Images for competitions

Hi Cor,

CTS - won a prize a couple of years ago (Sony Digicam plus Seacam Voucher US-$ 500). Never received it.

"Sorry, lost in transit" was all I got.

By the way, it is a natural behaviour of a mimic octopus to swim in open water? (I always believed they are bottom dwellers.) Last year a free-swimming mimic won a prize in Antibes.

Jock

Dont forget CTS either. Julie has not had her price for over a year now, and the response so far has been anything from silence to 'oh but we're only volunteers'. I can understand that, but then dont run a competition. Julie has now asked for her entry fee back, because why should she pay when they are not going to actually award the prices.

 

So, instead of always focusing on what we photographers should do and not do, don't forget their are two sides that need to keep the balance fair.

 

Cor

Hi Cor,

 

CTS - won a prize a couple of years ago (Sony Digicam plus Seacam Voucher US-$ 500). Never received it.

"Sorry, lost in transit" was all I got.

Interesting, Julie also won a $500 voucher.

By the way, it is a natural behaviour of a mimic octopus to swim in open water? (I always believed they are bottom dwellers.) Last year a free-swimming mimic won a prize in Antibes.

I know what the commonality is between these 2 topics, but there is always a chance. If you dive often enough, strange things happen sometimes.

Cor

I know what the commonality is between these 2 topics, but there is always a chance. If you dive often enough, strange things happen sometimes.

I prefer to think of it as "Strange things happen. If you dive often enough, sometimes you get to see them"

I personally think that competitions should be run the way the scientific journals are meaning that you can submit to only one at a time. If I send a paper to Diabetes Care for example, I have to sign a pledge that I haven't submitted the paper anywhere else.

I find this suggestion amusing. There is a big difference between scientific publishing and photo competitions. In the former, there is a reasonable expectation that if the work is competently done, it will get published. That is certainly not that case for the latter. Besides, I take a small number of competition worthy photos each year. If the competition deadlines overlap, which many of them do, why I should I be restricted to entering only one? On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable to limit entry to images that have not previously won in other competitions, which is the usual case. Unless, of course, you assume that you are going to win every competition you enter

I find this suggestion amusing. There is a big difference between scientific publishing and photo competitions. In the former, there is a reasonable expectation that if the work is competently done, it will get published. That is certainly not that case for the latter. Besides, I take a small number of competition worthy photos each year. If the competition deadlines overlap, which many of them do, why I should I be restricted to entering only one? On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable to limit entry to images that have not previously won in other competitions, which is the usual case. Unless, of course, you assume that you are going to win every competition you enter

 

Of course no one thinks of winning every competition nor do I expect that every paper I submit will get published first time out in top tier journals. Is it indeed the "usual case" that people don't submit images that have won before? I seem to see lots of the same images long after they have won and this was the premise of much of the discussion. I have no problem in suggesting that once a picture has won a competition then it gets retired and not submitted again, but only having it in one competition at a time would seem to encourage more variety in submission.

Bill

The fun of entering the same picture in multiple competitions is that you can see how the judges think. I, like many of you, see someone kick butt with an image and in another competition it doesn't make the first round cut. In my professional opinion this goes back to Cor's comment about improved accountability at the competition level, specifically judges who are qualified to be judges. No Cor didn't specifically say "judges" but it does fall under the accountability issue of providing the best visual management criteria (i.e. judges who know what they are talking about) they can afford on behalf of the entrants. Again, some of the judges get paid, so that, too, is where some of the money goes. Travel expenses and the like are not always taken on by the judging panel. One also must consider to what level of judgement a judge can place on an image. Take the mimic swimming for example. They don't "normally" swim in open water, but I was fortunate enough to see one swim to the surface and free swim. The guides were amazed as they have never seen this before. I nabbed a couple of good shots. If I entered that image could a judge "conclude that it is unnatural" and therefore eliminate it, when all along it was a once in a lifetime occurrence and that's why I entered it?

All in all, competitions must have some guidelines and rules for entrants and set some degree of judging authority, but that authority should come at the hands of experience. I mean we have all seen horrible images, ones that I would throw away, win a competition. Sometimes it just blows my mind, I shake my head, and go drink a beer. So for me, it's all in the quality of the competition infrastructure and judging panel. That boxer crab debacle was unfair and is a good example.....assuming the photographer "really" came upon them with no knowledge of repositioning.

Is it indeed the "usual case" that people don't submit images that have won before?

I did a quick check. The Wetpixel/DivePhotoGuide compeitions (DEEP Indonesia, Our World Underwater, Under the Blue) include a clause:

Images that have won or placed in photo contests with winning entries announced before March 15, 2007, may not be submitted. A winning image is defined as follows:

 

* any image that has placed 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in any contest that has resulted in prizes worth $100 USD or more.

* any image that has placed 1st, 2nd or 3rd in a "major" photography contest (to be determined subjectively by judges).

* any image that has placed 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in any "photo of the year"-type contest. Photos of the day, week, or month are fine, as long as they have not resulted in prizes worth $100 USD or more.

Similarly LAUPS includes the following clause:

Previous Best of Show or first through third placed award winning entries from this or any

other major competition, and previously published images are ineligible, as are images derived from the

same original.

I think this restriction is pretty standard.

I did a quick check. The Wetpixel/DivePhotoGuide compeitions (DEEP Indonesia, Our World Underwater, Under the Blue) include a clause:

Similarly LAUPS includes the following clause:

I think this restriction is pretty standard.

Depends on what published means I guess. I just saw one of the Epic prize winners and one of them also one at Under the Blue, so I guess there is a good reason to submit to as many contests at once as you can. I still think that limiting submissions gets more work out into view, but if your goal is to see how different judges look at the same image then go for it (I am a bit skeptical of this view though).

Bill

There is a local competition I would like to enter right now which is strictly labeled as an Amateur competition. However, one of the entrants is a professional who maintains a website selling images she takes under water. As someone who has less than three months experience and would like to enter this competition as a beginner I find this intimidating and may not even enter at this point. Am I wrong in thinking the person should not be allowed to enter?

There is a local competition I would like to enter right now which is strictly labeled as an Amateur competition. However, one of the entrants is a professional who maintains a website selling images she takes under water. As someone who has less than three months experience and would like to enter this competition as a beginner I find this intimidating and may not even enter at this point. Am I wrong in thinking the person should not be allowed to enter?

 

there are always people who "cheat" in all aspects of competition from soap box derby to tennis tournaments. Probably because if you get caught the only thing that happens is they take away your birthday

Bill

 

Yes indeed she shouldnt enter

There is a local competition I would like to enter right now which is strictly labeled as an Amateur competition. However, one of the entrants is a professional who maintains a website selling images she takes under water. As someone who has less than three months experience and would like to enter this competition as a beginner I find this intimidating and may not even enter at this point. Am I wrong in thinking the person should not be allowed to enter?

Do the rules define a pro? Or is it just that a pro may not enter and it's up to entrants to decide what a pro means. If it is the latter then the interpretation range is so grey that she may well see herself as not a pro.

If you search old messages here and other forums you can see how many times it has been discussed "what is a pro" referring to competitions. There will always be someone dissatisfied with any definition.

Somewhere someone invariably thinks "But I only go on one dive trip a year and only sell one or two images ever, so I am not a pro!"

To my thinking, it goes back to the organizers setting the rules, and in my head it's pretty easy; have you placed, published, or sold anything? Then you're a pro.

I have a buying option for pictures I put on my web site but I have never sold any that way. My web site is mainly a way for me to show others my passion and if I manage to sell any along the way great.

So just because she knows how to create a web site doesn't necessarily mean she is able to sell her pictures.

Regards

Gary

I can't see how someone who sells one or two images can be considered a pro. They have a full time position doing something else and happen to be able to publish an image or two. To me a pro is someone whose main focus is photography. Someone who sells on a regular basis to a number of mediums. Not Joe Blow who has a magazine like one of his/her images and sells it or has it published. I like the revenue/published images guidelines some competitions use. I think one competition uses 6 images as a guide while most others use 20 percent of income. Both seem reasonable. Why deter someone from selling an image at random.

IMHO

Todd

This is from Websters...

Professional

2 a : participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs

She maintains a website and has them displayed in frames around the island in various places for tourists.

This is from Websters...

Professional

2 a : participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs

It is interesting to look at the rest of the (sub)definition (emphasis is mine)

2 a : participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional golfer> b : having a particular profession as a permanent career <a professional soldier> c : engaged in by persons receiving financial return <professional football>

I think that most of the competitions specify a pro in the sense of definition 2b. I.e. as someone who derives a substantial fraction of their income from photography.

I find it very difficult to define a pro. For me personally photography will never be a substantial fraction of my income.

When organizers try to put some kind of 'amateur' or 'pro' stamp on their competitions I think what they really mean to say is that they are looking for specific skill levels, assuming that amateur/pro is somewhat similar to 'less skill/more skill'. Obviously if your profession is photography, you can infer that you'll probably be good at it or you would be looking for a different career.

But we all know that especially digital photography, and in our case underwater digital photography, attracts a lot of people with perfectly fine successful careers in a different field, who manage to become quite skillful in photography. You see it right here on wetpixel where there are a lot of very capable photographers that would not have to be ashamed of themselves if you put them next to any pro. Some manage to eventually make a career out of it and can quit their day job, but most can't or more likely, won't. It doesn't make them any less skillful.

So when competitions try to avoid "pros" I think what they really try to avoid is the top tier photographers, not necessarily only the ones that make a full living out of it. For this reason I usually try to read between the lines of competitions are see who they are trying to target.

I think it makes more sense for competitions to just have a 'placed in a competitions before' rule and forget about the pro/amateur. No self respecting real pro (and here I do mean the ones that make a full living) will enter a competition that targets people 'that have never placed in a competition before'. Any that do (and I do know an example or 2) imho just ridicules themselves forever.

Cor