Posted by Craig Sullivan on February 10, 2009 at 4:50 PM
I was viewing the OP Finalists Gallery of the Celebrate The Seasons Photo Contest. Displayed are 60 images that the judges deemed best out of 3700+ entries. Some of these images have blown highlights or were underexposed among other flaws. Who does their judging, and what are their criteria for a "finalist" selection (2% of all entries)?
Why bother entering these contests if you lose to such bad images?
I would expect better from OP.
This is not sour grapes from a sore loser. I am simply astonished at such poor judging or else 3700 unselected images that were really bad.
Posted by Kah Kit Yoong on February 10, 2009 at 5:09 PM
I haven't entered any OP competitions before so I think I'm impartial. I think as photographers we are probably a lot more harsh on imperfections than judges who may not necessarily be specialist landscape photographers. Also technical flaws may be irrelevant if the overall image has great impact. That said, many of the selections seem to be very predictable compositions of common subjects, often over-saturated. Which seem to the normal ingredients for a magazine competition!
I'll second Kah Kit's point and go one further. I bet that the judges were not photographers. Non-photographers relate very differently to photos than do photographers. I've always felt that we as a group tend to mire ourselves in the red tape of technical perfection..... cutting it lengthwise, if you will. When it comes to SELLING images, whether for cash or votes in a contest, impact, message and emotion trump technical points every single time. Compare the flawed OP images that won with some of the "perfect" ones that didn't make the grade, and I'm willing to bet the losers lack those specific qualities in spite of any technical "perfection."
Kind of like those ads on TV (can't remember who, because I seldom watch the idiot box) that feature a kid opening a giant giftwrapped box to find a pencil within or an extra large pizza box with a tiny pizza inside. You can wrap an image in technical perfection, but if it doesn't deliver the goods, it's just pretty wrapping on a mediocre product.
Posted by Mark Strang on February 11, 2009 at 12:39 AM
I once belonged to a wild life photo club in my home town in the mountains of British Columbia. A friend of mine entered a beautiful and well taken photo of a rare (in that area) saw whet owl. Exposure and detail, although taken at night, were perfect. As usual, the winning photo was a bugling Elk (for the third time), which were as common in the area as stray cats. I sometimes wondered what went on in the judges minds and stated so, only to be told to "shut up". Ah well??
Posted by Dave Flaig on February 11, 2009 at 1:25 AM
Right on the mark, Hank. I look for IMPACT first, and then do whatever I can to make a technically acceptable photograph. I've been known to purposely "blow out" a few clouds if it adds impact to the scene. It is, like you said, for some it's all about the content, mood and/or message you're trying to portray. A lot of guys are tinting skys in pastels for 'effect' and there is nothing at all wrong with that if it makes a statement that people like.
It's extremely important to understand and know the rules in any endeavor in life. It's usually the ones who are adventurous enough and to know how and when to manipulate the rules, or when to break them, that walk the extra mile to become successful.
Dave
Dave Flaig
Green Bay Wisconsin
http://www.flaigphoto.com
"Though we travel the world over to find the beautiful, we must carry it with us or we find it not." - Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Posted by Steve Sieren on February 11, 2009 at 1:27 AM
You might also want to consider that the magazine is a business and I'm sure a huge percentage of their readers are beginner photographers. If they put a few beginners in the finalist's catagory it helps out the magazine's popularity and helps out the business at the same time. I don't think they hurt anyone by doing this. It's more of a lottery with so many images entered. They do a great job and I'm sure you won't stop reading there magazine because of this. Times are tough right now and they are the only magazine of the sort in the U.S. so you would have to assume they know what they're doing. Sure wouldn't want to see them go out of business. I'm sure if you keep trying you'll get one in there. All a person can do is try try try.
Posted by Don Grall on February 11, 2009 at 4:21 AM
It might be possible that some of those blown out highlights were blown out in the printing process!
Posted by Steve Foss on February 11, 2009 at 6:14 AM
Non-photographers relate very differently to photos than do photographers. I've always felt that we as a group tend to mire ourselves in the red tape of technical perfection.
Exactly.
Posted by Stan Rose on February 11, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Thanks Craig, cause coincidentally i was just looking at the OP winners from one of there other contests (ive never entered an OP contest either, so have no personal bias) and i was thinking exactly the same thing! In fact, i came to the Hot Topics gallery just now because i was thinking of posting this very same topic! SO, either we're both out to lunch, or we are right
I think we are right. Frankly, I cant see how those images could have been judged by photographers (i assume they were) and if they werent , they should have been. I completely understand the "Impact, emotion etc is more important than technique" arguments of some of the above comments, but frankly, these were not cases of people who understood the rules but broke them by design, i truly think these were simply fairly lame shots taken by people who haven't learned the rules yet. I mean, a couple were downright bad. They would have been clobbered in any of the critique galleries here. Now, maybe there is something to the point that we as photographers are overly caught up in technique and presentation, because i probably am somewhat biased by being exposed to the world class photos on this site on a daily basis, but honestly i don't think so. I think it is more than possible to produce a photo that has "all of the above": impact, emotion and technical profficiency. There's just no way any self-respecting landscape photographer could look at these shots and not see the blatant problems with some of them. I personally think its an insult to the photographers who lost out because of that. Thanks for the opportunity to rant, Craig
I'm always reminded of the biggest juried photography show in Alaska, for which they bring in very large name art critics from around the country as judges. There was some of the most breathtaking photography you can imagine hanging on the walls. The winner in the year in question (and no I didn't have anything entered, and I certainly haven't been back to the show) was an 8x10 Walmart enlargement of a dented snow shovel leaning against a weathered picket fence. Heck not even the whole shovel was in focus. As I recall only the top of the handle and one corner of the fence made that particular grade.
But this Big Name Art Critic from San Francisco was absolutely rapturous about how the shovel symbolized the transitory nature of life. Can't imagine why, but the show had less than half the number of entrants and visitors the next year.
Posted by Steve Foss on February 11, 2009 at 5:55 PM
I don't think I've ever entered a photo contest (other than the one we all enter here whenever we submit a photo in the critique boards), so I really have no horse in this race. But it looks like the OP awards were the equivalent of the People's Choice Awards for music, while contests judged by other photographers would be more like the Grammies.
There is room for both types of contests in the world, isn't there?
Frankly, as one who makes my living at this, if it comes down to either pleasing regular folks with my photographs or pleasing other photographers, the choice would be so clear I wouldn't even have to think about it. As Hank pointed out, and many of us have said for quite some time, we as photographers look for many different things in evaluating a photograph than do normal people. Luckily, I can please other photographers sometimes with images posted on NPN and please real people out in the real world with other images. If I'm really lucky, once in awhile the same photograph pleases both audiences.
Posted by Stan Rose on February 11, 2009 at 5:55 PM
(referring to Hank's response) That's exactly the problem when they let the standards fall--then no one wants to participate. I mean, I might have entered one of OPs contests, but now i'd have second thoughts, cause even if i were to win it wouldnt mean that much to me considering the other winners.
Posted by Stan Rose on February 11, 2009 at 6:05 PM
Steve: it's interesting to hear that opinion, as a non-pro i can understand that, but can't relate. From popular music to art etc, to me i'd much rather reach the audience that understands the medium. Those are the artists that live on long after they're dead and buried.
But you're right, the real challenge is to reach both, and as i said i do think that is possible. It's not an accident that everyone knows Ansel Adams name.
I think the problem Stan, is that photographers don't buy photos and they aren't Steve's and my market. It's fine to stand on artistic principle, but our bankers only deal in principal.
Posted by Steve Foss on February 11, 2009 at 7:29 PM
Stan, as usual Hank amplified well.
To put it another way, when I come in from a day's nature shoot and download and sort images, there are some images that move me and others I just shrug my shoulders over. When my wife looks over my shoulder as I'm doing this, the ones I think are just OK are the ones she thinks are great. The ones that move me leave her shrugging her shoulders. Guess which ones sell better. Yep, her picks, hands down. Guess which ones get better reviews here on NPN. Yep, mine.
Once in awhile we are both enamored of the same image, and when that happens I know we're going to do well selling it and get good critical reviews from fellow photographers as well. Those are the ones that get triple-secret backup status.
As my wife is fond of saying, "A photography business is 95% business and 5% art." That ratio pretty well covers the ratio of "market" photos to "art" photos in sales, too. Sure I like being artsy, but I have to make a living in order to clear up the free time for the art.
Posted by Craig Sullivan on February 11, 2009 at 7:40 PM
Steve, beautifully stated, you got the essence of the issue. I guess if any of us want to enter a contest, we best get our mate's opinion.
Posted by Steve Sieren on February 11, 2009 at 10:15 PM
Well, speaking of our mate's opinions. Ever notice how different the experience is when you're both in a respectable gallery? Us photogs looks at stuff a little too long with our noses up to it and mutter or whisper something to our mates that don't really care what were saying because we're ruining their experience. They step back and enjoys the ones they like and move on quickly from the ones they don't like. I should just be stepping back more ofton and just enjoying the good ones.
Success is a great thing but unfortunately it carries a very heavy wieght of past falures. Tough subject here. I've had my feelings hurt many times. It took a lot just post a reply.
Posted by Louis Neal on February 13, 2009 at 8:48 PM
Steve said it right, for sure. Most of the images that I have sold are ones that I find "boring". They do, however, fit a need for buyers who are not photographers.
BTW - I didn't like the winning picks either.
Posted by Louis Neal on February 13, 2009 at 8:49 PM
Steve said it right, for sure. Most of the images that I have sold are ones that I find "boring". They do, however, fit a need for buyers who are not photographers.
BTW - I didn't like the winning picks either.
Well, here I go. Just got here after a long absence and just joined as a paying member.
Although I appreciate critiques that point out technical imperfections, as they generally call my
attention to places I can increase the scope of expression in my photos, I think that many
photographers are blind to the spirit of certain classes of photography. I will sometime intentionally
"block" my shadows, because in real life, the shadows were invisible in the sunlit white water along
a foggy stream. Before I critique, I generally try to look at the photograph as an attempt to freeze
an experience in time, rather than a set of composition and technical rules. The rules can reduce
frustration in capturing some scenes, but if the image evokes a reliving of location and emotion,
then NONE of the rules matter. Look at my stuff and feel free to blast away. To all I will be
thankful, some I will emulate, some I will consider, others I will pity as some will me. I no-longer
critique judges. It is their contest. The photos that elicit the effect they are after will win. The
equipment, technique, experience usually don't matter to them, as long as they will transfer to
the intended output media, they are happy.
Gary
Gary W. Sherwin
Posted by Craig Sullivan on February 24, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Excellent feedback from everyone. But I stick to my original complaint: "I would expect better from OP. "
After all, OP is a photographers magazine, read by people who are photographers probably looking for something new to learn. I guess what we "learned" from this is: Know your audience or buyer. And all our efforts toward technical excellence is primarily for us and our fellow photographers.
I guess I assumed that OP's judges would be photographers looking for "impact" AND technical excellence.
Posted by Carl Donohue on February 24, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Stan Rose wrote:
From popular music to art etc, to me i'd much rather reach the audience that understands the medium
Hey Stan,
As a musician though, you'll understand, I'm sure, that the rules change all the time. Look at guitar playing. What constituted 'good guitar playing' 30 years ago is considered, by countless 'good musicians', to be nonsense today. And what is played today wouldn't pass muster back then. So even with the 'audience that understands the medium' as you say, nothing's set in stone.
That said, I didn't find any of the images on the site to really grab me. And I don't recall ever hearing any of the American Idol contestants being too impressive either. :)
Cheers
Carl
Posted by David Senesac on February 25, 2009 at 10:50 PM
From the inception of OP, I had a subscription until a few years ago. So don't know what the current images show. Since you all have made me curious I'll take a peak at the current issue down at the local supermarket isle. I rather recall some decent images in contests past but also some we would make jokes about. OP has always had a list big name nature and landscape photographers working for them. And from time to time they get their work in that mag if it fits the purpose of articles. And those same big names often use stock from other big names like Muench, Rowell, etc. Much such material looks just like the better work here on NPN. So that in itself shows that when they judge images, the job probably of selecting images goes to none of those folks but rather someone their bean counter prefers.
Posted by Dan Jurak on February 27, 2009 at 9:34 PM
Better judging from OP? When it comes to anything aesthetic, there is no right or wrong.
I learned ages ago when I had my first photo assigment critiqued by a visiting professional photographer. He was at that time, the hottest people shooter in town.
It was clear to me from the word go that they were his opinions. Not a statement of fact. And so it goes with contests. Pick five people who are great in their field and ask them their opinions on something in their field and you will probably get five different opinions.
Vive le difference.
That said, I saw the final selections and I agree, they were a very uninspiring bunch of images.
You're right, Carl, I guess im just hoping that those of us in the "know" are better prepared to maybe recognize stuff that might stand the test of time.
I agree the American Idol contestants are all starting to sound alike...too bad.
As someone who did enter the contest, I was disappointed in many of the images you have already described, but I did not want to say anything because I didn't want to come off as petty or jilted. In fact there were images I liked by several other photographers that I felt deserved to be finalists and even winners.
I hope that somehow an OP editor or producer see's this thread.
I hope that somehow an OP editor or producer see's this thread.
James, thanks for your suggestion, I sent a link to this thread to the editor of OP.
I will post any response I get.
Posted by Ron Niebrugge on April 30, 2009 at 12:57 AM
Are you really going to email them?
I'm sure Chris will be thrilled to learn that there is a group of photographers on some internet forum who think they can do his job better then he can.
Maybe it is just me, but threads like this really rub me the wrong way. Its subjective. I think that is the beauty of photography, music and art - if we all agreed upon what is best, it would be a boring world.
Personally, I think there are some nice photos in that group.
We're not saying that there are all bad images or bad images at all. But I think we are saying thatthere are images that go beyond iconic, go beyond simple and are of better photographic quality than some that were chosen for the finalists. The newer OP contest seems to have reflected the same thoughts we were having here as I have noticed some great beyond the norm photographs in the finalist categories
Like I said I wasn't trying to show ill will because one of my shots wasn't chosen, in fact I saw a great many photographs I found much better than my own that were not chosen which really surprised me more.
Besides we're not saying we do a better job than someone, like how we critique each other's images here in this forum of photographers from several levels of expertise and talent, we're merely critiquing his work as well. Nothing wrong with that. This is how we all learn.
Discussion
29 repliesWhy bother entering these contests if you lose to such bad images?
I would expect better from OP.
This is not sour grapes from a sore loser. I am simply astonished at such poor judging or else 3700 unselected images that were really bad.
Kind of like those ads on TV (can't remember who, because I seldom watch the idiot box) that feature a kid opening a giant giftwrapped box to find a pencil within or an extra large pizza box with a tiny pizza inside. You can wrap an image in technical perfection, but if it doesn't deliver the goods, it's just pretty wrapping on a mediocre product.
It's extremely important to understand and know the rules in any endeavor in life. It's usually the ones who are adventurous enough and to know how and when to manipulate the rules, or when to break them, that walk the extra mile to become successful.
Dave
Dave Flaig
Green Bay Wisconsin
http://www.flaigphoto.com
"Though we travel the world over to find the beautiful, we must carry it with us or we find it not." - Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Exactly.
I think we are right. Frankly, I cant see how those images could have been judged by photographers (i assume they were) and if they werent , they should have been. I completely understand the "Impact, emotion etc is more important than technique" arguments of some of the above comments, but frankly, these were not cases of people who understood the rules but broke them by design, i truly think these were simply fairly lame shots taken by people who haven't learned the rules yet. I mean, a couple were downright bad. They would have been clobbered in any of the critique galleries here. Now, maybe there is something to the point that we as photographers are overly caught up in technique and presentation, because i probably am somewhat biased by being exposed to the world class photos on this site on a daily basis, but honestly i don't think so. I think it is more than possible to produce a photo that has "all of the above": impact, emotion and technical profficiency. There's just no way any self-respecting landscape photographer could look at these shots and not see the blatant problems with some of them. I personally think its an insult to the photographers who lost out because of that. Thanks for the opportunity to rant, Craig
But this Big Name Art Critic from San Francisco was absolutely rapturous about how the shovel symbolized the transitory nature of life. Can't imagine why, but the show had less than half the number of entrants and visitors the next year.
There is room for both types of contests in the world, isn't there?
Frankly, as one who makes my living at this, if it comes down to either pleasing regular folks with my photographs or pleasing other photographers, the choice would be so clear I wouldn't even have to think about it. As Hank pointed out, and many of us have said for quite some time, we as photographers look for many different things in evaluating a photograph than do normal people. Luckily, I can please other photographers sometimes with images posted on NPN and please real people out in the real world with other images. If I'm really lucky, once in awhile the same photograph pleases both audiences.
But you're right, the real challenge is to reach both, and as i said i do think that is possible. It's not an accident that everyone knows Ansel Adams name.
To put it another way, when I come in from a day's nature shoot and download and sort images, there are some images that move me and others I just shrug my shoulders over. When my wife looks over my shoulder as I'm doing this, the ones I think are just OK are the ones she thinks are great. The ones that move me leave her shrugging her shoulders. Guess which ones sell better. Yep, her picks, hands down. Guess which ones get better reviews here on NPN. Yep, mine.
Once in awhile we are both enamored of the same image, and when that happens I know we're going to do well selling it and get good critical reviews from fellow photographers as well. Those are the ones that get triple-secret backup status.
As my wife is fond of saying, "A photography business is 95% business and 5% art." That ratio pretty well covers the ratio of "market" photos to "art" photos in sales, too. Sure I like being artsy, but I have to make a living in order to clear up the free time for the art.
Success is a great thing but unfortunately it carries a very heavy wieght of past falures.
BTW - I didn't like the winning picks either.
BTW - I didn't like the winning picks either.
Although I appreciate critiques that point out technical imperfections, as they generally call my
attention to places I can increase the scope of expression in my photos, I think that many
photographers are blind to the spirit of certain classes of photography. I will sometime intentionally
"block" my shadows, because in real life, the shadows were invisible in the sunlit white water along
a foggy stream. Before I critique, I generally try to look at the photograph as an attempt to freeze
an experience in time, rather than a set of composition and technical rules. The rules can reduce
frustration in capturing some scenes, but if the image evokes a reliving of location and emotion,
then NONE of the rules matter. Look at my stuff and feel free to blast away. To all I will be
thankful, some I will emulate, some I will consider, others I will pity as some will me. I no-longer
critique judges. It is their contest. The photos that elicit the effect they are after will win. The
equipment, technique, experience usually don't matter to them, as long as they will transfer to
the intended output media, they are happy.
Gary
Gary W. Sherwin
After all, OP is a photographers magazine, read by people who are photographers probably looking for something new to learn. I guess what we "learned" from this is: Know your audience or buyer. And all our efforts toward technical excellence is primarily for us and our fellow photographers.
I guess I assumed that OP's judges would be photographers looking for "impact" AND technical excellence.
Hey Stan,
As a musician though, you'll understand, I'm sure, that the rules change all the time. Look at guitar playing. What constituted 'good guitar playing' 30 years ago is considered, by countless 'good musicians', to be nonsense today. And what is played today wouldn't pass muster back then. So even with the 'audience that understands the medium' as you say, nothing's set in stone.
That said, I didn't find any of the images on the site to really grab me. And I don't recall ever hearing any of the American Idol contestants being too impressive either. :)
Cheers
Carl
I learned ages ago when I had my first photo assigment critiqued by a visiting professional photographer. He was at that time, the hottest people shooter in town.
It was clear to me from the word go that they were his opinions. Not a statement of fact. And so it goes with contests. Pick five people who are great in their field and ask them their opinions on something in their field and you will probably get five different opinions.
Vive le difference.
That said, I saw the final selections and I agree, they were a very uninspiring bunch of images.
I agree the American Idol contestants are all starting to sound alike...too bad.
I hope that somehow an OP editor or producer see's this thread.
James, thanks for your suggestion, I sent a link to this thread to the editor of OP.
I will post any response I get.
I'm sure Chris will be thrilled to learn that there is a group of photographers on some internet forum who think they can do his job better then he can.
Maybe it is just me, but threads like this really rub me the wrong way. Its subjective. I think that is the beauty of photography, music and art - if we all agreed upon what is best, it would be a boring world.
Personally, I think there are some nice photos in that group.
Like I said I wasn't trying to show ill will because one of my shots wasn't chosen, in fact I saw a great many photographs I found much better than my own that were not chosen which really surprised me more.
Besides we're not saying we do a better job than someone, like how we critique each other's images here in this forum of photographers from several levels of expertise and talent, we're merely critiquing his work as well. Nothing wrong with that. This is how we all learn.
.