Hi Wilson,

I previous BLP communications I have discussed the reasons why I introduced the concept of Mystery Reviews. If you have any questions in relation to the introduction of MRs, I would be happy to answer your questions.

In regard to the selection of individual MR’s, this has evolved somewhat since the introduction of competition critiquing. Essentially, the MR process is one of judging entries and then writing a critique for each of the awarded entries. Initially, I attempted to utilise independent judges and these people were experienced photographers at club and district level, with expertise in critiquing photos. In all cases the judges had experience in wildlife, nature and bird photography. A comprehensive level of article writing is preferred.

As we moved to three levels of competition and 4+ competitions throughout the year, this meant that we needed 12 MRs if each person contributed a single article. In order to have a varied and fair representation of the key elements of photography I have endeavoured to have 12 different MRs. This hasn’t always been possible.

The last committee and competition coordinator have indicated a preference to utilise experienced photographers from within the membership and I have supported this proposal. As such, we have utilised members who have received our highest award as well as those who have been awarded gold medals in the Advanced and Intermediate competitions. Not all of these individuals agreed to be MRs but several have agreed to contribute. Intermediate level photographers have been used to judge and critique the Entry level competition. Advanced level photographers have agreed to judge and critique the Intermediate level competition. The Advanced level competition has been judged and critiqued by either independent or experienced bird photographers from within BLP who have not entered the Advanced competition.

The MRs for this year’s competitions have already been selected in order that the MR articles accompany the outcome of the membership voting for each competition. The MRs also judge during the period when competition entries are anonymous.

In general MRs do remain anonymous by choice. Some MRs do elect to be named and have done so in the past. I chose this option for the last competition as stepping down from the President’s role should be no perceived conflict of interest. In fact, I hope that contributors to the competition might feel they can ask detailed questions.

We are in the process of seeking expression of interest for the 2021 season and my aim, if endorsed by the new committee, is to further utilise BLP members as well as presenters from the 2019 BLPBC. Should you be interested in being an MR or know of suitable candidates, I would be keen to hear from you.

I trust this answers your question.

I would like to add to Graham's comments that giving our best photographers judging experience is a worthwhile objective per se. All judges start somewhere and BLP Mystery Reviewer assignments are an excellent way of training our own judges. Judging can take a great deal of time and thought and it is unsurprising that we have had difficulty recruiting suitable external professional photographers and national judges. In the circumstances, falling back on our own people to take on the job makes perfect sense. I have acted as a Mystery Reviewer from time to time and found the role a valuable learning experience and it has provided an opportunity to 'give back' something to help BLP in return for all the good things I have taken from BLP. I think we have an excellent Mystery Reviewer panel for 2020 in all of whom I have the utmost confidence that they will do a good job.

Hi Graham and thanks to you and Ian for your input. The "review outside of the vote by members" approach is a good one and should be supported. I understand how much time it can take to judge image competitions too; so, much respect and thanks to those who do it. I guess my question arose because photographic judging is an EXTREMELY subjective thing and is so very much linked to the judges personal preferences and ideas on how a photograph should look. Basic technical requirements aside, as I suggest, it is all very subjective. In terms of the general vote, if you look back over the past results, trends of what is liked and supported (and voted for) are apparent. This means that people vote for what they like and if the photographer knows and understands these trends, they have the choice to submit images they believe will match up with those trends (as I say, it is a choice; that doesn't mean it should be a primary motivation!). With a reviewer who is a "mystery", there is no available opportunity to understand what the personal preferences of that reviewer are and therefore, no available choice to try and match the submitted image(s) with those reviewer preferences. In the BirdLife Australia Photography Awards, for example, the judges are listed and known and therefore, the submitting photographer has the choice of submitting images that will match up with the subjective preferences of the judges if they chose to; the judges even write information about what they "like" and what things "make a good photograph" for them. With a "mystery" reviewer, this choice is not available to the submitting photographer and therefore, the reviewers subjective opinions (which the submitter cannot have any understanding of) take a precedent in the judging. There are myriad opinions of what constitutes a good bird photograph, as I say, outside of the basic technical requirements being met (sharpness, proper exposure, proper color and white balance, etc.), which means there is essentially, no common objective opinion available so photographers can learn beyond the technical basics. This also means photographers with less experience find it difficult to gain confidence, because they submit images that meet all the basic technical requirements well, but still do not receive any acknowledgement that they are "on the right track". This occurs, as I say, because once you gain consistency with basic, technical requirements, its all subjective beyond that. Therefore, for less experienced photographers to have the opportunity to learn, it is good for them to know or at least have some understanding, of the subjective "likes" of the reviewer or judge. Therefore, as I say, the BirdLife Australia Photography Awards, by naming the judges, provides this opportunity, while the "mystery reviewer" approach does not.

I do understand that the "mystery" side is to protect the reviewer, and this probably should not be changed. Therefore, maybe it would be a good idea for the MR to provide upfront (with the listing of the new competition):

1. A written statement about what they look for in a photograph.
2. A written statement explaining what makes a good bird photograph for them and what distinguishes a winning photograph from one that isn't a winning photograph for them.
3. Provision of a few or several examples (not their own, but from other photographers) of what they believe represents a good photograph for the particular competition being run.

This way, the MR may remain a "mystery", but submitting photographers will have some idea of what to aim for based on the totally subjective opinions, likes and attractants of the reviewer. In addition, the information that is provided by the MR currently ONLY in a retrospective context (i.e. the review or critique of what has been already submitted) could be provided before submission, thus allowing more people to try and meet the MR's subjective opinions and quite probably, lowering the work required for the MR in the post-submission review! The thought is that maybe pro-active is more efficient and assistive to people than retrospective? For example, if the MR provides several example images that demonstrate the MR's subjective "opinions" or "likes" in terms of the extent (or lack) of negative space in an image, there would be less (or no) need for long lists of examples of images where the photographers submissions have not met the subjective requirements of the MR in terms of either not enough space or too much. Providing up-front input and making available an understanding of what is expected by the MR seems better than lists that have an ability, for some, to embarrass and even stop them from submitting in the future due to confusion or a feeling of "not being good enough"!

Yes, I would be interested in being a MR for next years competitions and would welcome being able to assist; thanks for the offer.

Thanks and regards,

Wilson

Hi Wilson,

Your name has been added to our list of potential MRs for 2021. More details to follow later in the year.

It might appear that judging is subjective, but I can assure you that experienced judges are trained to work though a list of objective criteria when judging an image. This is not to say there is no subjectivity, but it is well-controlled. This is not my view with our membership voting, however, where the likely winning entries are often favoured species or brightly coloured species. This morning I decided to review the ‘likes’ I received for my Instagram birds and every ‘red’ bird scored the highest, in every case 8-10 times the number of ‘likes’ compared to a plain white, brown or black bird. Ring any bells for the last Advanced membership vote?

I’m intrigued to read that you would select an image based upon the preferences of a judge. I’ve never heard of this before, nor could I readily identify the preferences for the judges in the BAPA, even though I have been following their photography for decades. When I select an image, it is based solely on the key criteria that are generally accepted as contributing to a quality image.

I disagree that there are no objective criteria communicated for a quality image. If you run a Google search you will find an enormous number of articles from photographers and photographic organisations. If you distil the top 10-15 criteria in each article, they are essentially the same even though the hierarchy may vary.

We already have articles and photo essays on the elements that contribute to a quality image and what I see happening is rehashing the information that already exists if MRs contribute their ideas, unless of course they have something completely different to contribute. As I intimated in my recent review, our members should start but understanding the writings of Georgina Steytler and Con Boekel, not to mention the plethora of ideas on the internet from awarded photographers.

Why would I not support the MR providing example images that he/she considers a quality photograph? My personal view is that this would stifle creativity and we are likely to get photos that are all too similar. When I judge, I’m looking for creativity – a photo or photos that are different from the ‘run of the mill’ no matter how good the rest of the field. As to my long list of images in the Advanced competition with too much negative space or too little space ‘caging’ the bird, I was somewhat shocked that Advanced level photographers would overlook such fundamental criteria. I had a second photographer who is not a bird photographer look at several of the ‘negative space’ images and he picked this issue in an instant. The reason I listed these images was to encourage the photographers to look at their image(s) in a new light. The MRs are writing objective critiques for the benefit of our members and I would ask our members to accept the critiques in the spirit in which they are written. I agree with Ian, acting as an MR is a valuable learning experience and I too have full confidence that the 2020 MR panel with contribute guidance and valuable insights for those members who enter each of our three competition levels.

As to the anonymity of the MR, I think this decision should remain with the MR.

Best wishes
Graham