“I was pleasantly surprised to see how newsworthy topics were represented across multiple categories beyond editorial,” says juror Natalia Jimenez. “Important issues like climate change and the pandemic made their way into categories including advertising and institutional.”

“After being in the pandemic for the past two years, I was happy to see so many entries where people were out and about and living life,” juror Marcus Smith says. “The overall tone of the entries felt positive, and I appreciated that.”

“They were representative of the times we are living in—finding moments of escapism while dealing with the very harsh and challenging realities of living through a world pandemic,” says juror Adrienne Pao.

“I wasn’t sure what to expect in terms of COVID-related projects,” juror Nikki Ormerod says. “There were a few but not as many as [I] expected. Perhaps that’s because we all just want to forget about it.”

When asked for their overall impressions of the entries, several judges responded positively.

“There is so much talent out there and so much good work,” juror Márcia Minter says.

“Overall, I feel there was wonderful creativity being applied across a wide range of photographic media,” says Jimenez.

“Once I had filtered through the 600-[count] shortlist and revisited my selections, I was impressed,” juror Steve Wallington says.

“In all categories, it was possible to find unique projects,” says juror Luis Gatti. “Choosing the winners among so many incredible works was a very difficult task.”

“I had to revisit entries multiple times in order to select based on minor technical merits, something I haven’t faced in judging before,” Ormerod says. “The work is great. And it’s only going to get better. I should step up my game.”

Several judges also described some of the notable visual trends.

“I appreciated the trompe-l’œil technique applied to photography in ways I had not seen executed before,” says Jimenez.

“I noticed a few projects that were collage based or mixed media, which was refreshing,” Ormerod says.

“The cannabis magnifications captured by the biologist were surprisingly unique, curious and beautiful,” says Pao.

“I was surprised by the volume of industrial and commercial photographs and some impressive documentary-style photography,” Wallington says. “Also, I was expecting more CGI photos—and pleasantly surprised [to see] that there were not!”

“There was more of a blending of genres than I expected,” says juror Mike Davis. “Some editorial looked like advertising and vice versa, meaning that people are using approaches to image creation that are specific to what they’re saying and not just following the dictum of prescribed approaches.”

“Today, Instagram and its algorithms make it easy to think the diversity of photography styles has evaporated,” Smith says. “I was able to see that there are clearly still a lot of people trying all kinds of stuff that aren’t necessarily chasing today’s trends.”

Diverse representation was also noted by multiple judges.

“I think the field, at least the one that the general public sees, is finally opening up to the beauty and power of diversity,” says Minter. “This means more and more stories will not only be told, but legacies of the many talented photographers and videographers of color will be revealed. The world needs all of our stories and images.”

“Representation matters and it was apparent to me that photography is experiencing a great evolution regarding the level of diversity pictured,” Pao says.

“While it felt like there was a fair representation of racial diversity, I would have liked to see more range in the ages of subjects, and in particular the elderly,” says Jimenez.

I asked the jurors to share their biggest disappointments with the entries.

“Not belonging to the contemporary cultural zeitgeist,” juror David Roennfeldt says. “It didn't seem that the entries differed that much from what I can remember when looking at Communication Arts from the late ’80s through the early ’00s. The dialogue and outcomes in the images [appeared] very familiar to the past.”

“In some series projects, I felt a little inconsistency in quality,” says Gatti.

“In series, fewer people created a narrative or multiple image concepts than I expected,” Davis says. “Many of the series entries were simply similar photos on a topic.”

“I found there to be too many overhead drone images that began to look the same,” says Jimenez.

With the overall decline in commis-sioned work and lower royalties from stock photography, I asked the jurors what other profit centers are photographers exploring.

“There will always be an opportunity to use photography as art and using sites like EyeEm and Picter [for photographers] to advertise their work to hang on people’s walls,” Wallington says. 

“Today, it seems as if people have a renewed interest in prints and art for their home,” says Smith. “In addition to that, many artists [find] success within the NFT space selling digital versions of their work to a new breed of art collectors.”

“There is a definite new guard coming through photography and image making where, because of social media, a younger and less-well-known photographer has a chance to be noticed and to pick up com-missions,” Roennfeldt says. “It is also merging with the world of digital art, providing image makers and photographers with [the] opportunity to create their own work and reach their own audiences.”

“Successful photographers these days are able to create multiple income streams with their work,” says Davis. “They develop a specialization, initiate ideas and bodies of work based on that specialty, and connect with a range of entities that want to support that type of work. On top of that, they typically have some combination of strong outward presence that includes a compelling website, a defined social media presence, books, gallery shows, print sales, workshops [or] NFTs.”

Lastly, I asked the jurors for their thoughts on how the field of photography might evolve.

“Technology will increasingly support visual artistic expressions, and with this evolution, we will always see something new,” Gatti says.

“Those who succeed going forward will be storytellers: people who can create narratives and conceive and execute specific approaches to express those narratives,” says Davis.

“I think the advent of the camera phone, with [more than] 4 trillion images taken every year, has made it harder to make clients invest in photography,” Wallington says. “Everybody thinks they are photographers, but when you see the standard of [these] finalists, you realize they are not! I hope we go back to more traditional film values that are on the rise with more indie companies giving [opportunities to] film camera users.”

“Although I feel recent fads are stripped back and raw in terms of technical application, I’ve been seeing more artists honoring the craft lately and implementing techniques used by the masters who shaped the art form,” says Ormerod.

“Every year, we get barraged [with] how much technology is changing photography and making it more friendly for the average consumer to participate—effectively killing the use for a ‘professional,’” Smith says. “As with most things in life, simply participating is not the challenge but elevating the act into an artistic endeavor requires more than technological advancements.  Whether iPhone, 4×5 or a shiny new mirrorless camera, the skill still lies within the photog-rapher. With that said, I firmly believe photography is staying exactly where it’s always been.”

A minimum of seven out of ten votes was required for a project to be awarded in this year’s competition. Judges were not permitted to vote on projects with which they were directly involved; I voted in their stead. I would like to extend our grateful appreciation to our jurors for their conscientious efforts in selecting our 63rd Photography Annual. —Patrick Coyne ca