LRPS Portfolio
These are the images that I submitted as my LRPS portfolio on February 28, 1999. The Royal Photographic Society requires ten photos. Nothing new here; all of these pictures can be seen elsewhere. Instead of having an ad-hoc collection of ten photos, I put together a portfolio consisting of five groups of two photos each. My aim was to demonstrate that I enjoy photographing people, and have done so in a number of different ways, but that I also work with other subjects as well (the purpose of the last group).
The Portfolio
Page 1: Eddie and Chris
Page 2: Inertia and Alexys
Page 3: Marysia 1 and 2
Page 4: Oksana 1 and 2
Page 5: The Cloisters, NYC and Sculpture
Rejected
Believe it or not, the RPS rejected my application! I was pretty flabbergasted, since while I don't think that my photos are the most amazing in the world, I was applying for the lowest distinction offered, and the photos are hardly poor.
The judges had a number of gripes. In general, they felt that my presentation was lacking because I didn't mount the prints. It turns out that they wanted to hang the pictures on a wall and study them that way. I thought that they'd just look at my portfolio, so I brought them in that. I have never mounted a photo in my life. Why should I? I don't hang them up, and mounting costs money since I don't have my own mounting press, and the mounted photos would just take up more room in my flat.
The judges also criticized me for including the last two pictures, which they said were incongruous vis-á-vis the rest of the portfolio. I felt that this criticism was a bit unfair, since I'd gone out of my way, as described in the first paragraph, to provide a coherent portfolio, and I'd included the last two solely because I was worried that they'd criticize me for submitting a portfolio consisting of nothing but studio photos. The only guideline was, "beware of including too great a diversity within the portfolio." The judges didn't like the last two pictures even taken by themselves. They complained about my chopping off the top of the Cloisters (nobody said anything about the beautiful curve of the driveway) and opined that I cropped the photo of the sculpture too tightly; I wondered if they thought that the photo of the sculpture would have been improved by including more of the boring grey background. One of the judges even told me that I should stick to studio photography, a comment which I found offensive.
As for the others, when challenged, the judges were hard pressed to come up with very many specific complaints. One of the judges explained that "you have to be careful with lith printing" to avoid white areas like those in the Inertia photos. I told him that it wasn't a mistake, that I'd gone out of my way to print them like that. He just responded with something about how "the eye searches for detail in empty spaces," but I think that he was just covering for himself, not wanting to admit that he had misinterpreted my photo. Another judge, or maybe it was the same one, complained that Oksana's smile was too cliche and that I should have chosen a better expression, and that the photo would have been better if she'd had her arms crossed.
In essence, the RPS rejected my LRPS application because (a) my prints weren't mounted, (b) I chopped the top off the Cloisters, and (c) the judges disagreed with my aesthetic decisions regarding the cropping of the sculpture, Oksana's pose and expression, and the printing of the Inertia pictures. The judges didn't say that they thought that I was incapable of producing LRPS-quality work; in fact, they invited me to "fix" the problems and resubmit my portfolio (along with another £35, of course). Based on the comments from the judges, I could have gone home and returned the next day with a portfolio that would be accepted simply by printing a different frame of Oksana, making normal-contrast prints of Inertia and of Alexys, replacing the last two pictures with two more portraits, and mounting the pictures. It seemed like the RPS felt that my photos were on the LRPS level but was looking for a reasons to reject me.
I'm not sure if I'm going to bother resubmitting my portfolio. My impression of the judges was not favorable. Even before they told me of their decision, I felt that they were quite a snobbish, pretentious bunch. When their aesthetic opinions conflicted with mine, they assumed that theirs were "right." They were also very condescending; they assumed that after being rejected for the LRPS, I would want them to help me improve. (Presumably one of them would come by to help me select which photo of Oksana to print.)
Judge for Yourself
So, is it just sour grapes or do I have a legitimate complaint? Judge my portfolio for yourself. Rate it from 1-8 on each of the following seven categories (taken directly from the LRPS guidelines).
Camera Work
Is the choice of viewpoint and lighting sympathetic with the subject? Has focusing and exposure been
accurately executed?
Technical Quality
Has contrast, highlight, and shadow detail been properly controlled? Is the color balance acceptable?
Are there no processing faults, i.e. [sic], chemical staining or spots which need attention?
Appropriateness of Technique
Have the appropriate materials been chosen and is the format acceptable? Has the correct shutter speed
and depth of field been selected?
Visual Awareness
How decisive is the arrangement and composition? Has imagination and creativitity been adequately
explored?
Communication
Do the images emphathize with the viewer? Is the desired information and mood conveyed?
Range of Work
Has the subject or subject areas been adequately explored? Are the materials and techniques used
acceptable?
Presentation
Has the final submission been edited and selected to present the strongest possible portfolio?
After you've scored the portfolio, take a look at how the judges scored.
All contents copyright 1999 by Willis BoyceLast updated November 19, 2001