04/26/2026
There’s something I’ve been thinking about lately, especially after entering work into PPA’s merit system.
Over the past few years, a number of my images have been recognized in international competitions like IPA and TIFA, including a first place finish this past year. So naturally, I was curious how that same body of work would translate within PPA’s judging structure.
The short answer is, it didn’t. Not a single image earned a merit.
At first glance, that feels like a contradiction. But the more I’ve sat with it, the more I’ve realized it’s not really about quality, it’s about what’s being measured.
PPA’s system is built around consistency and speed of evaluation. Images are judged quickly, and there’s a clear emphasis on immediate readability, strong subject definition, and controlled visual hierarchy. That makes sense for a standardized process.
But it also raises a broader question.
What does it mean to “master” photography?
Because not all photography is designed to resolve in a few seconds. Some images are built to be read more slowly. They rely on layering, tension, and ambiguity. They ask the viewer to spend time, to look twice, to question what they’re seeing before it fully lands.
That kind of work can be harder to quantify in a system designed for efficiency. It doesn’t always present a single, dominant subject. It doesn’t always guide the viewer in a linear way. And because of that, it can be undervalued in structured judging environments.
None of this is to dismiss PPA or the merit system. It serves a purpose, and it does that well. But it’s also fair to acknowledge that it represents one definition of photographic success, not the only one.
For those of us working in more conceptual or fine art spaces, it’s a reminder that recognition isn’t universal. The same image can be celebrated in one context and overlooked in another.
That doesn’t make the work stronger or weaker. It just means it’s being viewed through a different lens.
And maybe that’s the bigger takeaway.
Photography isn’t one thing. It never has been. And any system that tries to define it too narrowly will always leave somet