The club used to mark out of 10 for the season league, with half marks. The range for acceptable photos was 6–10 with the average adequate shot being 7/7.5, and authors of the ‘good’ shots (on the night) scoring 8 or above having their name announced. 9.5/10 also merited a round of applause. Really poor shots, or dreadful presentation might score as low as 4.
We now have new software, which works in whole numbers only, so to balance with the half-marks of yore, the scoring is out of 20. Rather than scoring in a normal range of marks from 12 to 20, our judges have confined themselves to 16-20, which should have resulted in every photo having it’s author identified something very much not our intention. It also means there is little or no discrimination visible when as a club we review the scores and this is highly unsatisfactory. The claim of “the standard is so good…” does not wash — the range is the range on the night, and the spread should reflect that.
It seems to be a human built-in in some fashion, so much so that we may have to revert to scores out of 10, and do hidden doubling to get a reasonable range and fit with the software.
Really, that’s very interesting and from the judges I have seen our way recently does not surprise me. In fact it explains alot :/ We have a guy that keeps meaning to go on the workshop but it keeps falling on the wrong date. Such a lack of good judges atm.
What software do you use, As my club are inputting by hand and its very time consuming !
And dont get me started on judges!
It’s PhotoComp Software which works only on windows or parallels, our Digital Secretary has trouble with it…
I don’t understand why it does not use the EXIF data to get author / title.
Went on a Judge’s workshop recently. It was all about public speaking, and not putting people off, with little about assessing the images