PDA

View Full Version : photo contests - why do you do it?



davidb
27-Jul-2008, 12:09
Do you enter a photo contest to win a few hundred bucks or do you do it to get the public recognition for your work?

Brian_A
27-Jul-2008, 12:21
Screw the money, all for the recognition. Someone knowing your name will take you a lot further in photography than a couple hundred bucks. The money is nice and definitely won't be turned down, but in my opinion money plays second chair to having people see my work...

Walter Calahan
27-Jul-2008, 12:40
I don't enter contests.

Michael Alpert
27-Jul-2008, 12:40
Photography contests are a waste of time for everyone involved (except, sometimes, for the sponsor, who may be making money from the activity). They are also inherently dishonest in that they expose the biases of judges, not the comparative merit of dissimilar photographs. If you cannot judge the value of your own work, you need to study the history of photography. Only with a thorough historical understanding can you find the measure of your own effort.

I also think that there is an element of self-deception in contests. If you feel that you can only win, you are toying cruelly with your psyche. And if you feel that you are floundering in photography, you probably are. Either way, contests, like slot machines, will not help.

domenico Foschi
27-Jul-2008, 13:26
Photography contests are a waste of time for everyone involved (except, sometimes, for the sponsor, who may be making money from the activity). They are also inherently dishonest in that they expose the biases of judges, not the comparative merit of dissimilar photographs. If you cannot judge the value of your own work, you need to study the history of photography. Only with a thorough historical understanding can you find the measure of your own effort.

I also think that there is an element of self-deception in contests. If you feel that you can only win, you are toying cruelly with your psyche. And if you feel that you are floundering in photography, you probably are. Either way, contests, like slot machines, will not help.

I tend to agree with many of Michael's postings, but this time I don't, in part.

I do participate in contests, but not for the reason they are meant for.
I do agree that in the most part they are mainly a revenue generator for the organizers, and I do my homework before giving them my money.
I do not care if I win, to me contests are a selling venues and an opportunity to have my work displayed and hopefully noticed.
If the jurors are important figures in the art market I will submit. A positive attitude helps if you see the contests under the right perspective and your expectations are realistic.

Scott Knowles
27-Jul-2008, 13:26
I've only entered one, and won first in b&w and third overall (Department of Interior 150'th Anniversary photo contest for employees) with my print hanging in the Washington D.C. lunchroom for two years (now returned and on my wall). That was enough for me and contests.

reellis67
27-Jul-2008, 13:49
They are also inherently dishonest in that they expose the biases of judges, not the comparative merit of dissimilar photographs.

This is my feeling as well, and, interestingly enough, the sentiment of many artists that I know who work with media other than photography. I have been told a number of times by a number of artists that the best way to do well in a contest is learn which judges like the style in which you work, and enter only those. There is no point in entering a contest judged by someone who will not be open to your style because they are usually interested in their own interests (or in granting favors to people with whom they are acquainted) rather than judging in an unbiased fashion. In my experience, this has been proven a number of times. It may not be how things work in your area, but it certainly seems to be the way it works here.

- Randy

Charles Carstensen
27-Jul-2008, 18:38
Agree with Michael. Very insightful. Excellent question, by the way.

Allen in Montreal
27-Jul-2008, 18:41
Photography contests are a waste of time for everyone involved (except, sometimes, for the sponsor, who may be making money from the activity).........

This is becoming a huge problem and many people buy in to it.

The city of Montreal sponsors a "students photo contest", college photography students, they fill their archive and own the rights, so the kid can win a Rebel XTI that was donated to the city by the biggest retailer in town!

The developer of 1000 De La Gauchetière (the tallest building in the city, it is not permitted to build higher than Mount Royal) held a professionals only contest for the official portrait of the building on launch day, and many went for it and shot stunning images and gave the rights away to the real estate developer!

An out rage.

Most contests, are a rights grab on huge amounts of free work, and not much more.

Frank Petronio
27-Jul-2008, 18:53
There are contests and then there are contests. If your photo gets the cover of the Communication Arts Photo Annual, that translates into serious five-figure potential jobs. Aperture is running a contest, as are many of the other higher end fine art establishments. It's how they review new work in general these days, they no longer take random solicitations.

But the general theme is correct, especially with local contests and anything aimed at amateurs. One of the worst contest factories is good old Photo District News -- while they don't grab rights -- they waste a lot of photographer's time and money on lame and lamer "professional" contests.

Kirk Gittings
27-Jul-2008, 18:55
Many many many years ago, I used to enter a state wide contest and never get accepted. It seemed like a good place to start getting some recognition, though the show was always dominated by PPA type portrait and wedding photographers. I gave up after a few years, and some 15 years later, after I became better known (for some of the same work they rejected), they asked me to be a judge. No one of course remembered all my rejections. I found it ironic that I was not good enough to get in the show but good enough to judge it. I passed on the opportunity thinking I was just the wrong person aesthetically, though in retrospect I should not have as I possibly could have helped someone much like myself in their beginning stages.

Brian K
27-Jul-2008, 19:21
Photo contests just aren't the same since they introduced the designated hitter.

I think photo contests are really for the sole purpose of promoting the organization promoting the contests. And winning contests based on one photo is just a matter of luck. It's usually the right place at the right time dumb luck that wins it. If you really want to have a photo contest, and even the term contest is a bad road to go down, I think you should base it on a body of work.

In all the time I had my studio I never entered any competitions, my clients would, and I guess I benefited from that, but I never saw the point of it all.

John Kasaian
27-Jul-2008, 19:34
Do you enter a photo contest to win a few hundred bucks or do you do it to get the public recognition for your work?

Neither.

When I do enter a contest (which is rarely) it is for fun of it.

I doubt if the art world will take notice of an honorable mention awarded by an agricultural fair to justify a claim to being the heir apparent to the talents of Sudek or Weston. But having a photo of one of my kids eating a cookie up for exhibition (right up there with the monster trucks, chili dogs, quarterhorse races, Aunt Bernice's quilt and the "best of show hog") for ten days is quite a thrill! :D

Vaughn
27-Jul-2008, 20:13
I enter a few, mostly local. The contests help support local art organizations.

There is a non-local one I enter mostly to be able to go to the openings...in Yosemite Valley at the end of February...a fine time to go! While there, I usually make an image or two that I enter into the next year's competition (it is an all-media competition). Again the proceeds benefit the art organization in the Valley. The resulting exhibit also travels for a year, so I have the pleasure knowing that people thoughout the Central Valley (and Redwood City, I believe) have the opportunity to see my work. So for a small amount of money, I get the opportunity to donate funds to a worthy cause, an excuse to go to Yosemite (and visit friends and other artists there), have a variety of people see my work that otherwise would not see it, an excuse to produce a fine piece or two specifically about Yosemite, and the chance to actually win an award (between the entry fees and the awards I have actually come out ahead.) One other benefit -- being an award winner, I have the possibility to be an artist-in-residence in Yosemite someday.

So there are contests and there are contests. Lumping all of them together is a bit silly. Picking which contests to enter is simply a matter of using one's common sense and weighing the pros and cons. For example, I would not enter a contest that requires me to give up the rights to my image -- other than for the limited promotional purposes of the competition.

There are also good judges and not so good judges...all are biased since they are, after all, human. Having judged several photo competitions, one of the challenges that make judging a worthwhile activity is to face one's biases and deal with them. Rarely does one get that opportunity in such a short, intense, and fairly public manner.

I never recommend entering work similar to that of the judge...unless one can produce work superior to that of the judge. The more a judge knows of a particular type of work, the harder she/he will judge it.

Vaughn

Greg Lockrey
27-Jul-2008, 20:18
I don't enter contests either. Never had and never wanted to. I do shows and sell in galleries.

Andrew O'Neill
27-Jul-2008, 20:45
I would only enter a photo contest if it were done online and the judging was open to everyone. I prefer to donate my work to a cause.

Richard M. Coda
28-Jul-2008, 07:07
While I haven't entered a contest in years (except for a local one last month, where I was a finalist with an 8x10 contact print that had to be explained to everyone "What's an 8x10 silver gelatin contact print?") I used to enter them when I was younger. Photo Review had a contest a long time ago... George Tice was the juror. So I entered a print from Paterson, NJ. Took 2nd place, got $200 and published in Photo Review.

I agree with Domenico... if the judge is prominent and you do your research, it can pay off.

jetcode
28-Jul-2008, 07:42
Photography contests are a waste of time for everyone involved (except, sometimes, for the sponsor, who may be making money from the activity). They are also inherently dishonest in that they expose the biases of judges, not the comparative merit of dissimilar photographs. If you cannot judge the value of your own work, you need to study the history of photography. Only with a thorough historical understanding can you find the measure of your own effort.

I also think that there is an element of self-deception in contests. If you feel that you can only win, you are toying cruelly with your psyche. And if you feel that you are floundering in photography, you probably are. Either way, contests, like slot machines, will not help.

I couldn't agree more ...

Colin Graham
28-Jul-2008, 07:59
I'm having a really hard time with the line 'Only with a thorough historical understanding can you find the measure of your own effort.' That sounds like a withering prerequisite. If you can only find your measure by comparing yourself with the work of others, then your work will always be as such confined.

jetcode
28-Jul-2008, 08:05
I'm having a really hard time with the line 'Only with a thorough historical understanding can you find the measure of your own effort.' That sounds like a withering prerequisite. If you can only find your measure by comparing yourself with the work of others, then your work will always be so confined.

But what if an enormous wealth of information could be gleaned by studying your predecessors? It's more about exposure and influence than submitting to visual dogma.

Colin Graham
28-Jul-2008, 08:12
It's more about the individual, really. What if entire historical knowledge stifles your expression? It's up the the individual to determine their own influence and personal worth of their work. The phrase was submitted too much like an axiom for me.

'It's more about exposure and influence than submitting to visual dogma.' You're going to have to explain this one to me. What is photographic influence if not visual dogma?

Jeffrey Sipress
28-Jul-2008, 10:40
I really don't like popularity contests. I don't think art should be competitive. I have, though, entered two contests and won both of them, one with a 4x5 made image.

jetcode
28-Jul-2008, 10:46
Colin as far as I can tell examining history is not a form of dictatorial but a chance to evaluate who came before us, what they did, how they did it, and what influences they were inspired by.

I am reminded of a novice musician who cannot appreciate the history of music because they want to make music immediately. Nothing wrong with that at all. At some point however I find that the thirst to know more about the craft inevitably leads to the practitioners who previously (and currently) practice the craft.

I purchased a book that presented the best of Stieglitz era photographers and it just blew me away. I saw so many different aspects and forms of expression. I can't imagine shooting without this kind of exposure to the art of photography and image making. There are so many incredible influences in this art form. I like them all. I enjoy learning from those who stand beside me or have come before me.

jetcode
28-Jul-2008, 10:50
I really don't like popularity contests. I don't think art should be competitive. I have, though, entered two contests and won both of them, one with a 4x5 made image.

What was the outcome of the contest for you in respect to winning? Did it change how you feel about your art in relation to the public?

shmoo
28-Jul-2008, 12:30
I'm not particularly fond of contests either, but I've entered 4 with mixed results. I think the important thing is to get perspective on the process, the judging/panel eval experience, and hopefully get some exposure. Competitions may not be your cup of tea, but in the end, if you plan on making $$$ or getting recognition for your work, it's all about competition. You're either competing in some photo contest or competing for the time of the curator of a gallery or for the attention of art show goers. The open market ain't for the faint of heart or the weak of will. Photo competitions are only one way to get into that market though.

Colin Graham
28-Jul-2008, 12:51
Joe, do you not see the implied scripture in ''Only with a thorough historical understanding can you find the measure of your own effort.' ?

Of course historical reference is a very valuable tool. But it isn't the litmus test for determining self measure, nor is it the only road to honest self appraisal.

Michael Alpert
29-Jul-2008, 17:55
I'm having a really hard time with the line 'Only with a thorough historical understanding can you find the measure of your own effort.' That sounds like a withering prerequisite. If you can only find your measure by comparing yourself with the work of others, then your work will always be as such confined.


Colin,


I think I understand your hesitation. I too value the autonomy of an individual mind. Still, we live within an historical (cultural) framework. To refrain from measuring one's work with (not against) the possibilities that other minds have created seems more confining than what I wrote before. Nothing in my statement denies the fact that each of us carries an irreducible originality that seeks its own artistic realization.

Of course, the evaluation (or non-evaluation) that you suggest and what I am responding to involves engaged personal activity. Meaningful self-appraisal requires a process that is a world apart from contests of any kind.

Ash
29-Jul-2008, 18:17
Just because you don't win doesn't mean you won't be published in a historical publication years after your death.


It happened to the impressionists, could happen to me.

Colin Graham
29-Jul-2008, 20:03
Meaningful self-appraisal requires a process that is a world apart from contests of any kind.

Thanks for the clarification Michael. I couldn't agree more.

jetcode
29-Jul-2008, 21:49
Meaningful self-appraisal requires a process that is a world apart from contests of any kind.

IMO
Meaningful self appraisel works when the internal reference is sufficient to know how to judge a work. Because a work makes you happy today does not mean your eye or art are calibrated to the highest level of quality possible. I find that through exposure I grow to be a better artist. My art will always be unique to me as yours is to you.

Alan Davenport
29-Jul-2008, 22:45
I never enter those so-called contests. My one competitive effort, in those years when I feel I have some adequate prints, is to enter the juried show at our state fair. Ain't no money to be made, just glory...

David A. Goldfarb
30-Jul-2008, 04:23
I rarely enter contests, but recently I saw one where I thought I had something worth presenting that fit the call for submissions, I like the work of the judge, and the winners will be shown in a gallery that I like, which could lead to print sales and possibly building a relationship with the gallery, so I thought I'd give it a go. I'll hear some results in a few months.

Brian_A
30-Jul-2008, 07:17
Ok, this has to be said in one form or another and kind of has been in an unclear way. We live in a time, especially now, where when somebody knows your name, it's a whole lot easier to get that job/representation/gallery deal. If someone walks into a gallery and knows your name and sees your work, you're more than likely make a sale over the person they don't know the name of right next to you. Now, I have never entered a national contest, just one at my college for fun. That said, contests can get you significant exposure. Even if you don't win on merit and it's one of those random pick-a-photo type deals. Positive exposure is positive exposure. There are plenty of people that read PDN or, heck, PopPhoto and see your prints. Being able to use stuff like that is great for a tear sheet. Even negative exposure can get you more fame (Or infamy) than you can ever imagine (IE: Jock Sturges). Now I'm not saying Sturges wouldn't have ever went anywhere, but without all that news coverage of his legal issues, it definitely wouldn't have been as quickly.

My point, yeah, contests aren't for everyone. I couldn't see myself entering anything more than a local deal at a camera club or whatnot. But they can give you valuable exposure and jumpstart a career. Not always, by any means, but every now and then it's what helps move a career.