This week I continue to step away from my usual shamanic concerns to talk about my other great passion, photography. Specifically, my journey into applying for and being awarded the Royal Photographic Society’s Licentiate Distinction.
In this instalment, I’ll tell you about RPS Advisory Days, which can help you to shape your panel. Part 3, focusses on how you finalise your panel and offers a few tips for success. Finally, in Part 4, I’ll look at how you apply and the assessment process.
Part 2: Advisory Days
What is an LRPS Advisory Day?
The Royal Photographic Society run Advisory Days, where you can present your ten printed and mounted images for expert analysis. Don’t do what I did for my first booked Advisory Day and forget how long it takes to get your images professionally mounted. I went to see my preferred print studio just 24 hours before my Advisory Day, so I had to delay my date – oops!
What do you have to submit for an LRPS Advisory Day?
If you’ve chosen the print option (as opposed to digital) you need to submit 10 prints and a hanging plan (or panel, see above, or below!), as you would for an LRPS submission. You are also allowed to include three spare images for consideration as alternatives. The prints must be mounted, just as you would provide for a submission.
Has anything changed in the pandemic?
Yes! Currently you can submit your images digitally. The pandemic has necessitated that Advisory Days take place on Zoom, instead of in front of an audience. Keep an eye on the RPS website (the link is here) for the most up to date information.
What do you think about your LRPS Advisory Day panel now?
Looking at it (below), to be honest, I cringe that I didn’t use the RPS template. I also did not use the cropped images that I actually used for the prints. This means that they are not uniform (i.e. portraits aren’t the same size, landscapes aren’t the same size). It just looks a bit amateur. Plus, the colour and black and white images are not balanced within the panel.
What did the LRPS advisory board say?
I quickly learned that you have to have a bit of a thick skin! I was unlucky enough to be reviewed after two strong panels, in which only minor changes had been recommended. Thus, it was hard to hear what I perceived as a much harsher set of criticism.
You have to keep in mind, however, that it is always constructive. They want you to do well when you submit your final panel. Bruised ego aside, I could see what they meant with each critique. In the end, their feedback encouraged me to want to do better.
Speaking of the panel as a whole, they remarked that I’d perhaps over-relied on similar images (four are city skylines). I had also not shown enough variety of approach. Finally, I could have better distributed my monochrome images throughout the panel. Fair comments.
How did they critique each image?
I’ll set out each photograph and a summary of their comments. My advice is to have a look at each image yourself and think about how you would critique it. Then, see if your thoughts align with the panel members. That way, you will know if you are thinking along the same lines as the RPS board.
Image 1
The LRPS advisors thought that this was a good example of capturing a successful image in low light. It was suited to black & white, with a good range of tones. In an ideal world, they remarked that I could have removed the glass in the foreground. However, they accepted that since this was not staged but ‘in the moment’, it could not really be helped.
The feedback was positive. I took away from the discussion that this image was a suitable one for my panel. It felt like a good start…
Conclusion: Selected.
Image 2
For this image, the LRPS advisors thought that there was a good range of tones. However, it lacked a key additional element.
It’s a pretty image. However, the feedback was that it needed something else (e.g. a boat) in order to hold the viewer’s interest. As much as I liked it, I could see that the lower half was not very interesting. Plus, the clouds are really not dramatic enough to impress.
Conclusion: Rejected.
Image 3
Advisors thought that this was a good example of using differential focus but that the subject was not acceptably sharp.
Don’t get sentimental with your photographs. Just because it’s an image of someone dear to you (in this case, my partner), this should not guarantee its inclusion.
From a technical point of view, I could see that it was not as sharp as it needed to be. On the day, the advisers often commented about the sharpness of the eye, when considering other candidates’ panels. I concede that it is just not good enough here.
Conclusion: Rejected.
Image 4
The LRPS advisors did not think that the choice of post processing was suitable for the subject.
To some extent, I disagree. I like the choice of Split Tone, which, to me, echoes old prints that I’ve seen of London. However, I think that this comment is more valuable when considering the panel, as a whole.
Thus, looking at the full panel, you can see how it stands out as ‘different’ from the other prints. The unique choice of Split Tone (rather than colour or monochrome) looks odd. It’s also replicating the subject matter (St Paul’s) of the technically better night photograph (Image 8).
Conclusion: Rejected.
Image 5
The LRPS advisors felt that the central area was a little bright. An additional element was needed in order to effectively communicate the subject.
The advisers more broadly discussed taking photographs of other people’s art (in this case, Olifur Eliasson’s ‘Beauty’ at Tate Modern) and the difficulty of ‘making it your own’. I could argue that it becomes mine because of the choice of camera settings and the capturing of a particular ‘definitive’ moment but I understand their point.
Indeed, the ‘ethics’ of employing this kind of subject matter is something I still wrestle with when taking photos of Street Art (see Part 1). What am I bringing to the photograph or am I just ‘documenting’? It was suggested that the inclusion of a person interacting (i.e. a child reacting in wonder, a confused bystander, etc) with the piece would render it more personal.
Conclusion: Rejected.
Image 6
The LRPS advisors felt that the subject was suited to monochrome. Although they felt it would have benefitted from a different viewpoint and less sky.
In fact, I had cropped the sky for the actual print. I concede, however, that there is far too much blank space in this image.
An additional issue was that I did not communicate what I wanted the focus to be – the angel’s gaze. I wanted to convey the poignancy of a graveyard, which hosts the memorial to the victims of the Aberfan disaster, and I do not feel that this was fully achieved.
Conclusion: Rejected.
Image 7
The LRPS advisors commented that there was good light in the sky but that it was rather dark in the central area. They also felt that the composition could be improved.
I accept that this image is too dark. I improved it in the print version but I accept that I lost detail. Whilst it’s a ‘nice’ sky, I do not think it is exceptional.
Conclusion: Rejected.
Image 8
Again, the advisors felt that there was good light in the sky. They liked the clouds, caught by the long exposure. But the composition could have been improved.
This is the only example of my diverging from their expert opinion. I felt that this was a strong image and, personally, I like the composition. Sometimes, you have to go with your gut instinct and this one felt worth submitting and accepting the risk.
Conclusion: Selected.
Image 9
The comments were that it was clear that this photograph was taken later in the evening than Image 8 (see previous image), since there were no clouds captured. This, they felt, rendered the sky less interesting. They also felt that there were too many pillars and another perspective might have been better.
I’m sentimental about the nice purple colour on the bridge and the multicoloured river. I also like the success of the long exposure, smoothing the water, and the spatter of the water on the plank in the foreground that looks like blood. However, I note the dark sky and concede that it’s a bit too similar in style/execution to Image 8.
Conclusion: Rejected.
Image 10
The LRPS advisors felt that this was a good example of action. It was suited to monochrome, with a good range of tones. They cited that the ability to capture the decisive moment had been well evidenced.
This was singled out for the most praise, which was pleasing, as it was definitely a personal favourite. Have a look at how I altered the photograph in Lightroom, by comparing it with the original photograph, as seen in Part 1 (link here).
Ultimately, I think that it was a lucky shot (right place, right time). It also shows how you can improve your images in post.
Conclusion: Selected.
Spare 1
The panel felt that this image was ‘potentially creative’. It was let down, however, by the chosen viewpoint and by excessive highlights.
I had not been aware of the RPS’ particular dislike of excessive highlights. So watch out for them in your own photographs! I can see that the patches of white in the water, in particular, are not very pleasing. Although, I do think that it was a tough photograph to tackle on a long exposure.
I tried toning down the highlights in Lightroom. Ultimately, however, I did not feel that it was possible to rescue it sufficiently ‘in post’.
Conclusion: Rejected.
Spare 2
Again, the LRPS advisors felt that the image was ‘potentially creative’. But, also that it was let down by the chosen viewpoint and by excessive highlights.
I think the highlights are less obtrusive in this image than in Spare 1. Nevertheless, I note that the advisers still took exception to the flare of the spotlight. A higher vantage point might have eliminated it – something to watch for, when you are composing your image.
I liked the inclusion of a light trails image in my panel. It is obviously important to show a different sort of photographic technique and it fits the bill. Thus, ultimately, I decided to opt for another image, with a different vantage point, from the same shoot (see Part 3).
Conclusion: Rejected (alternative selected)
Spare 3
This time, the advisors felt that this spare image was a good portrait that would add variety to the panel.
I was pleased that the advisors liked this portrait. Since, in my opinion, it was the best image from a shoot of about 150 images. They suggested cropping the image, to eliminate some of the black void of a jumper, perhaps even to a square, in the central position.
I knew that I wanted to retain at least one portrait in my final panel. I also realised that, once suitably cropped, this would make a better selection than Image 3.
Conclusion: Selected.
In Conclusion
Advisory Days are, in my humble opinion, an essential part of your journey towards the LRPS. You will learn so much about what the LRPS examining board are seeking. Plus, how to tailor your work to their expectations.
Don’t be downhearted if any of your photographs are ‘rejected’. Better at an advisor day than when submitting your final panel! Take on board the advice and submit the best possible panel that you can. Onwards and upwards!