Director, has take the position of Society Vice President, replacing Bruce Severeid who is taking the Print Director position.

Welcome Debbie Klosowski

Debbie Klosowski has agreed to join your board and become the new Projection Division Director. She will be facilitating our Online and in person meetings going forward. Don’t be surprised if Debbie calls you up and asks you to act as a Judge for one of our meetings.

Secretary, Dave Scott

Dave Scott, as most of you know, has been managing the website and the online meetings for some time now so it makes sense that he assume this role in the division.

Rule Changes

Tacoma Photographic Society was formed in 1956, a year or two before the internet was invented. Our bylaws and rules reflect this as there are no provisions for online competitions such as we are having today.

We propose to change this by defining a set of rules to govern our Popular Vote and Judges Vote so that the contest management process is simpler, and voting is straight forward.

These changes are a proposal. They will need to be discussed at the board level and then ratified by the membership before they become an accepted part of the Society Bylaws.

The Projection Division will be using these rules as defined below for all Online competitions going forward. We will revise our methods to align with the accepted rules when they are accepted into the Society Bylaws.

1. Changes only Apply to Online Competition

The rules proposed will not apply to Projection Division competitions held in person. In person meetings hosting a Projection Division Competition shall determine Judges Scores through a panel of judges as defined under Article 12 of the bylaws.

2. Judging

Juried Panel

A panel of four judges will be appointed for each competition by the Division Director. The names of those judges will be published on the competition results page, but their individual votes will be kept confidential.

Method of Rating

Judges will rate each image in the competition using a five (5) star rating system. One star is poor, Five stars is excellent. To align this rating system with the existing Society rating system, the values will be assigned as follows:
▣ 1 star = 6 judges vote
▣ 2 stars = 7 judges vote
▣ 3 stars = 8 judges vote
▣ 4 stars = 9 judges vote
▣ 5 stars = 10 judges vote

Application of Scores

Only three of the four votes will be applied to any image with judges not being able to vote for their own image. A total of the judges score will be determined as per Projection Division rules.

3. Popular Vote

Rate all Competition Entries

Unlike in person meetings where members are asked to vote for only their favorite x out of y images in the competition, members are asked to rate all images in the competition.

Method of Rating

Members will rate each image in the competition using the same one to five star rating system as used for judging.

Winner Determination

For each competition, the average rating for each image will determine the Popular Vote. First Place will be awarded to those entries with the highest average rating. Second Place will be awarded to those entries with the second highest average rating. Third Place will be awarded to those entries with the third highest average rating. Honorable Mention will be awarded to those entries with the fourth highest average rating.

Ties will not be broken

As per in-person competition meetings, photographic points will only be awarded to the first, second and third place awards.

Your Comments are Encouraged!

Please make your comments or questions in the comment section below. We can have a good discussion about these changes before they are put to the board and then a vote by you, our members.

6 thoughts on “Projection Division Update”

  1. I think all voting for bylaws changes and board elections should be done through an e-mail message sent to all of the members or with a link to the website and not at an the in-person meetings which have limited attendance, as had been done in the past. Voting at in person meetings does not allow all members to have a voice.

  2. I would like to suggest a major change. I think the popular vote should be done away because contests are not about popularity–they are about the artistic and technical quality/impact of the photo. I like the way other clubs have their judges start with a perfect score and then subtract 1 point for every flaw they find in the photo that needs fixing such as: noise in the background, out of focus, white balance correction, exposure correction, needs sharpening/too much sharpening, not enough or too much hue and saturation, etc., etc. With this method, each photo is judged by the same standards for the same specific strengths and weaknesses in each photo. It also serves as a good critique so everyone can see exactly what corrections their photo needs in order to make it a better photo and what areas should be fixed in Photoshop, Lightroom, etc. Placement should be determined by the Judges and require a minimum score of 27 out of 30 to be eligible for placement. A lower scoring photo can be placed above a higher scoring photo because, despite it’s flaws, it has a bigger WOW factor/impact. This is a more fair way to judge photos and helps everyone improve their artistic and technical skills by providing more specific areas that need improvement. Hopefully this will help everyone create stronger photos that will also help the club do better in the interclub competitions. I know this would be a radical change for everyone; however, I hope you will consider it and be willing to try it for a year or two to see makes our contest more fair and more helpful to everyone’s photographic growth and enjoyment. Thanks for your consideration!

  3. I like the notion of favoring Judges’ scores over popular vote. But but the process of members giving a thoughtful evaluation of each image is important to each member. Maybe more so if members were encouraged to evaluate according the Judging Guidelines. As I read Cheryl’s thoughts, the emphasis seems to be on technical qualities of the image. To my way of thinking, feedback on technical is great, but to the degree that we can encourage photographers to convey emotion, we should find ways to emphasize that.

    For those who want more feedback on technical, as well as emotional, I think we should try again to invite participation in our ClubHub site.https://cameraclubhub.com/c/15 ( Member setup required to get to this, email me for info)

  4. The numeric score can give extra credit to a photo that has an especially appealing subject/composition, good story telling, high impact, etc. Using a point system is easier, faster, more accurate, and evaluates all images by the same standards. It explains how the judges arrived at the total score. The scorecards should be provided to each photographer as they provide very valuable feedback regarding specific flaws/areas that need improvement which the majority could be corrected with their choice of editing software. The judges would not print their names on the scorecards and thus remain anonymous. The star system is way too ambiguous. What’s the difference between 4 and 3 stars or 3 and 2 stars? What criteria determines each star rating? At our in-person meetings, the judges’ total score and total popular votes were announced. Why are we not being provided that information for the on-line competitions? In the past, we have never been told each judge’s score, but we should know the total. It serves as important critique information which helps everyone improve their photography/capturing and editing skills. Many members are not happy with the current system so I propose we experiment by trying something new.

    Thanks for reading and considering these changes.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top