I beg to differ about your second statement. I agree with the first part and it's why I don't enter general competition. I restrict my entries to those competitions where I know that the judge will be knowledgeable about Natural History.

I wish that I could remember where to find the quote that I remember from the RPS distinctions advice in NH photography. It goes something like "showing the essential features and/or biology of the subject preferably with an overlay of pictorialism" (the italics are mine).

In other parts of the advice it makes the assumption that, in general, the subjects are "wild and free".

The essence of good NH photography, at least in the circles that I know, is to show something that truly represents the subject and if possible shows something of the biology or habits of that subject. Therefore one needs a judge that knows something about the subject - not just about exposure and composition. In my dragonfly example one would have hoped that the judge would recognise that the photographer had chosen a viewpoint and depth of field and exposure that showed, for example, the tracheal tubes or the wing buds or any ID features or habititat or the fastening of the larval case to its support.

No judge could be supremely competent in all aspects of NH and, as you say, a general judge would most likely flounder. However those of us doing NH would prefer a judge that understands what it is that we are trying to do - and making a pretty picture is not the top priority.

As I've mentioned above it's not, absolutely not, just about producing pretty pictures. Having said that if you can achieve my quasi-scientific aim and at the same time make it pictorially great then you have done something very special indeed.

MickLL