FPCC on the Web

Internal Competitions

Print & DPI of the Year Entry Guidance

(By fpcc-web-editor: This topic/category is under review).

We have recently had some enquiries about eligibility criteria for the Print & DPI ‘Of The Year’ competitions.

The images invited for selection comply with the following extract of the competition rules (as at 2013; the latest version).


16. All entries for this competition will either have been placed first second or third in previous league competitions and/or have scored 9.5 or 10 for prints or 19 or 20 for PDIs.  The Competition Secretary will notify members who are eligible and name their entries according to the records.
17. An independent judge will be appointed. He/she will simply identify an outright winner and name a second and third place.
18. Trophies will be awarded to the winners of the Print and PDI of the Year competitions at the end of the season with certificates for 1st , 2nd and 3rd places.


The reason for the enquiry this season was due to the addition of Highly Commended awards, available at Judges discretion.

There is nothing in the rules to say a highly commended image that scores less than 9.5 should be invited to the Print & DPI Of the Year competition.

If you think that needs to change, you need to ensure it is raised at the next available AGM 

AV Competition Update (Written in 2012)

(By fpcc-web-editor: Following the 2019 AGM this data requires revision).

Some of you may have been following the hot debate over our recent AV competition over the last few days.

There has been much discussion about the rules, whether they need to be reviewed and importantly, whether they have been applied fairly or not.

The club officials have been considering all of the points raised and have decided that in this instance the rules were not applied appropriately.

Within the rules there is one that states;

The Author’s name must not appear in the production.

It is this rule that was breached by at least two of the entries.  One of the entries that breached this rules was placed third by the judge (who, to be fair, may not have been aware of this rule).

It is therefore regrettable that the decision has been taken that the entry that came third has had to be disqualified.

How do we stop this happening in the future?

As a club, we are fairly new to running AV competitions, we have already accepted that we may need to review the rules of the competition.  It is also accepted that if we do have rules, they must be applied, and they must be applied fairly to all entrants.

I would also like to suggest that in future AV competitions, we take a leaf out of the PDI competition rule book and ask for entries a week or two in advance.  This way any questionable entries can be referred back to the entrant before the competition, or simply not accepted.

The club officials regret the upset this incident has caused to all concerned but hope that even taking this into account, everyone enjoyed seeing the AV entries displayed.