AV News 187 - February 2012
I sympathise with Chris Noble's frustration at having encouraged his members
to participate in the Nationals and then not having their work accepted, but I think
his points can be answered.
Firstly, the National AV Championships is not like an AV Day where attenders
of all standards are able to show their work, receive comments, hopefully
constructive and get encouragement. No, the NAVC is the premier event in the
country, only held every two years and should be a showcase of the very best of
British AV.
Secondly, Chris asks how can 77 sequences be viewed in one day when only
64 were judged over two days? Well, I immediately thought of at least three ways
in which this process could be managed.
Thirdly, Chris is upset that entry fees were charged for sequences that were
not selected. It is an 'entry fee', not a fee to have your work shown. The NAVC
is clearly a very expensive event to organise and there are costs involved at
every stage, including pre-selection. I don't think they will have made much
profit! Having sent my work abroad and not having it accepted I can assure Chris
that there is not a single AV competition in the world that operates differently.
On the subject of payment, we should remember that the audience at the
National Championships have paid a considerable amount to see a festival of
top-class AVs. Many of us remember the Internationals of 2006 when there was
no pre-selection and we had to sit through endless substandard productions, but
we didn't ask for our money back!
I understand that many of the people whose work was not accepted did not
actually attend the festival. If they had they might have seen and understood the
very high standard demanded. Could I try and encourage the Mold CC members
to persevere and to attend as many external events as possible, especially AV
Days like the Great Northern, where they can see their work in context.
Chris accepts that there was a need for pre-selection but it is never going to
please everybody. Having talked to the organisers it is clear to me that the
process was managed very efficiently and in the fairest possible way. Under
Keith Scott's excellent leadership the pre-selection jury comprised three much
respected members of the AV community who are not only expert makers of
AVs, but also highly experienced assessors of AV. I would like to congratulate
the team on carrying out a thankless task to make the event the undoubted
success it was.
Malcolm Imhoff FRPS
I feel I must respond to the article by Chris Noble (Mold Camera Club) regarding
the Nationals preselection.
I am in full sympathy with Chris. Whilst not a first time entrant I also suffered
similar treatment regarding what I feel to be an unfair method of pre selection
at the Nationals in 2009. I do not want to take up space by repeating all that I
have said previously so please refer to AV News issue 176 May 2009 through
to Issue 179 February 2010. To summarize there does appear to be a lack of
fairness in that still a number of entrants are afforded more than one entry whilst
others are rejected for spurious reasons.
Page 38