To begin with, we walked around the Gallery, looking at each piece. We discussed what we each liked in what we saw, and the reasons why we liked it. The challenge of judging something so subjective as art and in the case of this show, photographs as art, lies in being true to one’s own taste.

Neither of us classify ourselves as photographers, yet we are both keenly interested in realism and the varying levels of realism that can be achieved in art as well as in photography. We talked about the technological interventions now possible in the creation of photo-images. We acknowledged that we use technology too, in the pursuit of art.

Our choices as jurors, ultimately, were based on what we perceived as artistic merit: visual stories, technical mastery and a delight in beauty.

Nick Williams:

We nitpicked about technical points. Some pieces looked more obviously modified by AI (or other techniques) than others. Then again, in the past, there was dark-room manipulation. There’s always more than just the raw image that appears in front of the camera’s lens. Story elements matter. Aesthetics matter. We chose what appealed to us as artists.

Manjula Padmanabhan:

With wild-like images, we have all been a bit spoiled by what I call the National Geographic Effect: spectacular sights have become the norm. Sometimes, a photograph can seem over-refined, like a fashion shoot, aiming for a very particular, very predictable, high polish. By contrast, I believe we were attracted to personal visions, presented with sophistication and wit.