LRPS | The Why, the What and the How of a Submission
The final panel selection for my successful LRPS submission in February 2023. Images are presented without titles.
The Why
I recently submitted the above panel of images as a application for the Licentiate (LRPS) distinction from the Royal Photographic Society. Much to my delight the submission was successful and I was awarded the distinction, allowing me use the letters LRPS after my name. While this confers no great advantage, I’m probably as pleased with this as I was with any of my academic or professional qualifications. Photography is important to me and to be recognised brings me great pleasure.
I had been mulling over taking some form of qualification or award for a while and eventually settled on the RPS distinctions as being the one that I felt suited me best. Unlike some other awards, the emphasis throughout the awards is on a consistent body of work, rather than achieving excellence in individual images. It’s not that one is better than the other, it’s just more a reflection of what I think is my direction of travel and style.
Because of this I think that there’s less pressure to produce high impact images - the flow and harmony of the images are as important and the individual shots themselves. I’ll touch on this in a little more detail below.
I’ll also confess that there’s an element of wanting some of the credibility that external validation of competence can bring. I’m relatively new to the club photography scene and have, more by accident than design, found myself taking a leading role at my own club (President) in a relatively short space of time. In many respects I’m still a relative unknown, and I don’t have the track record that some of our members have established over many years in the club.
The standard of photographer we have is also frighteningly high (the club came second in national competition this year), so it’s also perhaps an antidote to a mild dose of imposter syndrome!
The What
The three galleries below show the images submitted in the order that they were presented in the panel. The images themselves are also accompanied by a display panel showing all the images grouped together - there’s a version of this at the top of this piece. The panel, as I’ll discuss later, is an important component of the submission. On the day images are displayed without titles - I’ve added them in her for a little context.
I will confess that I didn’t go in blind. The RPS offer a couple of pre-submission review options. All come at a modest cost. I opted for an online, one to one session which I wanted to give me reassurance that I wasn’t wasting my time and my money. I was lucky enough to be assigned an absolutely fabulous photographer, Carol McNiven Young. (She had, coincidentally, judged at our club over lockdown. Her website - here - is well worth a look).
Based on Carol’s feedback I made one substitution, bringing in the Speedway image and losing a track bike shot, and made a few additional edits to the images. These were, on the whole, relatively minor technical issues and suggestions on cropping and sizing.
(If, however, you’re under an misconception that the RPS is in anyway staid or conservative, you should probably drop those now. The level of processing advice was really high quality and there was no fear of making quite radical edits if need be. I drew the line at flipping the Loch Fada image, with the globally recognised profile of the Storr in the background, to suit the panel better. I flipped the Yesnaby cliffs instead!)
The majority of the guidance, however, focussed on the panel and the ordering and sizing of the images. While I knew that this was viewed as the eleventh image, I hadn’t appreciated how much emphasis was placed on this aspect. In the conversation with Carol it was critiqued in exactly the same fashion as any of the images. Does the balance of colours and tones work? Are there elements that lead you into or out of the panel? Do the sizes and weights of the images balance and does it have a symmetry and order? In the end we probably spent as much time on this as the images collectively.
It’s here the main changes were implemented and compromises made. I’d placed the people related images on the top line in my initial version - the darker colours and tones unbalanced the panel and the ‘weightier’ images were taken into the bottom row. Similarly, the lighter tones of the gannet and thistle moved up. A couple of the landscapes in the middle row took the eye out of the panel - these were reordered and, as mentioned, the geography of Yesnaby cliffs was reversed with little ceremony. Changes to the crops were also made, to make the display symmetrical and this necessitated a number of changes to the crops.
Overall, while the session generated additional work it was really instructive and Carol was generous not only with advice, but with the rationale and reasoning. In the end the layout received some really positive feedback, so it was well worth the effort.
The How
The application process is all handled online. There’s a fee, of course, but it’s not outrageous and it helps if you’re already a member of the RPS (which I was). If you’re not a member, they give you more than one opportunity to apply! I found the submission process really straightforward and the RPS were very quick in coming back and acknowledging each step of the process. They were also very good at providing updates on the scheduling of the assessment and options to attend, either in person or remotely.
In Sync. Of the ten I was probably most pleased with the feedback for this image. The difficulty was acknowledged straight from the start, the strength of the diagonal composition attracted comment as did the sense of motion. I think Speedway makes a fantastic subject; sadly it’s not an opinion shared by many club judges. It was refreshing, therefore, to see it singled out for attention.
I’d made my submission in November, but the first assessment date was the February meaning that nearly three months had passed between me submitting the images and the judging process. It felt like seeing the images with fresh eyes, and probably not in a positive way. I hadn’t expected to be nervous; in the end the discussion process was a little nerve-wracking.
I benefitted from mine being the first set of images up in the session, so I didn’t know quite what to expected. If I’d have been later, I think the nerves would have been much worse. The scrutineering process is much more forensic than I’d anticipated…
The guidance is quite good. For the Licentiate award you’re told that the assessment will focus on four areas: (1) Camera work and Technical Quality; (2) Visual Awareness; (3) Communication; and (4) Overall Impression.
You’re also told the process; the images and panel will be shown twice and then the five adjudicators are invited to vote on the work. Panel members will then be asked to comment on the submission before taking a second and final vote. If a panel is successful the name of the successful applicant is announced; if not they remain anonymous and feedback is provided at a later date.
What the guidance doesn’t prepare you for is the level of detail in which the images are examined. The first aspect, camera work and technical quality, needs to be close to perfect. This includes the post processing which, again, needs to be done to the highest standard. In addition, the panel can ask for individual images to be redisplayed and they can then be examined and critiqued in fine detail.
To give an idea of the scrutiny, twelve submissions were reviewed in the three hour session, an average of 15 minutes being spent on each entry. I’ve seen club judges go through twice the number of images in half the time! The other aspect that struck me as the day went on was that the expectation is very high. What looked like good submissions to me were rejected on the basis of weakness in one or two images, or the failure to control one or more technical aspects. The judging is very technical and there are no places to hide!
In the event, my submission escaped without serious criticism. The highlights on the squirrel shot were examined in quite some detail and one member thought there may have been a slight halo around the bottom of the kitesurfer. After pulling the image up to full size on a 6 metre screen they decided there wasn’t. The summary comments were very complimentary and I was really quite relieved when my name was read out!
Others weren’t so lucky. Of the twelve submissions assessed on the day, just three were successful. I’d started the process thinking not that it would be easy, but that there would be a certain amount of latitude in the assessment. I ended the day with a renewed respect for those that have been successful at all levels of distinction.
Observations
My advice to anyone considering going through the process would be to ensure that the basics are done not just well, but as close to perfectly as possible. I think of this as defensive photography and the gannet image below is probably as good an example as any.
This probably isn’t the most creative image of a gannet, but everything that matters has been done well.
First and foremost the image needs to be sharp where it matters. If a shallow depth of field is used, then the critical areas need to be spot on; if the intention is front to back sharpness, then it needs to be front to back. The shutter speed needs to be right; here it’s fast and freezes the bird mid-flight; every detail in the eyes, feathers and wings is crisp and clear. The landscape images create movement or tranquillity through a slower shutter, which is appropriate for the subject. In all these aspects, I think it pays to be definite. Where a slow shutter is used it should be obvious that that was the intent; likewise where areas are out of focus.
Exposure needs to be controlled. My observation would be that blown highlights are judged harshly, particularly where the photographer had time or control. In these cases I’d almost go so far as to say that blown highlights equate to blown chances. Noise is another area that will come under scrutiny, as will positioning in the frame and the use of negative space.
The bottom line, I think, is to ensure that the images submitted don’t give the adjudicators an obvious reason to ‘fail’ an image. This isn’t an environment, I feel, to submit experimental work or demonstrate techniques you’re just starting to explore. A defensive strategy, ensuring you’ve addressed weaknesses first before attacking with impact, is probably well rewarded.
For my own panel, I don’t think any of the images are high-impact competition winners. Indeed, the landscapes were described as ‘quiet’ and it’s quite clear that this was intended as positive comment. Instead, where I scored, I think, was in paying attention to the detail and, in particular, the blend of images, complementary tones and certain consistency of style.
Next Steps / Development
The best advice I received on the day was to enjoy the achievement before thinking about the next level. I’m certainly going to do the first; going to the next level is something that requires much more thought. The Associate and Fellowship levels are very different beasts, requiring a consistent body of work rather than just a complimentary images. That requires motive, means and opportunity…
