I would like, first, to thank all the folks who helped put on last night's competition. It was done so well that it looked easy, though we all know it took a lot of time and hard work. I learned a lot from it and I'm sure most folks did as well. There did seem to be some confusion, however, between "creative" depth of field and "appropriate" depth of field. The prior workshop on depth of field was also done very well. Dave did a great job of explaining depth of field, how to control it, and how it is affected by different lenses. The props were excellent.

For our next competition I would like to offer a couple of suggestions. Out of idle curiosity I Googled some definitions of "human interest" photography and found that ours differs slightly, but significantly from PSA.

LPA - "People and/or animals photographed in an interesting way or in unusual circumstances."

PSA - "Human Interest is defined as an image depicting a person or persons in an interactive, emotional or unusual situation, excluding sports action."

While "human interest" will never be well defined (like "art" and "beauty&quot I suggest we adopt the PSA definition. PSA learned the hard way (see below) that, without the exclusion, sports action tends to crowd out other forms of human interest. Also, I believe that our inclusion of "and/or animals" moves us away from the "human" element. Further, our definition of "animals" excludes birds and, presumably, fish, insects, and etc (see our definition of Nature) making it confusing and encourages straying from the path.

I would like to be able to say that people can search the internet to get a better feel for what constitutes a "human interest" photo but I tried that and almost anything conceivable is listed under "human interest," including pet rocks. PSA and other sites tend to attach "human interest" to "photojournalism," though not consistently or in any strict sense, so it might be helpful to think of "human interest" as photojournalism with people and their concerns as the main element. Experience also tells me that, unless we have a good explanation from the judge herself, complete with do's, don'ts, and preferences, we are probably not going to get it right for her. I checked Susan Cowles' web site and didn't find anything that would help, though I didn't search every nook and cranny. Can we get some detail from her on this?

Thanks.

Glenn

======================== Background ====================

At the business meeting of the PSA Photojournalism (PJ) Division held at the 2003 PSA Conference in Houston, the proposal for a new definition of "Human Interest" in PJ was discussed at length. The "Human Interest" definition was passed and reads: "An image depicting people in an interactive, emotional or unusual situation." -
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-20042272_ITM

Presenting people and their problems, concerns, or achievements in a way that arouses interest or sympathy: a human-interest story. - http://www.answers.com/topic/human-interest

When PJ exhibitions began attracting mostly sports action shots, the PJD attempted to encourage feature entries by introducing a human-interest medal and eventually establishing human-interest sections in PJ exhibitions. Eventually, because this category was frequently misunderstood, it was defined as, "an image depicting a person or persons in an interactive, emotional or unusual situation, excluding sports action." It should be noted that a shot fitting this definition, even if taken in a sports environment, is eligible as human interest, whereas a traditional sports winner usually shows the peak of action or captures an exciting moment, hopefully with a storytelling facial expression. - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1306/is_9_74/ai_n28093882/

People and/or animals photographed in an interesting way or in unusual
circumstances. - http://www.avfair.com/avfair/documents/PHOTOGRAPHY.pdf

Human Interest is defined as an image depicting a person or persons in an interactive, emotional or unusual situation, excluding sports action. -
http://www.psaexhibition.com/2009/info/2009-pj-dual-information-instructions.php

People and/or animals photographed in an interesting way or in unusual circumstances. (Reality Base - see note below)- http://www.lpaphotography.org/CompetitionRules/index.html

NATURE - Something that exists in nature: An insect, butterflies, leaves, etc. (includes birds and fish). No man made objects. - http://www.lpaphotography.org/CompetitionRules/index.html

I forgot to mention. I didn't submit any digital entries for last night but Jerry told me (during the competition) that what was on the overhead screen didn't match (in colors) what was on the computer monitor. He thought that the judges should be looking at the computer monitor rather than on the overhead. I noticed at the last competition that my digital entries looked significantly different on the overhead from what I thought I submitted. Is it possible for someone to calibrate the projector?

I've done more looking on the internet and came up with some additional ideas to further help define what I would call "Human Interest photos." That said, I do not speak for the LPA or anyone else in this. As far as I know the LPA definition is the same as it was:

"HUMAN INTEREST- People and/or animals photographed in an interesting
way or in unusual circumstances. (Reality Base - see note below)

"Note: Reality based Classes of Nature, Travel, and Photojournalism:

"No elements may be moved, cloned, added, deleted, rearranged, or combined.
No manipulation or modification is permitted except resizing, cropping,
selective lightening or darkening, and restoration of original color of
the scene. No special effect filters can be applied. Any sharpening must
appear natural." - LPA Competition Rules
http://www.lpaphotography.org/CompetitionRules/index.html

I have yet to find anything on the internet that narrows down the definition of human interest photos. Apparently anything goes for most of the world, so long as some human, somewhere, might find the photo interesting. This includes kittens in a basket, birds on a stick, dogs catching frisbees, Aunt Ethel in the park, or pet rocks (if you're old enough to know what they are). PSA has eliminated sports action but that doesn't narrow down the field very much. And, of course, every judge will have their own opinion making entering into competitions a real shot in the dark and opens the competitors up to all sorts of criticism for their entry.

Anyway, what I did find was a quasi connection to journalism. I think that it would be beneficial for the LPA (and other photography based organizations) to come up with a more comprehensive definition or a list of Do's and Don'ts. To start off such a discussion I offer the following thoughts:


A human interest photo should be something you might expect to see in the news as part of a story. In fact, the photo should tell a story all by itself.

It should be transient in the sense that you're unlikely to see this scene again. A photo of the Governor cutting the ribbon at the opening of a new freeway would be good. A photo of the Governor giving his daily press brief would not. A photo of Wal Mart would not but a photo of Wal Mart on fire would.

It should be uniquely recognizable to the audience (and the judge). A photo of a garden in Milwaukee would not work but a photo of a rare blooming Corpse Plant at the Huntington would be.

It should be timely in the sense that the event should still be on peoples minds. Photos of major earthquake damage may be good for a year or more but a typical auto accident may only be good for a day or so. Keep in mind, however, that if the judge comes from out of town they might not have heard of the accident and consider it quite common.

A human interest photo should not be posed or be anything that could be easily posed. A fireman leaning against a firetruck is not only common but anyone can dress up in a fireman's suit at any time and pose for the shot. On the other hand, if that fireman is covered in soot and ash in front of a major fire then it would probably not be posed.

It should be something out of the ordinary. A soldier in uniform is ordinary. A US soldier in Iraq is now ordinary. But a photo of Iraqis calmly eating at an outdoor cafe while a US soldier is engaged in a firefight on the street would be extraordinary (at least to us).

Thinking closer to home, some photos of the recent Lancaster Grand Prix could be human interest. If all the shot had in it was a go-kart then it would not. But if it had the banners over main street then it would be recognizable and show a unique event. The crowning of Miss Palmdale might be unique so long as it's only once a year and the photo is recent. The grand opening of a new store could be something unique and newsworthy. A photo of blooming poppy fields would not because, not only is it an annual event, the only difference from year to year is how thick the flowers are. Plus the market is flooded with photos of the poppy fields making any more photos somewhat common.

It should evoke strong human emotion, not just interest. A basket of kittens will usually evoke nice feelings but much more emotion is evoked by a photo of a Section 8 tenant being forcible evicted by the police.

Perhaps a point system could be used. Zero to ten points for uniqueness. Zero to ten points for recognizability. Zero to ten points for emotion. etc.


These ideas are probably too late for the LPA upcoming competition on Human Interest but I think that people entering such competitions deserve more definition than what they are getting. To be fair, I consider this to be a problem bigger than the LPA, bigger than PSA, and probably bigger than the U.S. since I haven't even found any foreign definitions. But even big changes can start in small places. There's no reason it can't start here.