Recently, a small group of photographers (henceforth referred to as “the Committee”) have proposed several drastic and sudden changes to the FPP print competition. While I appreciate their hard work on behalf of the membership, after reviewing the proposals and hearing their arguments at the FPP board meeting on March 1st, 2009, I have come to the conclusion that most of these changes are contrary to the mission and ideals of our organization.

Those in favor of these changes argue that they are attempts to “modernize” our salon competition, and will result in increased participation, revenue, and “fairness” in the results.

The sweeping changes to our venerable and successful salon competition which have been proposed can be separated into two distinct realms. The first is a matter of form: the proposal to judge digital images instead of finished prints. The second is a matter of function: the proposal to limit the artistic techniques which makers may apply to their prints.

Unfortunately, these proposals will most likely not have the intended consequences, and, while well-meaning, actually serve to undermine the goals of the salon competition specifically and of the Florida Professional Photographers, generally.

First, let us examine the proposal to judge digital images instead of finished prints. As I understand it, the Committee suggests that makers should submit a digital image, which will be projected onto a high-quality monitor, and judged in this fashion. The Committee purports that this is necessary for several reasons, including: cost reductions for salon entrants, increased participation amongst FPP members, increased revenue for the FPP through higher case fees, and “modernizing” the competition.

While these are noble goals, this implementation fails to address the fundamental goals and purposes of the salon competition and the Florida Professional Photographers.

It is necessary at this point to define “professional photography.” “Photography” itself is simply the process, activity, and art of creating still images by recording radiation on a photosensitive medium, such as film or an electronic sensor. “Professional photography,” however, goes beyond the mere creation of the image, to encompass the post-production and presentation of the image for a commercial purpose. That is, that aim of a professional photographer is to deliver a finished photographic product to a paying client, and not to merely capture an image.. If we merely captured images we’d just be “photographers,” and not “professional photographers.”

Now we need to define the term “finished photographic product.” A finished photographic product is the ultimate, displayed result of an image captured through photographic means. For example, a print of an image, or an album of a collection of images. A digital image can, in some cases, be considered a “finished photographic product,” but in the business of most members of the Florida Professional Photographers, it is not. If a client is delivered a digital image, and all they do with it is display it electronically, then, yes, the digital file is a “finished product.” But most clients do not do this. If they are given a file, what they actually want and produce is a printed image or album. So if a client is given a file, and they then print that image, or bind that image into an album, then the digital file was, by definition, not a finished product, but merely an intermediary step in creating a finished product..

Next, what is the purpose of print critique? The purpose of print critique is to educate the makers of photographic images in order to improve the quality of their offerings. What is the purpose of print competition? The purpose of print competition is to reward those who create the highest quality photographic images.

With these definitions, can we agree that the mission statement of a “professional photographic print critique and competition” should be to:

“Educate the makers of and to reward those who produce the highest quality of finished photographic products.”

Why do we have a salon competition? The answer is very simple: print education. The goal of the salon competition is not to make money, and is not to provide an affordable pastime for the members. The goal of the salon competition is to educate the members of the FPP and the public as to the highest standards of quality in professional photography.

In what way does a digital salon competition forward these goals?

First and most obviously a digitally presented competition fails to meet the basic criteria set forth by “finished photographic product.” Professional photographers deliver a “finished photographic product,” and since most clients want more than just a digital image, merely presenting a digital image is not sufficient to meet the standards of a professional photographic competition.

It has also been purported that “it’s coming,” and that eventually digital image delivery will be the standard in photography. This is completely untrue. There is as much an art to the finishing and printing of an image as there is to its capture, so there will always be a market for this skill. It is not necessary from a business standpoint to deliver digital image files. Case in point, my and my wife’s company, The k Gallery, does not deliver digital files from portrait sessions ever, and will not sell a disc of image files without the sale of a completed album, and our company is successful and profitable even during these dark economic times.

The debate should end there, but let us continue because the folly of this proposition should be exposed in full so we may put it permanently to rest.

We have already established that a digital image is not a “finished photographic product.” Let’s move on to our aim of rewarding “the highest quality” of photographic products. In what way does a digital projection improve the ability of judges to determine the quality of an image?

The calibration of images for print is well established, and since the lighting standards for print competition, in terms of both intensity and color temperature, are well established, a straightforward process exists by which printmakers may determine how their image will be presented to the judges. The same cannot be said of digital monitors. How will these monitors be calibrated? How can an image maker be sure their work will be viewed? They can’t, because subtle variations in monitors and calibration technology can give their images odd colorcasts or loss of highlight or shadow detail.

Worse, still, their images will be viewed at much lower resolution. The effective “resolution” of a printed image (say, 300dpi) is much greater than the resolution of a digitally-presented image (72dpi). Fine detail will be lost at these low resolutions.

If a judge is uncertain of the quality of an image, in a printed competition he or she can get up and examine the image up close to check sharpness, grain, or the skillfulness of digital enhancements. Not so with a digitally-displayed image. Get up close to a digitally-displayed image and it all just looks like pixels. Monitors are also less likely to be able to display fine details in the highlights or shadows of the images. What this means, then, is that the quality of the judging of digital images will actually be degraded versus the quality of the judging of printed images. Clearly, “digital judging” fails the “highest quality” standard.

Further, let’s consider other tenants of the “highest quality” metric. Digital presentation removes options that photographers may use to enhance their images further. For example, photographers will no longer be able to choose different matting products or paper surfaces to enhance the presentation of their images. Already by use of digital judging, potential creativity has been robbed from album makers. For example, a long, thin, vertical album might be very interesting in print, but is now entirely un-salonable because it would appear so small on the display screen. A digital salon results in a non-malleable format which robs image makers of potential avenues of creativity.

Ultimately, this serves to undermine the very tenants of the competition. How can we as a professional photographers, and in one breath tell clients they need our professionally printed images, and in the next, say that we’ll settle for obviously lower quality digital presentations for our own “best of” print competition?

Next, we can all agree that the print exhibition serves as an excellent educational tool for our organization. Through the print exhibition, competitors, non-competitors, and the public can examine the quality of our work and learn from the images’ scores, comparing them side-by-side. There’s an emotional side to this display as well. The print exhibition has been characterized as “the heart of the FPP convention.” Without this exhibition, we lose not just the opportunity to learn from each other and market our skills to the public and to photographers who might refer to one another, but we lose the intangible wonderment of seeing our achievements realized and displayed for all to see. Worse, still, we lose the ability to inspire the next generation of professional photographers to reach for those same achievements.

So we’ve determined conclusively that a digital salon does not enhance the quality of photographic education, and actually reduces the amount of worthwhile feedback a photographer can receive while limiting their creativity. Now let’s examine why a digital competition will not increase the revenues generated by nor the participation of photographers in our salon.

It has been proposed that a digital salon will increase participation. Some members of the Committee suggested that this had been “proven” because the move to a digital album competition increased the number of entries in this event. But from whence did this increase come? Did the creation of a digital album competition entice new entrants, or did it simply shift competitors from the individual print competitions to the album competition? For example, in years’ past, Krystal and I would enter one dual-maker album, and then five prints each. Last year, we entered five dual-maker digital albums, and only one print each. No new participants in the competition were gained; we simply shifted participants from one aspect of the competition to the other. So, the idea that digital competition will increase participation levels is possible, but currently groundless.

Actually, the proposed method of conducting the digital salon could lead to less participation! It has been proposed that, since photographers will no longer need to print their images, they will have more money available for the entry fees, and we could therefore increase the case fee. If it previously it cost $300 to print a case full of images, and then another $65 to have them judged, that does not mean that a $200 case fee with zero printing costs is enticing enough to prompt more participation. The psychological impact of a $200 case fee, far more than any other print competition in the world, may actually serve to depress participation numbers.

And in the long run, when, because of the demonstrably poorer quality of the results (images judged improperly because of the digital display technology, fewer opportunities for print critique and education because of the loss of the print exhibition), many competitors may choose to no longer bother entering. Why enter a competition when you know your high-quality image can lose to a much poorer-quality image because the difference is indiscernible on a poor-quality monitor?

Could a digital salon actually make more money than a print salon? Perhaps it may be possible to increase revenues through higher case fees, assuming competitors don’t abandon the event because of the lower standards imposed, but what of the costs? How much will it cost to provide the monitors needed to display the images to the judges? And for some kind of a digital print exhibit? How many tens of thousands of dollars are these displays and computer systems going to cost, and will they not just consume any possible profits we might realize through the (unverified) increased participation and case fees?

It’s also been suggested by members of the Committee that the print competition, once digital, could even be disassociated from the convention, and webcast instead. For many people, the only reason to attend the convention is the print competition. Without the print competition, is it not possible convention attendance will drop, further reducing FPP revenues? And making it more difficult to obtain group-rate discounts for the facilities?

Worse than any of these financial considerations, though, is the potential damage to our relationships with FPP sponsors. The FPP currently has a budget shortfall because of reduced industry sponsorship. The FPP is, however, still supported by several high-profile professional printing labs. What kind of message do we send to them when we decide to abandon prints as the standard by which professional photographers are measured? When we send the message to our members and to the public that prints are obsolete and not necessary? We also send the message to the labs that they are not necessary. And if we send that message to the labs, they may send a resounding message right back to us: that we are not necessary to them, either. If we lose the support of the professional labs, our budget shortfall could turn into a financial catastrophe.

So, we have shown conclusively that the concept of a digital salon decreases the quality of the educational and competition experience of the FPP convention. While members of the Committee suggest it may increase revenues, these claims are dubious, as a digital competition will definitely increase expenses and may actually decrease, rather than increase participation.

There is no good reason to switch to a digital competition. The quality of the competition, and the quality of the educational opportunities it affords will definitely decrease, as no argument has been put forth that a digital competition will result in a fairer or more accurate assessment of the photographic talents or techniques of the participants. A digital competition will definitely increase the costs required to host the FPP salon, and may or may not increase competition revenues, but may drastically reduce FPP support from professional labs, creating catastrophic budget shortfalls.

When a digital salon will definitely not increase the quality of image education and competition and could well lead to FPP financial ruin, the only reasonable and responsible answer to this proposition is a resounding “NO.”

Let us now move on to the proposed rule changes for the function of our competition: those governing the nature of “photography” versus “electronic imaging,” and a few other minor points.

First, let’s get the minor arguments out of the way. Why is there a differentiation between “portrait of a child” and “portrait of children” but not “an individual” and “a couple?” I understand the Committee didn’t want to have two children compete against a family portrait of 20, but doesn’t it make more sense to simply change the “portrait of a child” to “portrait of children?” Why should an engagement session image (a very common professional photographic product) have to compete against a “portrait of a group” but a portrait of two children shouldn’t?

Also, why did we combine “portrait of a man” and “portrait of a woman?” These sorts of images invoke completely different emotional responses are very difficult to compare to one another. They are also two of the most frequently entered categories. Combining them serves no purpose. If there are too many categories, eliminate “environmental portrait,” as all environmental portraits already fit into another category.

That said, let’s move on to the more salient points of the nonsensical rule-changes governing “electronic” and “photographic” images.

What is the purpose of these rule changes? What is “broken” that needs fixing? Members of the Committee suggested that these changes are needed because “the world has changed, and we need to adapt to modern times, in which digital imaging has ‘taken over’ photography.” True, there have been a few instances where images for which their primary content is “electronic” have achieved high standing over images for which the primary content is “photographic.” But what is the impact of this development, how prevalent is it, and what is the best remedy?

First, how common is this? That “electronic” images usurp the rightful place of “photographic” images in the print competition? The answer: not often. Look back through the winning images in each category for the past several years. For the most part, winning images are photographic in nature, employing techniques no more advanced than a simple black & white filter, some dodging and burning, and maybe some “liquify” effects. Since mostly photographic images are winning our photographic competition...isn’t it more likely that some images have been miscategorized than it is to say that the rules need a complete re-write? There are already categories established for electronic images. We could simply move electronic images from the photographic competition to the Art Tech competition, placing them properly, and no re-write to the rules would be required at all!

So, we’ve demonstrated that the system isn’t broken as is. Photographic images generally win the photographic competition.. Electronic images can be moved to a different category. The problem is not with the rules, but with the implementation of the rules, and we should be able to end the discussion here and ignore the proposed changes to the FPP salon rules.

But since we’re engaged in an ontological discourse anyway, let’s remove any doubt that these changes are contrary to the best interests of the FPP specifically and the profession of photography in general.

Why should we in our print competition artificially limit the tools available to professional photographers to “those available in the camera or in the darkroom?”

Once again we have to go back to our definition of “professional photography.” A professional photographer delivers finished photographic products to the public. “The public” does not care what filters were applied to an image, or what digital manipulation techniques went into the creation of the image. “The public” cares about the quality and the aethstetics of the finished product.

Members of the Committee suggested that it was necessary that we “recognize the changing face of photography” and “move forward” in this new digital age. Their prescription for this, in our competition, is to pretend it’s 1995 all over again, and limit what we can do to what one can do “in the camera, or in the darkroom!” This idea, that we limit our creativity to what we could only do 15 years ago is so sad it would only be funny if it weren’t seriously proposed.

Remember, we’re “professional photographers,” not just “photographers.” That means, we have to deliver products to the public, to our clients. Our clients do not care whether we’re using box cameras or the Hubble Telescope, they just want pictures. It is unfathomable why we should artificially limit ourselves to a very small subset of the image making tools available to us. Our field is increasingly competitive, and our clients want the best images possible, not the best images possible if we were only using outdated chemical processes. The idea that the way to “move forward” and adapt our competition to the realities of digital imaging is to revert to darkroom techniques of decades ago is mind-numbingly backwards. We should be embracing these technologies and extending them to realize the full potential of what we can do as artists, not artificially hobbling ourselves. Doing so is a disservice to our artistic integrity and our commercial viability. This sort of suggestion makes it very clear how out of touch the Committee is with the expectations of the state of the art, and the expectation of modern clientele. The average age of a Committee member is easily inferred from this ridiculous suggestion that we throw out half the tools easily available to us in modern image making.

A much simpler alternative, instead, is to recognize that our toolbox has expanded, and to expand with it. A “photographic image” is one in which the primary content of the image is photographic in nature. An “electronic image” is one in which the primary content of the image is electronic image in nature. Then, leave it to the judges to place and judge these images appropriately.

There it is. A digital salon will likely cost us more than a print salon, while decreasing the quality of the educational and competition experience to the entrants, with questionable impact on participation. The proposed rule changes with regards to the content of salon images only serves to impede the artistic progress and commercial viability of our members, with no positive benefit. All of these changes should be rejected for the financial and artistic benefit of the members of the Florida Professional Photographers.

Sincerely,

Matt Radlinski
Master Photographer, FSA
The k Gallery