Judging

[DEL]

Apologies if this has been asked earlier.
Do judges use any form of magnification when examining figures or is the recieved wisdom to judge as it would be seen by Joe Public's naked eye?

What brought this to mind was looking at magazine magnified images of a couple of figures I saw at Euro last year, the were painted in acrylics and were magnificent, yet lost the 'magic' when enhanced albeit a bit of a masterclass in 'tricking' the eye.

I am friends with a number of guys who regularly judge at major competitions and funnily enough I've never thought to ask them.

Just interested (Bye the way I'm catching a bit of the Eurovision Song Contest out of the corner of my eye it's Jedward from Ireland....good god.......what the hell happened to Rock and Roll?)
Regards
Derek

 

[Jim Patrick]

Good question Derek. To my knowledge, entries are judged by the naked eye. I have never seen magnifying glasses used during the judging process. Not to say it doesn't, or has never, happened. ZJust that I haven't seen it.

Jim Patrick

 

[Jim]

I haven't seen any magnification used - though at an IPMS show, it wouldn't surprise me. The judges there use 'death rays' (pocket flashlights) and dental mirrors to look in and under and around the entries. I know of a modeler whose scratch-built Russian tank (including road wheels and tracks) was bounced from competition because he failed to remove all the flash from a piece of the track behind a piece of side skirt!

I don't enter any IPMS contests any more - too many politics and back-biting. Someone has to 'win'. In the past, I did well in the IPMS system; but I judged one contest and told the head judge that none of the armor entries deserved anything but honorable mention. He told me that 'first', 'second' and 'third' HAD to be awarded. I told him I wouldn't encourage bad work and let him do the picking. The Open System is far better - rewarding good work at different levels within the category and not the 'first', 'second' and 'third' traditional system.

 

[pkess]

I judged for many years and never used any form of magnification. Don't remember any other judges doing so either.
I also photographed most of the major US shows. It was amazing how different paint jobs can look under the intensity of photographic lighting.
I can honestly say that I never submitted a photo to any magazine that didn't show a figure in "it's best light."

 

[DEL]

Jim, James and Phil
Thanks for the interesting replies.
Regards
Derek

 

[Don]

Derek Dont know if you were with us at Euro one year, Brian was judging and a chap pulled out a magnifying glass, the better to judge by.
Brian lost the plot and had to bring over the senior judge to explain to the chap why he could not judge using a magnifying glass.
Ask Brian next time you see him.

Don

 

[Einion]

Derek, I think it's the norm at figure shows for judging to be carried out much like the visitors to the show see them, except that the judges can get as close as they like, pick up the entries to turn them this way and that, get the light to hit them at a better angle or whatever. I have heard tell of magnifying glasses being used, as well as torches, but often as tales to say why they shouldn't be used.

What brought this to mind was looking at magazine magnified images of a couple of figures I saw at Euro last year, the were painted in acrylics and were magnificent, yet lost the 'magic' when enhanced albeit a bit of a masterclass in 'tricking' the eye.

I think we've all seen this a few times - photos can be very misleading, seeming to capture some things with more clarity while hiding others and you end up with an image that looks surprisingly different to how the thing looks in the flesh.

With a lot of stuff that's painted for box art these days it can be quite a surprise viewing the thing in the flesh for the first time, where it's not nearly as dark as expected and with chiaroscuro shading that isn't nearly as pronounced. There's also a bit of a "house style" with some makers when it comes to dark/moody photos because they look more dramatic, which is partly down to how things are lit for the photos but how they're 'shopped afterwards seems to be quite significant at times.

Just interested (Bye the way I'm catching a bit of the Eurovision Song Contest out of the corner of my eye it's Jedward from Ireland....good god.......what the hell happened to Rock and Roll?)

God knows! It's Eurovision, hardly a good window on it though

Einion

 

[AJLaFleche]

I haven't seen any magnification used - though at an IPMS show, it wouldn't surprise me. The judges there use 'death rays' (pocket flashlights) and dental mirrors to look in and under and around the entries. I know of a modeler whose scratch-built Russian tank (including road wheels and tracks) was bounced from competition because he failed to remove all the flash from a piece of the track behind a piece of side skirt!

I don't enter any IPMS contests any more - too many politics and back-biting. Someone has to 'win'. In the past, I did well in the IPMS system; but I judged one contest and told the head judge that none of the armor entries deserved anything but honorable mention. He told me that 'first', 'second' and 'third' HAD to be awarded. I told him I wouldn't encourage bad work and let him do the picking. The Open System is far better - rewarding good work at different levels within the category and not the 'first', 'second' and 'third' traditional system.

I can't argue against the drawbacks of 1-2-3 judging. In one class, you may be rewarding mediocrity or worse while in the next ignoring excellence. And wasting a tremendous amout of time doing so. Just happened to my travelling buddy and me on Saturday. I asked the judge why it went the way it did. He judge told us we were essentially tied for third in 54mm figures and after much discussion, and refusal of the powers that be to allow a tie, they gave me the nod. I would have gone with the other guy's figure, but that's how it goes.

But that said, where 1-2-3 is the rule, the judges MUST find something to separate the wheat from the chaff, hence lights and mirrors.

Now as to lights...I typically carry a flashlight with me when judging since lighting in any given venue can range from top notch to dark shadows. I often have it even if I'm not judging, just to see what's on the table.

Magnification. I use reading glasses at shows if I'm wearing my contacts (judging or not) since one eye is focussed up close and the other for distance. Otherwise, I'm wearing my bi-focals. In any case, the Opti-Visor stays home.

 

[DEL]

Don, Einion and AJ
thanks for your interesting feedback. it'll certainly add to my enjoyment at competitions. Very interesting point on the matter of 'house' style again observing this is something that will add to the mix at events.
It would have been a hoot to watch Brian bristling with good old Scottish indignation.
Cheers
Derek

 

[John Long]

I've never seen magnifying glasses or flashlights used. I have seen lots of reading glasses for what it's worth. I have to use them myself these days. It's not a matter of magnifying the work. It's a matter of getting it close enough to my face to focus on it and see the detail.

 

[renarts]

I have seen those who were judges using magnifying glasses at shows. But I can't say if this was a case of judging or post judging viewing out of personal interest.
If glasses are ok, why not magnifying glasses?

the 123 judging system is a case of classifying the best of the worst that day. It is award by default and is a waste of time and effort in my opinion. It only assures that 5 of what ever is on the table are looked at and only 3 looked at seriously. Mediocrity can receive the highest accolade.

 

[Jeff]

I do not like 1st , 2nd and 3rd type of judging. But IPMS seems to think that to judge the way most figure shows do is going to cost their club too much money. In my experience buying awards you can get about 6 to 10 medals for the price of one plaque. So that argument holds no water for me.

I hate the fact that they have got to use bore lights on the tanks barrels to see that they are riffled all the way down to the breach to choose who wins. That to me is crazy.

 

[Jim]

I hate the fact that they have got to use bore lights on the tanks barrels to see that they are riffled all the way down to the breach to choose who wins. That to me is crazy.

WTF?! (What The Frak - for you Battlestar Galactica geeks!)

It has been a long time since I was at or in an IPMS (International P--- and Moan Society) contest. I can understand the aim for accuracy, but I think some of those folks really need to get real lives.

Occasionally, I still build armor - my main focus are figures (from 54mm all the way up to 1/8-scale 'Aurora scale') - because of the 'humanity' of them. Okay, so 'monsters' don't have a lot of humanity, but they're animate and not hardware that just sits there. A piece of armor needs at least one figure for scale effect and to show that humans crewed them, fought in them and died in them, IMHO.

The 'open system' is the best method to reward good work - if it's there. If it's not, it's not rewarded, unlike the first, second, third must be awarded to garbage since someone has to 'win' IPMS mind-set.

(Whew! Takes a deep breath and climbs down off of soapbox)

 

[AJLaFleche]

Great points being made here. I wish the 1/2/3 suporters in IPMS would read this. I do have to disagree somewhat with the comment about searching for rifling in tank guns. More likely, in my experience, is the light is being used to find a seam or flat area on the barrel.
Sadly, many of my IPMS brethren see the open system as a way to excessively spread the wealth and water down the value of an award. Many would also like to see sweeps, wherein one modeler could take every award in a class, return.

 

[Jeff]

The story about the bore light came to me from an IPMS judge here in California. The looser had an insert or the kit barrel was only rifled down to a couple of inches the winner had used a machined barrel. He told me the year before they had used the light to find a seam on the inside of a tank barrel to choose the winner. So that story came to me straight from the horses mouth so to speak. He seemed dead serious and quite proud of the way they had judged. I do not do armor, and I never went to that show again.

 

[DEL]

Jim, AJ and Jeff
as an exclusively figure painter I'm gobsmacked that the judging of armour requires this sort of approach.
It's a bit like checking modern busts for tooth fillings, crowns etc.
I wonder if these guys look at each other and ask "are we having fun yet"?
Cheers
Derek

 

[alexwencho]

"death-rays, dental mirrors and bore lights, oh my!"

http://www.planetfigure.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40743

 

[housecarl]

All far too anal for my fun packed modelling. I'll make sure that I use the correct calibre drill next time I drill out a barrel, and go all the way to the working parts, of course.
Carl.

 

[renarts]

Sadly, many of my IPMS brethren see the open system as a way to excessively spread the wealth and water down the value of an award.

Al, thats why I like my "best of the worst that day" argument. It usually pulls the wind out of their sails. Given IPMS rules, if I go over, grab a snap tite kit, build it and throw it into a entryless category, I can walk away with a first place, pissing into the "well of worth" for the rest of their awards and categories. They don't allow the open system because you can effectively take away their default win. Don't bring gold? don't get gold.

Jim, you may have a valid observation, but I'm with AL on this, more likely they were looking for two things, to see if their was any rifling (al la pe or some of the DML barrels) which is always just a short section near the muzzle or they were looking for seams along the outside of the barrel. The drawback to the 123 system is that the stiffer the competition, the more they go "hunting". The idea being that the guy with one more rivet wins. It becomes not what you've done right, but what you've done wrong or skimped on. While some folks dislike this intensely, I admire it because it has forced or opened a level of detail and aftermarket not available years ago. There is a whole cottage industry built around this philosophy. Its why we have some pretty detailed stock kits as well.

 

[Don Johnson]

I'm going to come to my buddy Al's defense here by saying that for the IPMS chapter of which Al is President-For-Life (Wings & Wheels, WMass/NoConn), we HAVE adopted and adapted the Open System to judge everything except Cars and Planes.

We run a regional IPMS show, and have averaged 350+ models and 120+ exhibitors over the past several years. Having a strong core of figure painters in the club certainly helped sell the idea initially, but these folks also do a significant portion of both the judging and the calculation of awards.

Adoption of the Open System has, we believe, resulted in significant increases in entries to Armor, Figures and Miscellaneous classes, especially in the Ship/Boat class during this year's show, from non-member visitors. The level of quality has increased exponentially, due in part (at least) to the perception that quality WILL get recognized.

Without benefit of some Jedi mind-trick, this "debate" will likely continue ad nauseum, as proponents of the "1-2-3" system are as tenacious in support of "their" system as opponents are in support of alternative approaches. At least IPMS has (perhaps grudgingly) acknowledged that local chapters can elect their own methods of judging their own shows, which is a decision some of us never thought would occur.

With regard to magnifiers and light sources, and considering both the greying of the hobby and the often less-than-ideal facilities in which shows are held, I have absolutely no objection to the use of these aids.

Using a bore scope on a model is totally asinine, however, and somebody should have had the fortitude to squash that idea LONG before it ever became a reality.

If a (alleged) judge can't make a decision without reliance on tools not available to every participant, said "judge" should recuse him/herself, and allow someone else to do the job right.

Sheeesh . . .