RPS distinctions

I think that a lot of early photographers did exactly what painters have always done, they left out what they didn't want to include and put in the things that they did.
Prior to Roger Fenton, all of the paintings that showed our army and navy in action showed our smart heroes dishing out just deserts to the undeserving, dirty foreigners, and nobody shed any blood. Fenton changed that by showing the reality of battle scenes, but apparently was still happy to fake things, and he wasn't alone in this - there's the famous movie scene from the 1st world war of our soldiers going "over the top" that was staged for the camera, and plenty of other examples too, and facebook is full of propaganda "photos".

None of which is in any way relevant to this discussion, which seems to me to have lost its way . . .
 
PHOTONA said:
Ok., that's a theory, you are right. If you look at this from a practitioners point of view as I've done (draftsman and a photographer) it sounds really irrelevant bearing in mind how in practice both processes are different, the way you observe the picture develop for example in a darkroom and the way you draw is very relevant but not the execution itself.
Click to expand...
If you want to play a point scoring game, I've a degree Fine Art (my dissertation was Photography and Painting) and ever since then have continued to take a keen interest in 'the creative process' in the arts and beyond. I'd class myself as a practitioner in painting, photography, and writing (which I've done a lot of, for pleasure and profit). The importance of technique is overplayed. Knowing your subject and having views of your own about it are far more important.

That said, there is a lot to be taken from process (the doing of making stuff) on a personal level. As Conrad wrote in The Heart of Darkness: "I don't like work - no man does - but I like what is in the work - the chance to find yourself. Your own reality - for yourself, not for others - what no other man can ever know. They can only see the mere show, and never can tell what it really means."

Or, as I said elsewhere, nobody else gives a stuff what the work means to you.

Here endeth the lesson/rant. :ROFLMAO:
 
Garry Edwards said:
None of which is in any way relevant to this discussion, which seems to me to have lost its way . . .
Click to expand...
yes, I thought about maybe moving it to a separate thread so people do not get confused as it is not about RPS distinction anymore, to for example, Photography, philosophy/theory and practices or so, or Photo digressions ;))
 
PHOTONA said:
yes, I thought about maybe moving it to a separate thread so people do not get confused as it is not about RPS distinction anymore, to for example, Photography, philosophy/theory and practices or so, or Photo digressions ;))
Click to expand...
There is a "Photographic Concepts" sub-forum set up to discuss this type of topic, but it's not used as much as it could be.

Possibly because, as like here, appropriate threads "evolve" rather than being the intended topic of the original poster.
 
Rodinal said:
You may subscribe to that theory as is your right, but where is the satisfaction that you get when you have more input to the result than just pressing a few buttons? It may be expedient if there is a set time to get results and you are working to a schedule (or are being lazy, plus the latter needs a little bit of skill).
Think of, as a comparison the analogy of a table or other piece of furniture bought as a flatpack from the likes of Ikea, Then look at a table or other piece of furniture crafted by your hand with the perfect joints, and the wood is solid wood, not chipboard with a veneer of plastic over the top; all assembled with the use of a screwdriver and an allen key. You can stand back and say 'I made that' with certain degree of pride and ultimate satisfaction.

Yes they do the same task as required but I know which I would prefer,
Click to expand...

I did not understand @ancient_mariner's comment this way at all. My understanding is we're all talking about making beautifully crafted end products. Some people may enjoy the process of production, others focus on the outcome and take advantage of more efficient tools that emerge over time. No-one looking at the end product can tell which tools were used.
 
The two most important decisions you make as a photographer are the same, regardless if you're using a field camera or a fully automatic smartphone camera... where you point the thing and when you press the button. The reality is, you only need to know how the camera you're holding works, and if you're using auto then you only need to know the shutter button and how to take a lens cap off (oversimplification but the point remains).
What you choose the exclude from or include in the frame are the important decisions - the tech, is just technology. You don't have to be obsessed about photography to be a photographer - after all, it's about the subject and it's better to be obsessed about that.
 
benc98 said:
The two most important decisions you make as a photographer are the same, regardless if you're using a field camera or a fully automatic smartphone camera... where you point the thing and when you press the button. The reality is, you only need to know how the camera you're holding works, and if you're using auto then you only need to know the shutter button and how to take a lens cap off (oversimplification but the point remains).
What you choose the exclude from or include in the frame are the important decisions - the tech, is just technology. You don't have to be obsessed about photography to be a photographer - after all, it's about the subject and it's better to be obsessed about that.
Click to expand...
:plus1:
 
taxboy said:
I'd agree with that Taking from Rodinal's analogy if I buy a table does it matter to me if the cabinet maker used a hand saw or power tools / jigs to cut the wood ?
I understand it may give more satisfaction to the creator but to the end user they're looking at the result
Click to expand...
Who is talking about a cabinet maker! I am talking about me doing something, no one else. I am hopeless at woodwork and could not make anything out of wood, but I can appreciate the workmanship of someone who can make something using raw materials with a few hand tools. It is the craftsmanship, the love of the material that is being used and the capability to use the tools to create the end product.
Screwing a few pre-cut pieces of reconstituted wood chippings together to make something that has possibly been copied thousands of time before is not skil it is the ability to read a diagram.
 
myotis said:
There is a "Photographic Concepts" sub-forum set up to discuss this type of topic, but it's not used as much as it could be.

Possibly because, as like here, appropriate threads "evolve" rather than being the intended topic of the original poster.
Click to expand...
So guys I am happy to create a new topic there with reference to this one or just leave it as it is. Not sure what moderators can do. (move part of this one there?) Who is for and who is against?
 
Not sure I can split out a thread, but in many ways this IS going in a logical direction for the thread, though not the one first intended. We're now discussing the reasoning behind why we make photos and some of the history of photography. The philosophy of photography is somewhat appropriate to working towards a recognition award.

The thread could be closed, but as long as discussion remains civil and somewhat connected then I'd prefer it continued running here. You could start a new thread inspired by this one, but it might also go off piste a little.
 
myotis said:
I think some are looking at this from a different perspective.

You seem to be focussing on the satisfaction a photographer gets from the "process" of making photographs with the emphasis on the technical.

Others are focussing on the satisfaction of making pictures (the "product") that achieve and communicate specific intellectual and/or emotional messages.
Click to expand...
There are, of course, many people whose sole (or at least main) interest is in recording something of interest to them and / or to others.

Once, this group was limited to those who could draw or (more rarely) paint. Chemical photography vastly extended the numbers of such "reporters". Electronic photography has extended that group.

Electronic Photography has also extended the ability of the less capable sketcher or painter to mimic the flexibility of those media in distorting reality or even producing unreal images. They can often produce such images far more quickly and easily than the traditional methods permit.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
There are, of course, many people whose sole (or at least main) interest is in recording something of interest to them and / or to others.
Click to expand...
Indeed there are.
AndrewFlannigan said:
Once, this group was limited to those who could draw or (more rarely) paint. Chemical photography vastly extended the numbers of such "reporters". Electronic photography has extended that group.

Electronic Photography has also extended the ability of the less capable sketcher or painter to mimic the flexibility of those media in distorting reality or even producing unreal images. They can often produce such images far more quickly and easily than the traditional methods permit.
Click to expand...
I think we have discussed this before, and this is arguably the most important/valuable and exciting aspect of digital photography. The camera phone in particular has made image making as easier and more available than writing a diary or journal.
 
I’ve always seen the Royal Photographic Society as somewhat of a Ponzi scheme structured in anticipation of at least some photographers finding value in some meaningless letters you can put after your name whilst giving you not a great deal in return and charging you the privilege for doing so. The great thing about photography, like all art, is that it stands on its own.

Nobody liking or enjoying it will care whether you have any of these certificates and it’s open for debate whether being a member of RPS will enhance your work - and even it you argue that it can, it’s one of many many routes that can help you in creating better art.

And as I’ve got older and wiser, I have become more sceptical of organisations like RPS gategeeping photography, or indeed, any art. Some people buy into this as prestige, I consider it more synthetic and cynical.
 
PHOTONA said:
yes, I thought about maybe moving it to a separate thread so people do not get confused as it is not about RPS distinction anymore, to for example, Photography, philosophy/theory and practices or so, or Photo digressions ;))
Click to expand...
Heaven help us when AI really takes off. It is bad enough as it is now
 
cuthbert said:
I’ve always seen the Royal Photographic Society as somewhat of a Ponzi scheme structured in anticipation of at least some photographers finding value in some meaningless letters you can put after your name whilst giving you not a great deal in return and charging you the privilege for doing so. The great thing about photography, like all art, is that it stands on its own.

Nobody liking or enjoying it will care whether you have any of these certificates and it’s open for debate whether being a member of RPS will enhance your work - and even it you argue that it can, it’s one of many many routes that can help you in creating better art.

And as I’ve got older and wiser, I have become more sceptical of organisations like RPS gategeeping photography, or indeed, any art. Some people buy into this as prestige, I consider it more synthetic and cynical.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with you. I joined the RPS about 43 years ago and presented a panel of pictures for my LRPS then in 1994 I presented another panel and got my ARPS. Although they say a former member may loose the distinction if they leave I did so twice and came back and was allowed to use it in presentations. However about 2 years ago terminated the distinction of LRPS, no reason given and the Ist level you could go to was the ARPS. Now to get the ARPS lable it is or was quite difficult because they look at everything.

I contacted them and asked why had they discontinued the LRPS level and never received a satisfactory answer. I have my own ideas because it costs a lot of time and money to assess these panels (I am saying no more).

Alternatively. The LRPS level was to my mind the pathway into the distinctions if people wanted to apply for them to learn and progress forwards from there. By removing the LRPS step it was possibly a psychological step which people didn't like so stopped applying for which was counter productive so it was stopped. Possibly another situation where the 'Management' are out of touch.

When I didn't get a satisfactory reply to my questions, I resigned with immediate effect and have no intention of re-applying.
 
Last edited:
Rodinal said:
I have to agree with you. I joined the RPS about 43 years ago and presented a panel of pictures for my LRPS then in 1994 I presented another panel and got my ARPS. Although they say a former member may loose the distinction if they leave I did so twice and came back and was allowed to use it in presentations. However about 2 years ago terminated the distinction of LRPS, no reason given and the Ist level you could go to was the ARPS. Now to get the ARPS lable it is or was quite difficult because they look at everything.

I contacted them and asked why had they discontinued the LRPS level and never received a satisfactory answer. I have my own ideas because it costs a lot of time and money to assess these panels (I am saying no more).

Alternatively. The LRPS level was to my mind the pathway into the distinctions if people wanted to apply for them to learn and progress forwards from there. By removing the LRPS step it was possibly a psychological step which people didn't like so stopped applying for which was counter productive so it was stopped. Possibly another situation where the 'Management' are out of touch.

When I didn't get a satisfactory reply to my questions, I resigned with immediate effect and have no intention of re-applying.
Click to expand...
The LRPS is alive and well on line and can be applied for digitally and has been continuously available for a very long time . You are an Associate so you would not need to mention that you were a Licentiate at one point. This is not an academic qualification like a BA for example.
 
Last edited:
droj said:
My mindset is that photography is essentially about communication,
Click to expand...
I agree.

Then again, so is all art, something that many, if not all, "connoisseurs" and art dealers have never quite understood, in my opinion.
 
Chipper said:
The LRPS is alive and well on line and can be applied for digitally and has been continuously available for a very long time . You are an Associate so you would not need to mention that you were a Licentiate at one point. This is not an academic qualification like a BA for example.
Click to expand...
It was not for me that I mentioned it - Think about it! I can actually mention anything so long as it conforms with the standards of the forum.

It was for those who would like to dip their feet into the applications for some sort of qualification and the lead up to my resignation was due to the outright closure of the LRPS level. That was announced in Zoom meeting with the analogue section. No 'Ifs'. No 'Buts' the qualification level was stopping - end of. No mention of being placed on line was made at all. A letter to the membership secretary at the time brought no light onto the reason. My resignation remains as it is now.
 
The above makes little sense. Just looked at the RPS site and they are still advertising LRPS as a distinction. Not for me simply because I have no wish to pay the RPS fee for the rest of my life.

Dave
 
Dave Canon said:
The above makes little sense. Just looked at the RPS site and they are still advertising LRPS as a distinction. Not for me simply because I have no wish to pay the RPS fee for the rest of my life.

Dave
Click to expand...
The initial announcement that they were going to cease the LRPS distinctions was PRINTED in the bi-monthly journal perhaps 18 months to 2 years ago, I cannot be exact. If they have partly rescinded the dictat I had no idea because I left the RPS and actually I don't feel the loss. That also does not explain the difficulty in getting any information out of them via the telephone about what was going to happen. So make perfect sense to me. In my previous post on this subject I mentioned that it was also announced on a Zoom meeting Try reading that, it may make it clearer.
 
Last edited:
Rodinal said:
The initial announcement that they were going to cease the LRPS distinctions was PRINTED in the bi-monthly journal perhaps 18 months to 2 years ago, I cannot be exact. If they have partly rescinded the dictat I had no idea because I left the RPS and actually I don't feel the loss. That also does not explain the difficulty in getting any information out of them via the telephone about what was going to happen. So make perfect sense to me. In my previous post on this subject I mentioned that it was also announced on a Zoom meeting Try reading that, it may make it clearer.
Click to expand...
Which month was the publication in the journal. We have many with RPS distinctions in my club so i can let them know once I know which month.

Dave
 
No idea I chucked them months and months ago. It isn't the journals that are if concern, it is the reticence of any explanation when I spoke to the RPS HQ on the 'phone
 
Last edited:
Rodinal said:
It was not for me that I mentioned it - Think about it! I can actually mention anything so long as it conforms with the standards of the forum.

It was for those who would like to dip their feet into the applications for some sort of qualification and the lead up to my resignation was due to the outright closure of the LRPS level. That was announced in Zoom meeting with the analogue section. No 'Ifs'. No 'Buts' the qualification level was stopping - end of. No mention of being placed on line was made at all. A letter to the membership secretary at the time brought no light onto the reason. My resignation remains as it is now.
Click to expand...
You were misinformed. The final print submissions took place in February last year. There was a pause whilst the new system was created. Look on line as you do not appear to believe me. It is there. When the first digital submissions were assessed via the portal in the autumn, there were 55 applications. I know this because I was a member of the team that assessed them. There are samples of the recent submissions that have been successful on the portal. There was no "outright closure'; there was a 7 month pause whilst the new system was created. And yes, you can mention whatever you like; your information was misleading.
 
There was no mention of a 'pause' - it was the 'end', or so I was lead to believe in the text, and during the conversation I had with the then membership secretary. In fact thinking back the zoom meeting (Analogue Group) that it was discussed on, was at the end of the Covid pandemic so actually quite some time ago!
Perhaps if you are correct and it sounds as if you are, the author who wrote the passage, should take a course in writing plain, concise English which gave a clearer indication of what was actually intended. Or if nothing had been decided then make that clear ! It was a step that was actually quite badly handled.

Do I understand from you that the LRPS distinction is entirely on line. What is wrong with a hard print? That is what I and all those before me had to do. This is in my book actually a lowering of standards and another reason for my resignation to remain
 
Last edited:
Rodinal said:
There was no mention of a 'pause' - it was the 'end', or so I was lead to believe in the text, and during the conversation I had with the then membership secretary. In fact thinking back the zoom meeting (Analogue Group) that it was discussed on, was at the end of the Covid pandemic so actually quite some time ago!
Perhaps if you are correct and it sounds as if you are, the author who wrote the passage, should take a course in writing plain, concise English which gave a clearer indication of what was actually intended. Or if nothing had been decided then make that clear ! It was a step that was actually quite badly handled.

Do I understand from you that the LRPS distinction is entirely on line. What is wrong with a hard print? That is what I and all those before me had to do. This is in my book actually a lowering of standards and another reason for my resignation to remain
Click to expand...
I understand your disappointment over prints. We are struggling at my club to get sufficient members to do prints. As you will know, it takes extra effort and detailed attention to produce quality prints but our more recent members cannot be bothered. We have even made it easier by offering to coordinate and send images to SIMLAB and I even heard suggestions about the Club paying. So far this has had a minimal effect.

Dave
 
Perhaps TP should run a similar "honours" system. A few different levels, with letters after your name if you pass.
Submit a pannel, come to that the members could vote pass or fail. And of course a few rusty coins of the realm changing hands for the "privilage". Be a nice little earner and members who want letters after their name would be happy.
It would mean that the passing member would have reached a certain level of skilli photography wise. If thats important to a person.
From my experience the RPS seemed to be more relevent to the camera club scene, never see the letters used anywhere else (not that I go to clubs now) As I've mentioned before it's not for me now.
 
One of the members of a Camera Club I attended many years ago was not hugely popular with the other members for his "I'm better than you" attitude. When he attained his LRPS, he included that with his name on all club competition entries! That simply made him look a bigger ****** (enter your own term) than before. At his last meeting before he moved away from the area our chairman mentioned he was leaving and ended by saying "X is moving to Reading. Their loss is our gain". I'm not sure how long it took that to register.
 
Rodinal said:
There was no mention of a 'pause' - it was the 'end', or so I was lead to believe in the text, and during the conversation I had with the then membership secretary. In fact thinking back the zoom meeting (Analogue Group) that it was discussed on, was at the end of the Covid pandemic so actually quite some time ago!
Perhaps if you are correct and it sounds as if you are, the author who wrote the passage, should take a course in writing plain, concise English which gave a clearer indication of what was actually intended. Or if nothing had been decided then make that clear ! It was a step that was actually quite badly handled.

Do I understand from you that the LRPS distinction is entirely on line. What is wrong with a hard print? That is what I and all those before me had to do. This is in my book actually a lowering of standards and another reason for my resignation to remain
Click to expand...
The LRPS is now achieved by an on line submission. Print submissions continue within the genres at Associate and Fellowship standard. The LRPS submissions were assessed during the pandemic; there was a print assessor in situ at RPS house, the assessors and applicants were able to observe on line. These measures and others have been taken in the light of the changing world; the huge switch to on line access of events etc meant that RPS house was not sustainable ; if you search for the minutes of recent AGMs you will see that this is a painful but necessary process to ensure that the RPS does not close. I am not sure where the person at the analogue group had the wrong end of a stick which was not discussed prior to the appointment of a new CEO in 2023. In the 121s that I have done, before and after the switch, I always recommend printing the work to review it; it enables potential issues to be much more readily identifiable and the panelling of the work to be adjusted easily. Whilst I miss the print assessments in person, I would have missed the RPS more if changes were not made to improve the financial situation.
 
I have no contact what so ever with the RPS now, and since I resigned which would be shortly after the changes were made known as a proposal. Why could they not be forthright and say so when asked? It is as if there was a big secret to cover up! I don't like secrets especially when they could be avoided!

All they had to do was clarify what had been said, and that changes had to be made without going into too much detail, and that we would be enlightened later, No instead they threw a cloak of secrecy over the whole matter. Not a good idea!

I am certain that some past members, and I will name one in particular, the late Bill Wisden FRPS who I knew very well would have handled it in a far more diplomatic way. There, I have said my piece can we end it there please.
 
Well, any institution in financial difficulties with a new CEO charged with ensuring survival will keep its own counsel whilst trying to figure out how to survive. There is a completely new board since the decisions that were made combined with Covid led to the crises. Membership is rising once again and so perhaps forgive what happened that has upset you - someone breached confidentiality at some point and that is disappointing. . The RPS has a lot to offer as well as distinctions so maybe, just maybe, help it survive and emerge stronger. There are courses, workshops, interest groups as well as regional groups with activities both in person and on line. Have an enjoyable 2025.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top