Last meeting was the Annual General Meeting, where an account of the club was given over the last year and the committee reconstituted. Mark Stone and Dan Ellis stepped down as Social and Programme Secretaries to be replaced by Chris Harvey and Gerry Painter respectively and Jo Gilbert stepped into Gerry’s spot on the programme sub-committee. Otherwise the committee remains as was. The committee is the glue of the club and its heart and the club is in general good health so our thanks as club members, regular and irregular, for all their efforts. Ruth will post the minutes in due course.
What do you want from your club? We all share a love of the craft or we wouldn’t join a club, would we? Maybe there is more to it than that, but the fact is the more people become actively involved in the club then the more that club can do and everyone can exercise an influence. We have a strengthening competition base, and that is as much made up from the new members as existing and this is supported by the broad spectrum of speakers who relate their experiences and their expertise. Practical evenings, events and gatherings have proved ever popular – we invest in the kit to use it after all. Our membership numbers remain stable and we have a broad range of backgrounds amongst it. All in all we have solid foundations and a strong upcoming programme. We have 6 competitions in the year (4 rounds of the Open, a creative round and the trophy round – which is next week), not as many as some clubs but then there are issues about competitions and whether they stimulate or stifle innovation and development (both for my money, the key factor being how they are used in the individual members development and how the judges relate to the entries and audience and whether I can learn anything from the feedback given).
In brief, the whole is other than the sum of its parts. We are all at different levels of development, have different views on subjects, kit, and whether it really has turned out nice again and we combine those things together to craft a (visual) statement. The club gives us somewhere we can test those statements against others and by others. It does not matter if we agree or not, the important thing is that we can use that feedback to inform our art. The more of us getting involved the more opportunities there are. By applying even a modicum of criticism to our images we can and do progress. This is where the combination of theory, practicals, competitions and informal gatherings come together. The club makes these things possible.
The programme we have set out from the next meeting, the John Hankin and Stan Scantlebury Shields, all the way through to July 2016 includes: practical nights; tutorial nights; speakers from outside the club and in; editing; model shoot; the WCPF travelling critique, a three way club battle; landscapes; wedding photography; a monochrome challenge and, of course, the Reflex Open. Looks like another great year ahead. We bring open minds to these and we try out what we have learned and we learn more we have more we can put into the club.
The programme that we have had over the last year has been influenced, especially in the early part, by the move from the old school to the new, which as both Maurice and Steve pointed out, went better than expected. Certainly the new premises are very conducive, even if the chairs are pew-of-the-miserable-sinner hard. Education and penitence all for a bargain price! Tea breaks can be quite accurately timed by the pained look on the faces of the audience. At least that is what visiting speakers are told. Some might wonder why a tea break is required every fifteen minutes, but still they manfully (and woman-fully) plough on till either interrupted by the conscience of whoever has introduced the evening (who mysteriously has been standing throughout) or the expressions on everyones’ faces makes it look like they are adjudicating a Wallace (or Ed Miliband) look-alike contest, so chastising are the plastic seats (of course).
The best speakers are those who adapt their material to the audience. It can be very easy to end up delivering the same thing regardless. A travelogue to the WI is not the same as a presentation to a camera club. The things they want to know are different. No the camera settings on each and every shot are not the things we want to know, unless it has been to produce a particular effect or overcome lighting difficulties. RAW or JPEG? In passing only, please, and your reasoning. If someone wants to know more they will ask you about it. Likes and dislikes? That’s a statement, not an apology, nor a sermon (despite the hardness of the seats) and, frankly, will come out in your images anyway. Give us your reasoning so we can test that against what you are showing us. Most, if not all, of us want something we can take away and try for ourselves. Equipment? Yes, that can be useful as long as it doesn’t turn into kit-pornography or an advertisement for Canikon and what difference does it make? Why can’t you take that with a kit lens? Even though the answers may be quite mundane they do go towards making up a philosophy which informs what and how subjects are taken. That is a good thing to get over to an audience of photography enthusiasts.
About those competitions. We have had a big revival in interest from within the club and that partly driven by new members which is healthy. Also, using the data from three club battles over the last 18 months there has been an across the board uplift in competition quality based on common prints and a common judge. Now, it’s obvious to all club members, when their images aren’t picked, that judges only become judges when their eyesight starts to go, but in their defence we have had some consistent judges, certainly since I have been a member, and judging is exactly that. It is an exercise in judgement against standards that make up a technically proficient photograph plus …. And that plus is made up of experience and yes, tastes (and eyesight), but the variations haven’t been huge, so fair play to the WCPF for that. Feedback, the breakfast of champions apparently, is the best we as individuals can take away and the quality of feedback can be variable, especially when faced with a large number of images to get through in a short space of time. It’s a turn around and a nice problem to have, but the committee is going to have to look at the number of images in the ratio of prints to digital to keep things in balance (and possibly source a decent supply of prescription glasses).
So, overall, a good year and with each of us playing a part, a better one to look forward to.
N E X T W E E K