Photo contests and competitions

The other thread here at NPN on baiting got me thinking. Are photography contests a good thing? Some of the posters in that thread mentioned that live baiting and other, very questionable techniques, were used in order to get more "wow" photos to win contests, etc.

It reminded me of the time I decided to stop participating in any kind of photography contests or related activities.

There was a website I had participated in, PhotoSIG. One could post photos and they would get voted on, and highly voted photos would go to the front page.

One of the participants there had some photographs of frogs that were highly rated. Then he began to post photos of the frogs sitting in toy chairs and doing things frogs would not normally do. I had a very sick feeling when I saw them, and looked closely at one of the photographs at 100%. Sure enough, there were traces of hot glue visible in the image. The photographer had killed frogs and used glue and presumably other artificial devices to prop up and pose the frogs for his photographs.

So in order to get highly rated images and the hope for a "front page" photo on PhotoSIG, this individual was killing wildlife and taking pictures of the dead bodies.

I really have to question whether photo contests and competitions, online or otherwise, are a good thing at all. It seems to drive certain people to engage in morally and ethically dubious actions in order to increase their chances of winning the competition.

In order to come to a fair conclusion, one should consider the subject matter from different perspectives. Sometimes it is not an easy thing to do, but it's the right thing to do.

Contests are never really judged the way we think they should be, and some unethical persons will always try to use dubious means of getting competitive photos.That's just people!!! Nobody likes that!
Judging is always subjective according to the judges tastes, as well. I once entered a shootout that allowed only two entries per person taken on one mornings shoot from a single roll of film. I took second and third place (or H.M.?) with a photo of a Gila Woodpecker and a Cardinal. The first place winner won with a photo of a Saguaro against a sunrise sky. The judges gave the other person first place because he only had 45 seconds of colorful light to get the shot. Forty-five seconds would have been a luxury with either bird, IMO!!! The judges are both very prominent photographers that are well experienced with bird and animal photography, but that was their reasoning. I would have judged differently, but that's the subjective part and a personal bias on my part. The Gila Woodpecker went on to grace the cover of a magazine later.
If a person enters any contest, he/she will face unfair competition and rule breakers, as well as judging that may be biased. That's just part of the game. I still feel that it drives a person to do their best work and improve their skills, nonetheless. That's a good thing. Winning is just the bonus and not always a realistic expectation in the digital age. Even the glued frogs could have been taken care of digitally with the proper skills! Entering a slide taken the same day was more fair, IMO, because it wasn't possible to change exposure, remove twigs, adjust color, etc.

Joe

Again I think contests begin to shift the focus from the subject and begins to put it on the person taking the shot. Many a powerful images are known to any individual's memory, yet it is most likely  they do not remember or know who the photographer was. That's the better way, the more beneficial destination for a photographic image. I think there should be zero tolerance for anyone to abuse nature or it's animals in pursuit of a self fulfilling, selfish fantasy, masquerading as art or natural history, that in real truth is only pandering to one's ego. Unfortunately a few bad apples can and will spoil the barrel.


Paul

There are different kinds of contests and many are not aimed at "stroking one's ego." "The Valley Land Fund" is one, at least in prior years (I have not kept up with it recently). Here is a link to the books produced from the images taken during the contests:

http://valleylandfund.com/books/

The entry fees are pretty hefty, as is the prize money. I entered it in 2000 and the fees were $400 for the categories I entered. As I recall , the prize money was over $20,000. This is a serious contest! Unfortunately, I was unable to go down, and I forfeited my entry fees. I got married after I had already entered and I figured the time involved in seriously competing would not bear well on a new marriage!!! The ranch I had been assigned to produced several winning images, so I would have loved to have participated, but it was not to be. The rules are good and only global changes are allowed in the digital competition it evolved into. I believe that you must submit the RAW image for comparison. When I entered, it was still film entries.
If one only wants their ego stroked, all they have to do is post to Facebook. I am amazed with the number of likes and comments many images get!

Joe

From the website you sited Joe:

" It is the richest, toughest, most competitive photographic event in the world. The best wildlife photographers from across the country come to South Texas where they are teamed with private landowners."

And your going to try and convince everyone there is no ego strokes to winning this competition? No prestige to be gained, no recognition? All good for the esteem I would say..

Look when you take what someone says out of context and carry to it's extreme you'll always find argument. All I am saying is that contests evoke bragging rights....aka...ego. This is not always that bad of course, but contests encourage, or even enable competitive thinking with or against other competitors. I'm sure its all friendly most the time and sure some good photos may come of it. My only point is that the emphasis shifts to the photographer more than his subject possibly.

All games, competitions, contests, pit people against people in an effort to force excellence. The end might be a noble one in many regards, but some do go home the looser. The winner rides the high. You can't tell me that this does not happen with photo contests just as it does a ballgame. Pride, ego, esteem are a big part of it, but those very attributes do get in the way of sentient beings who do not value such things..nor do they have a need to as they live harmoniously with nature without them. They have no need to prove much just for esteem reasons. For mates, territory and such... sure..... but that is about survival, not pride and ego.

Many a artist bucked the system or the status quo and were dejected for it. They NEVER would have won any contest. But later, sometimes, even after they had died, they became recognized as geniuses before their time. And now we see them as heroes who were on the vanguard of something special. I don't think I ever heard of a single artist of great notoriety that was big on entering contests...Now why would that be?

I think it's more important to reach down inside and give your photography something of yourself, your own brand let's say, and not worry what others are doing. Pull it out from within. Do not be a follower or subject yourself to creating photography whose directions are guided by rules and besting others.

Of course everyone is different and yeah I'm sure many people are just having fun submitting what they will without all the baggage. I'm generalizing and if you site specifics you'll be all over the map on this subject I would think.

I'm reminded of how awful those hunting contests are and how they totally leave the animal behind in a quest for the biggest rack, the most shot, the strongest beast taken down. The similarities are there in that the wildlife is no longer, to one degree or another, the primary objective of the endeavor.

Paul

Valley Land Fund is no longer holding contests. Wildlife in Focus http://www.wildlifeinfocus.org/page1.aspx#.VZsDJ5VFCM8 is doing the same concept. The books are used in elementary school science classes. Many of the kids have no idea that these animals even exist in their state. The contest also raises landowner awareness. Some no longer kill coyotes or rattlesnakes since having their eyes opened through photography.

jeff Parker wrote:Valley Land Fund is no longer holding contests.  Wildlife in Focus http://www.wildlifeinfocus.org/page1.aspx#.VZsDJ5VFCM8 is doing the same concept.  The books are used in elementary school science classes.  Many of the kids have no idea that these animals even exist in their state. The contest also raises landowner awareness.  Some no longer kill coyotes or rattlesnakes since having their eyes opened through photography.

Thanks for pointing this out Jeff. If one looks over the winners...well it looks like a lot of winners. Not only are there dozens of categories, but each category has 5 winners. The birds categories number 22 so 22X5 equals 110 winners! This is real nice the way they did this. Everyone goes home with a win maybe. Less a contest and more a get together for a good cause. Nice... "animals" 8 categories, "invertebrates" 8, "reptiles and amphibians" 5, and "special" 12 categories. And yes some great images. Clearly this is a better way to structure something to induce great photos than a typical photo contest.

Paul
 

I participated in the Valley Land contest in 2002 and all of the Coastal Bend contests from 2001-2009. I was fortunate to have had some winning images in each contest. Many participating photographers do not get one winning image. More details on how these contest work and the results can be found at these two articles I wrote for NSN in 2005 and 2007.

http://www.naturescapes.net/articles/co ... o-contest/


http://www.naturescapes.net/articles/co ... s-at-home/

The Valley Land Fund has contests for youth only. I am not sure if Images for Conservation Fund in Texas is still having their Pro/Am contests.

Joe Smith

Prize money was greater than I remembered ($120,000). Here is how it affected one photographer. It seems like it was a big inspiration to him:

http://www.bugsbirdsandbeyond.com/Who_i ... erra_.html

It is not all about ego, no matter what some people think. At the time I had entered, a couple of months of dedicated work could result in a hefty payday, if you had the time to stay in the field enough and had the skills to back you up. Most pros could not be there for the full duration of the contest, so the ones that could had a greater chance of capturing prize winners. Many of the contestants could not spare the time. If a person has ever tried to make a living at wildlife photography, you know that there was a great amount of money to be made by the winners. Winning a money shoot like this is much more than ego, since it was prize money at the bottom line. The ranches put forth much effort to help out, since the prize money was split with them. The set-ups and habitat were a large part of getting the shot and some even offered accommodations to their contestants.  It was a great way to build up a great portfolio, as well, which could mean money down the road. Many of the contestants did very well, and some are known around here at NSN. Hector Astorga, Larry Ditto, Beto Gutierrez (owner of the Santa Clara Ranch) are some of the examples of the contests entrants and prize winners.

http://www.larryditto.com/about.html

http://www.hectorastorga.com/info.html

http://www.santaclararanch.com/contact.html

If you look at Joe Smiths first link, out of 61 entrants (51 individuals and 10 on teams), the top seven winners received 1st; $10,900, 2nd: $7,700, 3rd: $7,600, 4th: $6,200, 5th: $4800, 2-6th places (tie): $3,300.  Not small money for over 10% of the entrants, plus the ability to increase portfolios dramatically!!!

Joe

"It is not all about ego, no matter what some people think."

There you go again taking things out of context and going to the extreme Joe. I wish you would stop doing that...
I NEVER said it was all about the ego.

But now that you bring up the money aspect of it does not money rewards change things a bit? From my experiences when there's money at stake things get let's say a bit dicey...

Well I'm glad to hear the photographers and the ranchers are making out so well...


Paul

I think the first distinction one has to make is whether you are a person whose livelihood depends upon photography, i.e. you are a true professional, or you are simply an enthusiast, a hobbyist, an amateur who loves photography but does not intend to make a living that way. Granted there are some individuals who may sell a print now and then through a gallery or other outlets but that is not their primary source of income.

For professionals, winning a contest, especially if of sufficient fame or popularity among the lay public provides a tremendous boost to their standing, their name recognition and could easily double their fortunes in terms of sales/workshops and so on. After all, wouldn't you like to go on a safari with the person who won the BBC's Wildlife Photographer of the Year?

Having said that, I have met people on workshops who have a regular day job and may at most do a little bit of selling on the side. But they have a huge ego and boast 'I have a print hanging in the Smithsonian'. They are often the most competitive and aggressive photographers, jostling for the best angle, pushing others out of their way etc. For them it is all about ME. They are not team players and make themselves the most unpopular person in the group but do not realize that. Some of these people also compete in contests and are perhaps the most vicious photographers I've ever had the misfortune of meeting. 


Pradeep