Diversity is key – why judge selection is critical for a strong competition
When photographers enter a competition, they are placing something personal into the hands of people that, in most cases, they do not know.
And it has to be remembered that they are not simply uploading digital files. They are submitting photographs that may have taken hours, days or even years to create. Images that represent the experiences they have built up, a style they have developed, and a voice they have found. It's an investment that needs to be properly acknowledged.
That is why the people chosen to judge those photographs matter so much.
A strong competition needs more than a collection of recognisable names. It needs a panel with genuine experience, integrity and, perhaps most importantly, different ways of seeing photography, nature and the world as a whole.
There is no single definition of a great photograph
Perhaps the most important thing to keep to the forefront of our minds is that photography is subjective.
That may sound obvious, but it is one of the most important principles behind any judging process. A perfect technical image may leave one judge unmoved, while another may argue its merits. The next may find something extraordinary in a photograph that is ambiguous, unconventional or imperfect.
There is no right or wrong – these are opinions based on individual experience and personality.
The strength comes from the debate and bringing those perspectives together.
A well-balanced judging panel should not be designed to produce immediate agreement. It should create discussion. It should encourage judges to question their first reactions, defend their choices and sometimes reconsider photographs they may initially have overlooked. That tension is healthy and it is often where the most thoughtful decisions are made.
Diversity means more than geography
Diversity is not simply restricted to where people come from. This is a small part of the bigger picture. A strong panel should include diversity of experience, style, philosophy and photographic background. It should bring together photographers who approach their subjects in different ways.
Some may work in a highly observational or documentary style. Others may use movement, abstraction or deliberate ambiguity to interpret what they see. Some may place great emphasis on fieldcraft and authenticity. Others may be interested in experimentation and the way a photograph can move beyond literal description.
But as much as there should be great diversity, there should also be a balance of personalities.
A panel made up entirely of people who think alike may reach decisions quickly, but that does not necessarily mean those decisions will be better. A panel containing different voices is more likely to challenge assumptions and recognise a wider range of photographic achievement.
Having been involved in many judging discussions and ‘lively debates’ over my time, the most interesting conversations are those where there isn’t agreement and opinion is divided. In my view, there can be few greater compliments for a photographer than having an image provoke a passionate debate amongst a judging panel. It also means the competition has got the balance of the panel right.
The aim is not disagreement for its own sake.
It is breadth.
Judges should be chosen for judgement
Again, another statement that may sound obvious. But is it?
A large social media audience is an obvious draw for competitions that are seeking a wider reach. But a large following does not automatically make someone a good judge. It could simply mean they are good at understanding the algorithms of those popular platforms.
Judging requires a broader set of skills.
A good judge draws on their own experience and personal style. They clearly understand what they like and why they like it. But it is the ability to see an alternative perspective and understand the argument behind it that makes a panel work. Looking beyond personal taste, recognising intent and understanding technique is crucial as this allows them to respond to images that may sit outside their own preferred style.
The best judges do not simply reward photographs that resemble their own work. They remain open to surprise. They are willing to be challenged and capable of recognising quality in forms they may not personally create. In other words, they possess independence of thought.
Photographers deserve transparency
This is hugely important and has been the pillar of the WildArt philosophy.
The judging panel tells photographers a massive amount about a competition – its values, its standards and, perhaps most importantly, its direction.
Entrants should know who will be judging their work before they even consider entering a competition. That transparency builds trust and allows potential entrants to understand the range of perspectives represented, and to decide whether they feel confident placing their work before that panel.
Different perspectives, one panel
While Josh Galicki and I were at Global BirdFair with WildArt, we recorded some live podcasts for The Wildlife Photography Podcast at the event. Two of those conversations featured members of our judging panel – Jiří Hřebíček and Vince Maidens (not counting Josh himself, of course). Now, you couldn’t get two more different approaches to photography if you tried, and it demonstrates perfectly why contrasting perspectives are so valuable.
Jiri creates expressive, painting-like photographs using movement, atmosphere and imagination. His work often moves beyond literal representation to explore how a moment feels.
Vince brings a very different perspective. He is known for his uncompromising views on authenticity, ethics and the way wildlife photographs are created.
Their approaches are not the same - that is precisely why both voices matter.
If you want to listen to the podcasts (and if you are thinking of entering the competition, then I suggest you do) click the links below.
Over the coming weeks, we will also be introducing more of the photographers entrusted with judging this year’s WildArt Bird Photography Awards.
Different perspectives. Stronger decisions.
Rob Read.
Comments