Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
I disagree. The whole point of having one jurist is to have the final cut represent the jurist as well as the artists. If a jurist is on a kick about one concept, idea, or subject, so be it. That is why you select a single jurist to infuse the "show" (book in this case) with his or her subjective outlook. It's not supposed to be "fair." It's supposed to be a collaborative artistic production. Attempting any sort of objectivity in the arts is pointless, as it is impossible. And selecting work based solely on it's technical merits is the surest way to end up with a book that is not worth looking at IMHO. There are a lot of good technicians here and everywhere. Technique is easy, because it is set in stone, and all it takes is practice. A very small percentage of those technicians actually create interesting content to me. A person who is poor technically and strong conceptually can always improve. It doesn't work the other way IMO. So, I think fairness and objectivity need to go out the window very early in this process, and a creative voice needs to take the lead, not someone hell bent on pleasing everyone.
Exactly. It's a contest. Let's just call it what it is.

I didn't mean to imply print quality is more important than seeing, but it is an important element of the art. Furthermore, print quality isn't just technique. It requires talent to realize a fine print of a fine picture using technique. Anyone can learn and master the techniques but that doesn't mean they can make great prints. Anyway this is off topic. Sorry about that.