The first round of judging for the inaugural LUCEO Student Project Award got underway last week. As stated in the intro to the Award, LUCEO believes in the importance of long-term projects and the importance of supporting developing photographers. Each of us remembers the people in our early development who took the time to help us find our way. It is with this spirit that the Student Project Award was created and it is just one small step we hope to repay our gratitude for all that we have received (and continue to receive) along our paths.

Joanna Ornowska’s beautifully paired images spoke a poetry that was a breath of fresh air to the judges. 

With this being our first year for the Award, we didn’t really know what to expect. But we were completely blown away with the turn out – 43 different schools and universities were represented, spanning the globe from the US to Germany to Bangladesh to Denmark to the UK. We were also very pleased with the quality of submissions. Many were very well developed and displayed a sophisticated visual language.

Tyler Cacek’s work shows great promise for such a young photographer. 

For the first round of judging, SPA chair Matt Eich gathered all of the material and shared it with fellow LUCEO’ers David Walter Banks, Kendrick Brinson and Daryl Peveto. Over the next few days we reviewed the submissions – the quality of the images and the strength of the proposals carried equal weight in our decisions. Part of the process of judging something so subjective is to look for obvious holes in each submission. The most obvious for many was in the editing.

Though he had some technical flaws, Masud Liton’s had easily the best edited portfolio – is was a tight roller coaster ride. 

For Kendrick, the editing was a real problem. “Edit your work down – less is more,” she said. This was true for many of the top entries that did not make it into the finals. They were strong shooters with interesting projects, but the edit of the work hurt their overall entry. This is a problem that most photographers face, including our judges.  The lesson that we keep learning is in the overall importance of finding someone who is a great editor and having them help you. Its your project and ultimately your call, but a fresh set of eyes that does not have the baggage and who can step back and see the work for what it is can be is invaluable.  

Bryan Anselm’s evocative B/W work and tight edit gave a strong indication for how he would handle his proposed project on the Srebrenika Genocide.

The other major issue was presentation. About 1/5 of the entrants didn’t follow the directions for submission. Although we elected not to disqualify errant entries, lack of attention to the submission guidelines did raise flags as to how seriously the entrant would take the project for which they were proposing to undertake. Again, Brinson noted, “if you wrote two sentences for your resume, it tells me you didn’t put much time into your entry.”

The topical subject of Dan Krauss’ project carried a lot of weight. 

Some of the projects were incredibly well researched and written.  You could tell the photographer was really interested in the subject because it mattered to them to take the time to develop the text of their entry proposal.  Says David Banks, “I’ve judged contests before but it’s always an interesting and introspective process for me. When I take on that critical eye, always try to re-evaluate my own work by the same standards. This time I was impressed with a hand full of entries that really inspired me to push myself with my own work. However, I was also reminded of the importance of doing your homework and developing a proposal that not only articulates your intentions, but explains exactly how you will meet that objective, instead of simply listing out vague, grandiose ideas.”

Adam Lau’s access and incredibly relevant story really paid off – it immediately left the judges wanting to see where he takes this project. 

The projects that rose to the top were well researched, but also explained their purpose in a way that made sense as to how the photographer was going to approach it. They made it easy to visualize how the project was going to unfold. This was also true in how they edited their work, especially for entries in which the entered work did not correspond to the proposed undertaking.  When entered images are not from the project described, we found it helpful when the photographer gave some visual indication as to how they see, think, feel and, ultimately, how they will approach their proposed project.

Wenjie Yang’s quiet portraits were an interesting and appropriate way to tell her story. 

Another issue that seemed to come up a lot was an awareness of the importance of finding a fresh subject matter. This is true in the professional world as well. If you pitch a story to a publication that they ran three months ago, it is a much more difficult hurdle to vault.  In particular, when a photographer proposes to explore a story that has already been completed, it is critical that they bring something new to their pitch.  This is where research really comes into play. It is not enough to know the details and statistics of the issue. A photographer also needs to know if and how the issue has been covered.  Many of the top finalists were successful at all of these things. They had fresh and relevant ideas that were well thought-out and researched.

We were all greatly impressed with the overall quality of work submitted and are grateful for each of the students who submitted.

To see the 10 finalists, go to the Student Project Award page under the About tab, or just click here.

The first round of judging for the inaugural LUCEO Student Project Award got underway last week. As stated in the intro to the Award, LUCEO believes in the importance of long-term projects and the importance of supporting developing photographers. Each of us remembers the people in our early development who took the time to ...