Judges Feedback 2023 Awards

The following points were provided by one of our Photography judges and identifies some aspects to consider before submitting:

• An out-of-focus subject, even slightly, guarantees rejection. Judges do zoom in on images and the subject matter should be sharp.
• Levels/brightness range: quite a number of images were dark or dull, needed the levels or brightness range improving.
• Dust marks: several demonstrated dust marks, sometimes a few, some had a lot.
• No context: an ultra-close-up picture of a lesion with limited depth of field and impossible to tell where it is.
• Colour casts which spoil the picture
• Over-sharpening
• Vignetting, spot colour or inappropriate/cliché effects
• Specimens should have the correct orientation. Scales should be present and also be orientated correctly, i.e., horizontally under the specimen and an appropriate size, or vertically to the left of the specimen and reading correctly.

The following has been provided by two of our 2023 Ophthalmic judges:

After several years of judging the awards I felt that it would be helpful for those submitting images to know the parameters used for judging (such as focus, exposure composition, skill in execution) so they can reflect and grow in competence, quality and success for any future award submissions.

For ophthalmic entries, the image description is incredibly helpful and should be used to help direct the judge’s attention to the correct area of interest. This becomes especially important when there are multiple conditions in the same photo, for example if the title and description refer to a lens condition, this is where the focus should be. There are several other simple adjustments that can help an image. Make sure the point of focus is on the area of interest (not adjacent structures), and that this area is centred within the frame. Resist the urge for ultra-high magnification images (x40) as these usually lack context unless viewed as part of a series. Finally, lift the eyelids out of the way wherever possible to create a cleaner image and avoid obscuring detail.

One of our 2023 Video judges has provided this helpful feedback:

Video entries to the IMI Awards can range from short, one to two-minute programmes that demonstrate a technique or a procedure, to a much longer “film” that tells a story – It might describe a condition and its treatment or it might be a promotional or fund-raising programme. All entries must be clinically and factually correct. They should involve the blending of a few or all of the following elements: script, filming/picture, sound recording, graphics, visual and sound editing (including voice over, sound effects and music) and final edit.

However many elements are employed, judges expect Bronze Award winners to be technically sound and to have some “sparkle”. Silver Award winners should demonstrate higher and more advanced technical skills and have a higher visual and audio impact, they should have much more “sparkle”. Gold Award winners must demonstrate the highest and widest range of technical skills demonstrating an understanding of the production elements they have used and make a significant visual and audio impact.

In really exceptional circumstances, a programme could exceed all these levels and judges would recommend it for a Platinum Award where it will be judged again against those entries put forward from any the other categories.

The following information and advice has been provided by one of our 2023 Graphics judges:

Criteria

Because of the range of work (it could be likened to comparing apples with pears, peaches and cherries) from illustration to print to online, 2D or 3D, VR, etc., not every criterion can be applied to each entry but attempts are made to weight the work according to those criteria that are appropriate.

Bronze, Silver or Gold?

A Bronze usually means that an entry scored well in most categories, with some scoring less highly. A Silver means that it scored highly in most with perhaps one area where it was not at maximum. A Gold requires the entry to score exceptionally well in all applicable categories. These are some of the considerations in the individual criteria applied:

Layout

• Was the content well handled?
• Was there a dynamic, balanced grid?
• Were images well cropped?
• Were the elements proportionate and reflecting a clear hierarchy of information?

Colour

• Was there a consistent colour palette applied?
• Were the colours appropriate to the target audience?
• Were there problems of legibility or information hierarchy?
• Did it have impact?

Art Direction

• Was the photography / illustration of high quality?
• Was there evidence of a clear brief to the photographer / illustrator?

Typography

• Were the faces chosen appropriate?
• Was the type handled with discrimination?
• Was it suitable for the message and audience conveyed?
• Was there a consistent type hierarchy applied?

Creativity

• Did it have creative flair?
• Did it surprise?
• Was it imaginative?
• Was it out-of-the ordinary (in a good way)?
• Was there a clearly understandable and compelling idea behind it?

Appropriate to brief

• Was it fit for purpose?
• Was the idea appropriate to the brief?
• Was the target audience clearly addressed?
• Was it likely to be helpful to the users?
• Was the chosen medium suitable?