Problems with photographic competitions!

[Stephen Willard]

Most competitions ask for a CD or slides of your work. This is very problematic for us LF photographers who use traditional methods for crafting our photographs. Converting our images to slides or some digital format greatly reduces the quality of our work and leaves us without distinction from someone who uses a point-n-shoot camera.

For an example, in my home town of Fort Collins Colorado there was an international photographic competition sponsored by the The Center for Fine Art Photography. There where thousands of entries and all were judged by an art professor who I do not believe had any background in photography. The image that won the competition was taken in India of a little boy scavenging through and land fill for food. When I went to view the show for all the images that either won or placed I was shocked how poorly executed they were. In fact, I found many of them were no better then one would get from using a Wal-Mart reusable point-n-shoot camera. Many of the images were not even in focus, highlights and shadows were all blown out, and the tonal range was less then marginal. I suspect the CD representation of the work looked much better then the actual print, or if not, then the judge was not competent.

In the above example, I suspect the CD allowed the entries to misrepresent their work. With LF photography the converse is true. I have never been able to produce a slide or JPEG which comes close to power of my actual prints in brilliance, tonal range, sharpness of image, and color saturation. In my opinion. LF images get dummy down to point-n-images when using these mediums for submission.

When I have submitted entries to competitions that require actual prints and will not accept CDs or slides then I always place or win. When I have submitted to competitions that will only accept CDs or slides I have never placed or won.

My wife says I should ignore their submission rules and include an actual 16x20 print along with the CD or slides. I would be interested in your feelings about this matter.

[Wimpler]

Duplicate onto 4x5 slide film?

Also, photography isn't only about techincal superiority in prints.

[Greg Lockrey]

Slides are also used for paintings. How can a mural sized painting really be fairly evaluated on a 35mm slide ? But that's what many shows require since anything larger would be too cumbersome to handle especially if there are thousands of entrys where editing brings the show down to the "best" 125 or so.

[JW Dewdney]

well - likewise.. photography has ALWAYS been judged by slide reproduction... if anything - the digital image would probably be of somewhat higher quality (only saying this because - at least you can tweak it on the comp) than a slide. I really don't see any problems with this. It also has an additional benefit of filtering out uncaptivating work, so common in the LF community. So this way - content is filtered on the first pass. There should be a second phase however - where prints are then judged by inspection after the digital inspection...

[Walter Calahan]

Fall the rules. Having judge club photo competitions, those who don't follow the rules simply piss people off.

[tim atherton]

When I went to view the show for all the images that either won or placed I was shocked how poorly executed they were. In fact, I found many of them were no better then one would get from using a Wal-Mart reusable point-n-shoot camera. Many of the images were not even in focus, highlights and shadows were all blown out, and the tonal range was less then marginal. I suspect the CD representation of the work looked much better then the actual print, or if not, then the judge was not competent.


My guess is that the things you list weren't a main part of the judging criterea, so sending a print of your work (apart from probably leading to your entry being dismissed) wouldn't make much difference.

[paulr]

Painters and sculptors have lived with the limitations of slides for decades. You have to trust that the jury knows the difference between a slide and the real thing.

If the only things that distinguish your work get lost in reproduction, the slides might serve as a wakeup call.

[PViapiano]

Sometimes when people say "great photography" they mean great content, regardless of the quality of the final image.

The image of the Indian boy rummaging through the landfill most likely projected a "feeling" and expressed a concept or made a commentary on the state of the world. This surpassed any considerations of technique, if that's even what they were judging by in the first place.

I just borrowed a huge book at the library, a Phaidon volume called Vitamin Ph, a current look at contemporary photography. Everything, and I mean everything besides about 2 or 3 portfolios, looked like it was shot with a $5 disposable. I also noticed that most of them were printed in huge original sizes, i.e., 109 inches on the long side, etc...

[Martin D.]

Avoid competitions. Competitions require that someone will be able to recognize potential of your photos from small jpegs or very small prints. Such people are very rare. Even more rare are people that have the ability and at the same time can help you to market the photos. But they do exist, talk to galleries etc.

[JW Dewdney]

all questions of skill of 'judges' aside - whether you're submitting to a competition or to a gallery - from outside appearances - it's really just effectively a lottery. Don't let selection or lack of selection affect how you feel about your work. A few people may respond to the work - but most probably won't - regardless of content.

[Louie Powell]

I am reminded of the workshop I took with David Vestal many years ago. One of his more profound statements was that "the fact that it was hard to do doesn't make it good".

Ultimately, what matters is the final image. How it was created is irrelevant. I happen to enjoy LF photography, and I take great pleasure in the sharpness and tonal gradations that are possible with a large negative. But most people looking at photographs don't care whether it was made with 12x20 camera and processed in pyro before being printed in platinum or a digital point-and pray and printed on an Epson ink jet. And sad to say, most of them aren't able to tell the difference.

[Kirk Gittings]

Don't like the rules? Don't enter. Only enter competitions that allow you to present your work in a a manner that demonstrate the strengths of your work. Or maybe competitions who's judges have a background in LF. At least that way, through captioning and description, the judge can have some sense of the print quality.

[Merg Ross]

Ask yourself why you are entering a photographic competition. And,more importantly, who will be judging your work. Is it a person for whom you have great respect?

[Dick Hilker]

Whether produced in a wet darkroom or on a desktop, a large, well-crafted print will always have more presence than a slide in a viewer or an image from a CD seen on a laptop screen. If your work is to be judged on technical excellence and those beautiful prints are competing with lesser images on the same basis, your advantage will, naturally, be minimized.

Sadly, in too many competitions, Ansel Adams' finest work would be trumped by the "puppy in the boot" from a point & shoot. Competition's become much too content-oriented for LF work to be fully appreciated. Further compounding the problem is the reality that there's no practical way to forecast a judge's bias. When I enter competitions, I usually scope out the judge's website in hopes of getting a sense of what they do and too often find their work is involved with environmental portraits of children and their pets.

I've recently become disenchanted with the competitive scene since all of my nine entries were juried out of two regional art shows: up 'til then, the acceptance rate had run between fifty and one hundred percent and a couple of the rejects had won blue ribbons at other shows.

The downside of competition is, I feel, that it puts the photographer in the mode of working for an unknown judge, rather than for the sheer joy of creating something beautiful for himself. Has anyone had that feeling too?

[tim atherton]

. Competition's become much too content-oriented for LF work to be fully appreciated.

let's hear it for low-content LF photography...!

[Dick Hilker]

You make an excellent point, Louie, when you cite that "the fact that it was hard to do doesn't make it good". Having returned to LF after a long hiatus and for the first time participating in discussions groups, I've found a seeming preoccupation with sharpness of images and how much more sophisticated it is to make a print with poisonous chemicals than a mere inkjet printer.

Too many of these super-sharp, magnificently-crafted prints are of static, boring subjects that have little artistic merit, but the prints are a technical tour de force. Then, when they're submitted to a contest, there's disappointment that they don't do well, overlooking the fact that to even a discerning judge, boring is still boring.

[Rider]

Before discussing "problems with competitions" we have to agree on what are the merits (if any).

I would be curious what the original poster and others view as the merits of entering into a photo competition.

[tim atherton]

Before discussing "problems with competitions" we have to agree on what are the merits (if any).

I would be curious what the original poster and others view as the merits of entering into a photo competition.


well, I suppose there are competitions, competitions and competitions...

some you win a Lowepro bag and a flash card

some are for entry into local/regional shows

some are for exhibition in national or international exhibitions, museums or representation by a gallery or publication

Some a juried by the president of the local camera club and buddies, some are juried by local/regional photo personalities/photographers. some are juried by major editors, Senior museum curators or well known collectors.

and everything else in between - I'll leave it up to you to decide if there is any difference

[kjsphotography]

Welcome to the digital age. My advice, don't enter contest anymore and instead make appointments to show galleries your work in person and start getting representation instead of entering these contest. Leave the contest to the digital or point and shoot shooters.

Also what about Monitor brightness. If your monitor does not match, the CD images will look horrible.

[Vaughn]

let's hear it for low-content LF photography...!

While you make a good, though sarcastic, point, there still remains the situation of two images of equally strong content where, unfortunately, printing skill and how well the print carries the content across to the viewer gets short shift when judged by slides and/or digitally projected images.

My carbon prints have a raised relief, which I use as part of the impact of the image. It is sort of like judging colour prints from B&W slides. Yes, one can judge the basic image/content, but there is a lot of important information not being used to competently judge the photograph.

For my work, I feel that both the content and the printing skill/technique carry equal weight. Others obviously place different weights on the importance of the print and on the content...ranging from AA's "Sharp image of a fuzzy concept" to very strong concept presented in such a manner that the content is not visually accessible to the viewer.

Vaughn

PS. I will be judging a photo contest this summer -- fortunately it will be judged based on finished prints. I would not like the idea of doing it by slides or CD. The theme is "Images of Water". Goddamn photos of sunsets over the ocean better be very well seen and well printed to get in!

[Rory_5244]

I don't know about competitions, but I've started up my country's first amateur photography club (which exists as a blog of members presently, trips to come in the future), and I really can't compete with the digital people. I am the only film shooter there, much less large format film. I post up my LF pictures (which are not exactly THAT bad) which are either ignored, or receive some thinly veiled derogatory comment. Some of those posted pictures took so much effort to make, that it does hurt a bit to have them dismissed out of hand. But I guess hard work to produce mediocrity is still mediocrity.

[Kirk Gittings]

I have judged innumerable competitions, but only one from digital files. "Print Quality" was at best a soft proofed simulation. Strange to say the least. You could only really look at content. The winners were printed poorly in a local newspaper. There was no accompanying exhibit. So who knows what the work actually looked like. The whole experience was seriously flawed and I vowed that I would never be involved in such a competition ever again.

[Stephen Willard]

I have not really marketed my work very much, but that will change shortly.

All I can say is that every time I have presented my work to a gallery they have accepted it. I also had a one-man show at a very respectable regional museum with 36 pieces. I sold 31 prints at that showing. I have won or placed in every photographic competition I submitted to that required actual prints submitted. I am not afraid to benchmark the content of my work against anyone that shoots digital.

However, I can say that I have never won or placed in a competition that required slides or JPEGs. I believe this is because slides or JEPGs fall far short capturing the brilliance, detail, tonality, clarity, and color saturation that are present in my prints. All these technical characteristics of the print reinforce the emotional and artistic power of the photograph.

It seems to me if you are sponsoring a photographic competition then you want to look at the real stuff. What makes a great photograph is not just content. A great photograph must demonstrate excellence at both the technical level and artistic level. If you have a photograph that is artistically powerful, but is out of focus then it cannot be a great photograph. I believe both the technical and artistic aspects of a photograph are equally as important.

When I was shooting 35mm I had never sold a print. When I switched to LF and perfected my craft, my work has sold well. LF photography provided me with great improvements in the technical aspects of my work. Content remained essentially the same for both formats.

If what I am saying is true, then how can you judge the greatness of a photograph by looking at very smallish JPEGs. From my own personal experiences, and in my own opinion you cannot. So I am very seriously thinking about breaking the rules and sending a real 16x20 print along with a CD of smallish JEPGs even if it means I may piss someone off. If I do then I have lost nothing because I have never won or placed anyway in competition that is JEPG limited.

[RDKirk]

I'd look at the purposes and end display of the competition.

If the end display is going to be a page in a newspaper, magazine, or even a book, then they don't care how impressive the image is at 30x40 or how technically perfect it is. They will care about content and impact when halftoned at 4x5 inches, and they will be absolutely right.

Even if the final display will be the original work in a gallery, they are just as correct to be concerned about the clarity of the photographer's personal vision and how the photographer is able to translate personal vision into two dimensions first and craft second. People such as Ansel Adams and David Vestal have already commented on the primacy of content over technique.

After having made a first cut based on content, then I'd certainly expect a judge for a gallery to make the second cut based more on craft.

If a photograph does not carry a meaning, carry a point, carry a vision, carry an emotion...why should anyone spend valuable personal time looking at it?

[Maris Rusis]

There has got to be something deeply daft about picture (photographs, paintings, whatever) competitions that don't want to assess the pictures themselves but only small reproductions.

I suspect the thinking (assuming it is thinking) behind this is that the picture and its content are considered the same thing, indistinguishable, interchangeable, and of equal value. This may emerge from a dumbing down of the concept of the original. In a world full of pictures where virtually all are reproductions original work is so rare that even sincere judges don't have the connoiseurship to critically respond to it.

Photographers deserve to be more aggressive about the originality of their work. All true photographs are originals. To get another photograph one must photograph again. I spend a good deal of my time photographing (focus, frame, expose, process) black and white negatives with large pieces of paper-backed silver bromide emulsion. The slurring of photographs as "copies" or "prints" does them an injustice.

And as for low brow competitions where it is all just "pitchers", they don't deserve the time of day.

[Sylvester Graham]

how much more sophisticated it is to make a print with poisonous chemicals than a mere inkjet printer.


Yeah I just poured myself a nice tall glass of epson K3... DELICIOUS.

[Dick Hilker]

Yeah I just poured myself a nice tall glass of epson K3... DELICIOUS.

Which color? I used to be a Light Cyan guy, but lately I'm more into Magenta. Mmmmm!!

[paulr]

I'd look at the purposes and end display of the competition.

Exactly. Obviously if they're looking at slides/cds, the show is going to be about the content of your images, above and beyond anything else. If you feel that your work can't be fully grasped without someone running their tongue over the fine patina of your hand varnishing, then you'd better restrict yourself to competitions/juried shows where they look at prints. And specifically ones that you suspect, for other reasons, care about prints.

Personally, the only reason I ever consider entering these things if the juror is someone I really want to get my work in front of, and if it seems like the best way to do it. (rare). In too many cases, the juried show/competitions scene seems like a racket ... a way to do a lot of fundraising at the expense of the entrants.

[Dick Hilker]

For amateurs without a lot of experience and gallery connections, competitions are also a valuable venue for selling prints and getting their work seen by the public. Without a website or acceptance by busy galleries, there are few viable alternatives to the shows for generating sales.

[Rider]

Just for kicks, check out this competition. One of the criteria the judges use is the rating given by the "public." Since contestants can vote, not surprisingly, the ratings are quite low.

http://www.gapadventures.com/contests/photo_contest

[steve simmons]

Another way to get your work seen and possibly out there is the many portfolio reviews that happen around the country. These reviews are frequently done by curators, gallery owners, magazine publishers, etc..

steve simmons

[Ben Chase]

Another way to get your work seen and possibly out there is the many portfolio reviews that happen around the country. These reviews are frequently done by curators, gallery owners, magazine publishers, etc..

steve simmons

Steve, any reviews that you'd suggest over others?

[steve simmons]

Photo Lucida in Portland every other year is a good one. There is a lot of talent there. Photo Review Santa Fe. Both of these have excellent reviewers but are not so big as to be overwhelming. Fotofest in Houston is a very big event and might be overwheliming if you haven't beed to a review before. There is a new foto festival in Palm Springs but I did not go this year so I do not know much about it.

steve

[Stephen Willard]

In too many cases, the juried show/competitions scene seems like a racket ... a way to do a lot of fundraising at the expense of the entrants.

You are absolutely correct. The local organization that sponsored this international competition I think receive over 1500 entries (I may be wrong it could be more) at $35.00 for each submission. That adds up to $52,500.00 all in smallish JEPG files allowing the judge to blow through the entire lot in 2-3 days. Now that is what I call a profit margin for an organization that is suppose to be about promoting photography. Clearly, if this organization was really about photography, it would ask for the real prints and a submission fee that was much more modest.

[Mark Sawyer]

Competition's become much too content-oriented for LF work to be fully appreciated....


let's hear it for low-content LF photography...!

Perhaps photography in general would benefit if, like food, we listed the "content" in a little label on the back side...

Regarding art and photography competitions, it often seems to be approached by many with the attitude, "my art can beat up your art..."

[paulr]

You are absolutely correct. The local organization that sponsored this international competition I think receive over 1500 entries (I may be wrong it could be more) at $35.00 for each submission. That adds up to $52,500.00 all in smallish JEPG files allowing the judge to blow through the entire lot in 2-3 days. Now that is what I call a profit margin for an organization that is suppose to be about promoting photography. Clearly, if this organization was really about photography, it would ask for the real prints and a submission fee that was much more modest.

Lately i've been on the email list of international events announce things like

"Masters of Contemporary Art Juried Show and Competition! All media (painting drawing, photography, mixed media, sculpture, computer art, instalation ...)"

with an entry fee of $5 to $25 per jpeg. basically trying to cut as wide a swath as possible through everyone who has ever drawn or made anything! makes me wonder if the shows even exist.

[Gordon Moat]

http://festival.magnumphotos.com/2007/06/17/first_impression_portfolio_review.php

This one might be of interest to some here. While not a competition, this sort of portfolio review could be something a few find interesting. It is not cheap, though perhaps reasonable for a few photographers here.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Jay W]

In "art," there seems to be a preference for throwing away technical excellence for the sake of creativity. I've often seen images that won competitions that I just don't get. Other images that were very creative, technically well done, and well presented (framed) didn't win (and they weren't my images BTW). Often it seems like the judge is trying to make a statement that photography is art, and doing that by selecting work that would rarely sell. You know, there's commercial photography, then there's art.

Same thing but worse in music. Musicians that can't sing on tune are artistic. Maybe it makes the listeners feel more the music is more accesssible...that anyone can do this, but this singer chose to do it. The good players just shake their head and don't get it.

Jay

[steve simmons]

So, if View Camera was to do a competition how would you like it organized and juried? Presumably, since we are large format photographers ourselves we could balance content and technical exellence.

steve simmons

[Stan. L-B]

Photographic competitions and calls for art work for payment or otherwise, are to my mind, akin to 'vanity publishing' for authors. Regretably, it has taken me years to arrive at this conclusion - even after winning a national competition from 50K entries!
Nevertheless, I still exhibit work to feed my artistic ego.
I will now keep my head down...

[paulr]

The portfolio review events are definitely a great thing ... an amazing opportunity for anyone with a body of work that they show the world. They require a major commitment of time and work and money--much more than dropping a cd and a credit card number into a black hole, which is all competitions and juried shows ask.

I don't think all the competitions and shows are a scam. Just some of the shows and most of the comps. It really pays to investigate them. look at their history, previous winners, and especially at the jurors. I think for anyone a show would only be worth considering if it was a great match for what you're doing.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

So, if View Camera was to do a competition how would you like it organized and juried? Presumably, since we are large format photographers ourselves we could balance content and technical exellence.

steve simmons

I would like to see a panel of 3 judges that have different expertise. For example, one is a landscape, one is a photojournalist and one is a commercial photography (sorry Kirk I am volunteering you...LOL). The problem that I see with these contests is that depending on the single judge taste and bias, as Jay W posted, you sometimes get winners that your first thought is "WTF?"..... having 3 guys agree on a best picture makes it more difficult to introduce bias. Of course this would require that all 3 judges are local to you, this might be a problem....but hey, you can be one of them.

The contest should be limited to LF and the the print sizes to the common LF and ULF formats. For example if someone is using a 20x24 camera and wants to send you a 20x24 contact prints....well why not?

The only restriction I would like to see is that the submissions are PRINTS. IMO, until that time that technology advances far enough that people can have thin screens that you can hang on your wall and have them cycle images that are beamed down to you by Scotty, the end product of the ART of photography is a print, this is what should be compared, not images on a monitor.

The wiining prices I would leave up to you. But I would like to see prices that ADVANCE the career of a photographer instead of money or gizmos. For example, the first price winning photographer would have his work published in VC magazine and a solo show at a gallery in NM or where ever you can get a gallery to agree to work with you. I think with your connections and knowledge you can swing this. I realize this might turn off some people from entering, but at the same time would insure those who enter are serious about photography and would probably prevent the weekend warrior who took a pic of a sunset from entering. To me, a price like this is far more valuable than getting money, or film, or a tripod. I got all that shit, or I can get it.....getting a gallery to show your work is far more difficult and worth the effort and expense of entering a contest.

The entry fee should be around $40 for ONE picture and only one entry allowed. Let people put their best foot forward and show their best work.

This is what I would like to see, hopefully you can find some of my ideas useful.

[paulr]

The only restriction I would like to see is that the submissions are PRINTS. IMO, until that time that technology advances far enough that people can have thin screens that you can hang on your wall and have them cycle images that are beamed down to you by Scotty, the end product of the ART of photography is a print, this is what should be compared, not images on a monitor.

I definitely see your point with this, but I long ago stopped considering any submission proces that required sending a print. All organizations do everything in their power to dodge liability (and I can't blame them) ... and about 2 out of 3 times my prints came back damaged. It was hard to feel good about paying $40 plus postage to have a print scratched and dented.

At that price, I'd think they could at least offer 24 hour print destruction, but it usually took 6 to 8 weeks! ;)

[tim atherton]

In "art," there seems to be a preference for throwing away technical excellence for the sake of creativity. I've often seen images that won competitions that I just don't get. Other images that were very creative, technically well done, and well presented (framed) didn't win (and they weren't my images BTW). Often it seems like the judge is trying to make a statement that photography is art, and doing that by selecting work that would rarely sell. You know, there's commercial photography, then there's art.

Same thing but worse in music. Musicians that can't sing on tune are artistic. Maybe it makes the listeners feel more the music is more accesssible...that anyone can do this, but this singer chose to do it. The good players just shake their head and don't get it.

Jay


You may have given yourself the answer right there: "I just don't get" (it). It may not be that the work is bad, uncreative, unsellable (?) or whatever. I may be simply that - for very good reasons - you just don't get what it is about the art (or the music) that is good or valued.

Their criteria may not be your criteria by a long chalk - which is to say they are just different.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I definitely see your point with this, but I long ago stopped considering any submission proces that required sending a print. All organizations do everything in their power to dodge liability (and I can't blame them) ... and about 2 out of 3 times my prints came back damaged. It was hard to feel good about paying $40 plus postage to have a print scratched and dented.



I don't think you see my point at all....If a contest offers me the possibility of being published and getting a show in a gallery that might represent hundreds if not thousands of dollars in sales....I am not going to worry about getting a print that costs me $20 to make back in pristine condition. Hell, you do digital, what does it cost you, 5 bucks and the trouble to push a button?.....penny wise and pound foolish...IMO.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

In "art," there seems to be a preference for throwing away technical excellence for the sake of creativity. I've often seen images that won competitions that I just don't get. Other images that were very creative, technically well done, and well presented (framed) didn't win (and they weren't my images BTW). Often it seems like the judge is trying to make a statement that photography is art, and doing that by selecting work that would rarely sell. You know, there's commercial photography, then there's art.

Same thing but worse in music. Musicians that can't sing on tune are artistic. Maybe it makes the listeners feel more the music is more accesssible...that anyone can do this, but this singer chose to do it. The good players just shake their head and don't get it.

Jay

Jay, dont you worry about "not getting it" you are not alone......I saw a post by Brian Kosoff (jeeezzz...I hope I spelled it right) in APUG that pretty much sumarizes how I feel. I hope Brian does not get mad at me for posting it here.

Everyone has ideas, the hard part of ideas is making them a reality. It would be easy for me, or most people, to visualize an image like "Moonrise Hernandez" etc, the thing that requires the talent, effort and dedication is actually producing the work. I can imagine free power from fusion, hydrogen powered cars that only leave pure water as waste, free medical care for everyone, does that make me some sort of genius or artist?

Those that can do, those that can't talk about it.

The problem is that for the most part the art establishment is not run by the artists, it's run by the academics and art business people. The art academics don't produce art, they talk about it, they are therefore more comfortable dealing with artists who use words to explain what they're doing instead of dealing with artists who produce work that requires no explanation. Jaw droppingly beautiful art requires no explanation, no justification, it stands on it's own merits. What does that leave for the academics to discuss? Composition,light, technique? That's not very satisfying for them. Better to discuss how artist X is making a statement against art genre Y, it's all academic politics and trying to make a name for yourself as a curator by finding something that will garner attention or controversy. There's no controversy in beauty, there's no accalim for the curator who just puts on beautiful shows, they get known, and advanced by getting in the newspapers for the show that the mayor wants to ban. That's cutting edge, that's pushing the boundaries. Having a show with turds on a plate will make you famous, having a show with beautifully crafted work will just enable you, maybe, to pay your rent.

[paulr]

The question is how big is the possibility of the contest/show leading somewhere? In most cases it's small enough that the money and risk of print damage just aren't worth it to me. That's a choice everyone has to make for themselves, but they should have a sense of the costs and the odds.

Portfolio review events or curators requesting work directly get prints from me. Organizations with open applications don't get anything I care about seeing again.

Also, I've found that as much as I care about my prints, the kinds of jurors who give a lot of priority prints are not curating the kinds of institutions that I'm trying to break into. People like Anne Tucker and Malcolm Daniel can tell interesting work from uninteresting work by looking at a laser print, and they're the ones whose attention I'd like. Another example where it's important to know the juror's priorities before spending money to send things off.

[tim atherton]

The question is how big is the possibility of the contest/show leading somewhere? In most cases it's small enough that the money and risk of print damage just aren't worth it to me. That's a choice everyone has to make for themselves, but they should have a sense of the costs and the odds.

Portfolio review events or curators requesting work directly get prints from me. Organizations with open applications don't get anything I care about seeing again.


A gallery of sufficient stature that is going to be willing to put a show with the work selected by say three other third parties that is also going to advance someones work or career is going to be pretty hard to find imo.

In many of these competitions, part of the larger fee is to subsidise any gallery show, because it's probably not going to be a one-off money maker for the Gallery at all.

(and in the suggested View Camera competitions, if the winner gets a show as part of the prize, who is going to be footing the show costs - printing, framing, mounting, shipping etc? In most cases like this, you will probably find the Gallery is going to want the photographer to meet those costs)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The question is how big is the possibility of the contest/show leading somewhere? In most cases it's small enough that the money and risk of print damage just aren't worth it to me. That's a choice everyone has to make for themselves, but they should have a sense of the costs and the odds.

Portfolio review events or curators requesting work directly get prints from me. Organizations with open applications don't get anything I care about seeing again.

So, if VC magazine tells you they will publish your work and get you a gallery show if you win you would not trust them? You don't think their promise would lead anywhere? Are you telling me that the only way you would send a print is if a curator knocks on your door and begs you to send them a print?....LOL...you have a very strange marketing scheme to say the least.

[paulr]

Jorge, you don't anything about my 'marketing scheme' besides my reluctance to send prints to juried shows and contests. It's a big world out there with lots of other options. but i'm glad to have given you a laugh.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

You are right, I only know what you post here and so far I am unimpressed.... :)

[RDKirk]

Sending prints: It's not a trivial matter. The Professional Photographer Association has long had print-judged competitions. Even though the print size is standardized at only 16x20, shipping-safe portfolios run into the hundreds of dollars, and the manual effort to handle the prints for judging is immense...not to mention re-packaging and sending them back to the photographers. A photographer who sends four 16x20 prints for competition may spend $500 to $1000 or more. As I said, it is not a trivial matter to judge prints in a competition.

I have complete sympathy for a competition that would want a first-rung review of digital images, especially when the end display will be a halftone in a magazine. IMO, the image is, after all, the point. A magazine is not going to print 16x20 images, it's going to print images that must stand on inherent pictoral impact when reproduced at small size.

For a gallery competition, the end display criteria is different, and a final judging of actual prints is, IMO, a necessity.

The PPA's competitions strike a balance. Even though the end display will be in a magazine or on the internet, they still insist on judging actual prints (although at a standardized size).

[Mike Davis]

Jorge,

I think that Brian is right some of the time in his assertions about art academics. But, I have been lucky to have had real artists as professors over the years.

Dale Quarterman: was chair of the photography department here. I took an LF class from him after I graduated, for fun so to speak.

Here is a 1970 Time article. The third paragraph discusses his work in a show at NY MoMA.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,904302,00.html

David Williams is a friend and former film professor. He has won awards at Sundance and the Berlin Film Festival (among others).

http://www.ebertfest.com/one/williams_award.htm


So while it is true that some "who cannot do, teach." It is equally true that some very good artists teach as well.

I can point to others as well. Walter Wright who was at the Experiemental TV Lab with Nam Jun Paik taught me video art (as opposed to video as a journalistic tool). http://www.experimentaltvcenter.org/history/people/bio.php3?id=646


It can be hard for these artists. In my experience they shy from the spot light and find academic politics exhausting. But they can provide a perspective and knowledge that is extraordinary. They have high standards and expect quality work both technically and artistically. When they become excited the classroom becomes electric. It can be amazing.


Mike Davis

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Hmmmm....it would be nice if people actually read what was posted and then post. These are competition prints, not portfolios. They are not mounted and matted, they do not need to be sent in shipping safe portfolios. It is very simple to sandwich a print between two sheets of plywood, put duct tape around the edges and ship it. It costs about 10 dollars.

Funny, I am reading a lot of bitching....not many suggestions to put a contest...

[paulr]

So while it is true that some "who cannot do, teach." It is equally true that some very good artists teach as well.

Off the top of my head, some artists teaching in academic programs (or who did before they died):

Stephen Shore, Frank Gohlke, Linda Connor, Emmett Gowin, Abe Morrel, Nick Nixon, Richard Benson, Greg Crewdson, Todd Papageorge, Minor White, Walker Evans ...

[paulr]

Funny, I am reading a lot of bitching....not many suggestions to put a contest...

I don't see anyone bitching. Just suggesting that there are reasons so few shows/contests ask for prints.

Personally, I'm happy to be able to drop a cd in the mail. The last several opportunities I've had came either from me sending out digital images, or from publishers or curators finding my website. No complaints at all about that process.

Print submissions have their place, I think, but the benefits have to be weighed against the drawbacks. Not just for the artists but for the institution. They don't like to take on the liability most of the time.

[Gordon Moat]

So, if View Camera was to do a competition how would you like it organized and juried? Presumably, since we are large format photographers ourselves we could balance content and technical exellence.

steve simmons

Sounds like a great idea; perhaps a Photography Annual. What immediately comes to mind is CommArts and PDN. Both of those publications run highly regarded (at least in the commercial imaging world) annuals based upon judging of images.

One thing I have noticed is that when thousands of images get entered, the best course is to have several jurors. That way the final choices do not become the efforts of one individual. Some of the larger competitions have one juror, meaning barely 1 to 3 seconds might be spent on viewing images, if they get viewed at all and not skipped over.

It is inevitable that sour grapes will be a part of this. There will always be people complaining about some images that made it to final publication, while others will question why their images were not chosen. However, if their are several jurors, then it makes it tougher for anyone to complain of bias. Run it fair and present it well, and I think people will want to contribute.

On a pricing level, I would be happy with anything slightly under CommArts or PDN levels of entry fees, considering that both those publications are greater circulation. Their is potential for something like a View Camera Photography Annual to become as well regarded as those produced by CommArts and PDN.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[paulr]

Steve, have you done anything like this before? I'd be curious to hear what the logistics and economics of running a competition are really like. Would help me figure out if some of my cynicism is misplaced :)

[Merg Ross]

A few months ago I seem to recall that Ted Harris suggested View Camera was going to do a Photography Annual. Perhaps I am mistaken in this. However, I believe there is a place for a good photography annual, similar to the old U.S. Camera, British Journal of Photography, Photography Yearbook (England), etc. Those publications solicited
international works, no fee, gelatin prints and a small check and a hard copy to those who were published.

[steve simmons]

Yes we are considring some type of annual and this could, o could not, be built into the competition.

Not everyone has the capability to do scans and make cds.

So, here are my thoughts so far - nothing in concrete, everything penciled in

prints - traditional or digital, unmounted, return packaging required, no lability on the part of View Camera,

we will show the winners in an issue and try and arrange a gallery exhibit of the winners as well, we will continue to think about this, listen to your suggestions

and thanks

steve

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I don't see anyone bitching. Just suggesting that there are reasons so few shows/contests ask for prints.

Personally, I'm happy to be able to drop a cd in the mail. The last several opportunities I've had came either from me sending out digital images, or from publishers or curators finding my website. No complaints at all about that process.

Print submissions have their place, I think, but the benefits have to be weighed against the drawbacks. Not just for the artists but for the institution. They don't like to take on the liability most of the time.

There are always reasons to shoot down any idea, that is easy. The hard part is to shoot it down and suggest viable alternatives. In the end, as I said before the final work of art is a PRINT. This reluctance to send prints that will be compared against other prints and printing methods, to me is very revealing.......the liability issue is nothing more than an excuse, a liability waiver takes care of that.

It would be nice if instead of you focusing on why things CANNOT get done or are not to your liking you would focus in how things can GET DONE. But I guess that is too much to ask.

Bottom line, Steve asked what would ANYBODY in this forum would like to see in a contest, instead of bitching just because it was me who made a suggestion, why dont YOU write what YOU would like and move on......Is this too much to ask too?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge,

I think that Brian is right some of the time in his assertions about art academics. But, I have been lucky to have had real artists as professors over the years.

Dale Quarterman: was chair of the photography department here. I took an LF class from him after I graduated, for fun so to speak.

Here is a 1970 Time article. The third paragraph discusses his work in a show at NY MoMA.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,904302,00.html

David Williams is a friend and former film professor. He has won awards at Sundance and the Berlin Film Festival (among others).

http://www.ebertfest.com/one/williams_award.htm


So while it is true that some "who cannot do, teach." It is equally true that some very good artists teach as well.

I can point to others as well. Walter Wright who was at the Experiemental TV Lab with Nam Jun Paik taught me video art (as opposed to video as a journalistic tool). http://www.experimentaltvcenter.org/history/people/bio.php3?id=646


It can be hard for these artists. In my experience they shy from the spot light and find academic politics exhausting. But they can provide a perspective and knowledge that is extraordinary. They have high standards and expect quality work both technically and artistically. When they become excited the classroom becomes electric. It can be amazing.


Mike Davis

Mike I read the reviews you posted, in the first one at the end this is written

These young photographers are more concerned with the photograph as an object or material thing than as an imitative record of what is seen," says Curator Peter Bunnell, who organized the show. "Their aim is to expand the notion of 'making a photograph' from the illusionistic space of the two-dimensional picture into the real space of three-dimensional objects." In the best pieces, the extra dimension of space also adds a mind-teasing new element of meaning.

In my opinion a typical example of what Brian expressed so well, specially the last line in bold (bold by me). Not having seen the piece I cannot say if it is beautiful or not, interesting or not TO ME. But given the description it seems to me that this work requires a lenghty explanation of why it was created and the oh so famous "meaning".

I won't go into the other examples since in the end we seem to disagree and it is not worth it to pursue this. There are always exceptions to any generalization but in the end that is just what they are...exceptions, seems to me Brian's observation still fits the mayority better.

[paulr]

Bottom line, Steve asked what would ANYBODY in this forum would like to see in a contest, instead of bitching just because it was me who made a suggestion, why dont YOU write what YOU would like and move on......Is this too much to ask too?

I didn't bitch, nor did I write anything based on the fact that YOU had written anything.

I think your ideas are good ones.

My comment concerned the one point that I disagreed with. I didn't shoot anythingg down. I'm pointing out the advantages of submitting digital files or slides rather than prints. What matters isn't whether you (or Steve) agrees with me, but whether you have considered the pros and cons of each approach.

At any rate, I'm sure painters and sculptors and lithographers are happy that no one's asking them to submit original work for review.

[RDKirk]

It is very simple to sandwich a print between two sheets of plywood, put duct tape around the edges and ship it. It costs about 10 dollars.

Well, I didn't call it a "suggestion," per se, but I did point out the way another organization that does print competitions several times a year has found to do it sanely.

If every Tom, Dick, and Harriet just packaged any give size print any perverse way he thought of (and people can be astonishingly perverse), it would be a nightmare for the organization to set them up and organize them for judging. Some people will package their pictures in ways that will be as dangerous to unwrap as a basket of rattlesnakes. Cutting open hundreds or perhaps a couple of thousand duct-tape-and-plywood packages? Really think about that for a while.

So everyone sends any sized print from 4x5 to 50x60, mounted, unmounted, mounted on slabs of tree bark, mounted on beer barrels, whatever. We can't have any rules that might stifle anyone's artistic expression, can we? So how, physically, does the organization display hundreds or thousands of prints like that for judging? Think about that for a while.

People who actually do real-print competitions all the time in the real world have learned the hard way that a sane methodology can't be presumed, it must be imposed.

They must dictate acceptable sizes, acceptable mounting methods, acceptable packaging methods. If they don't, the liability issues won't be print damage, it will be personal injuries to their own people. If not that, it will be incredible staff hours spent cutting through absurd duct-tape-and-plywood packages.

That's why the PPA has print competition entries printed to a specific size, mounted unframed, packaged in specifically designed portfolio shipping cases. They can design and build the display system in advance with known dimensions (rather than waiting until all the entries come in and then trying to figure out how to display a 40x50 print mounted on tree bark next to a 4x5 polaroid mounted on a kitchen plate), and they can resuse the display system in competition after competition.

[paulr]

People who actually do real-print competitions all the time in the real world have learned the hard way that a sane methodology can't be presumed, it must be imposed.

Yeah, a lot of times it comes down to how the people at the organization like to look at work. Some places still demand slides, and it's usually because they have a big room and a bunch of projectors, and it lets them show work efficiently and in sucession to a big group of jurors. I've heard people from these orgs say they were dying to get a digital projector, but lacked the funds.

Some places like prints (typically work prints or color copies) because they like to spread a whole body of work out on a table while the jury or the committee gathers around. The Museum of Fine Arts in Houston is like this.

Others want original prints, but for liability reasons will only accept them in person on specific dropoff days. SF Moma and the museum at the art institute of Chicago are like this.

Other places are more flexible.

These examples aren't contests, but the same thinking applies. It's all about how to reasonably get hundreds of bodies of work in front of a group of people for review, without everyone going crazy.

[Mike Davis]

I won't go into the other examples since in the end we seem to disagree and it is not worth it to pursue this. There are always exceptions to any generalization but in the end that is just what they are...exceptions, seems to me Brian's observation still fits the mayority better.

Jorge,

I don't think that we disagree about art, or at least I think that we like some of the same things. My point in the posting isn't to say that Brian's wrong, but rather to say that I have been lucky in my life to have the influence and knowledge available from a number of art professors that don't fit into his example.

In one sense Brian was resoundingly correct and I alluded to it in my post. These artists are not comfortable in the spotlight or talking about their art. I had to search for their work. They don't really talk about it.

They do talk about technique and its mastery. They do show films and videos and slides that can help to teach criticism and inspire. But they don't try to force their philosphy of art on others. They let others develop their own philosophies.

Mike

[Vaughn]

Off the top of my head, some artists teaching in academic programs (or who did before they died):

Stephen Shore, Frank Gohlke, Linda Connor, Emmett Gowin, Abe Morrel, Nick Nixon, Richard Benson, Greg Crewdson, Todd Papageorge, Minor White, Walker Evans ...

Paul, Mike,

I have also been lucky this way. In fact, all our studio classes here at the university are taught by working artists. It is only when one gets into the realm of Art History that one can encounter PhD's who seem like eunuch's discussing the deeper meanings of the joy of sex. Unfortunately, it is these historians that do all the writing and thus are used to judge art academia...not the work of the artists who teach at the universities.

I believe that the phrase, "Those who can, do. Those who can not, teach." is a rather limited, sarcastic statement mostly used by those who can not learn (or believe that no one has anything worthy of them to learn). I prefer, "Those who can, do. Those who understand, can teach." Alright...my statement needs a little work, but that's it basically.

I prefer to enter competitions submitting prints. But I make limited edition 8x10 carbon prints of five...and they sell (on the rare occasion) for $1000. It is a very time consuming process and time is something I do not have a lot of. There are usually no "work prints", and sending a photocopy is as insufficient in representing the print as an image on a CD.

I have entered a View Camera contest by sending a print...got 2nd place, but the print came back damaged -- fortunately not in the image area and it is still marketable. I suppose if a limited edition print was returned to me unusuable, I can, ethically, destroy it and produce another as part of the original edition. Perhaps numbering it #6 of 5, with a note saying, for example, #4 of 5 was destroyed before being sold.

It might take me 24 or more hours of work to make the replacement -- even at $10/hr, that is $240 worth of labor to replace a damaged print. Material might only cost me the $20 that Jorge mentioned, but that is a lot of time that I'm short of, and that I could have used making new work.

vaughn

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

RD, this is not the PPA....it is a magazine contest for christ sake! I have thought about it, I doubt VC will get hundreds of thousands of entries, a simple instruction, "unmounted prints only, of sizes xxxxxx..." is all that is required. Since you dont know how I package my prints you don't understand how it is so simple and very secure to ship and at the same time very simple to unpack, no need for knives etc.

You know what, to you and Paul, if it comes down to the contest requiring prints and you don't want to send a print or want to send it in bomb proof containers only, then don't enter the damn contest!

I swear, some people can ruin a wet dream.... yessshhh.....

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Mike, I think Vaughn pretty much responded in my same line of thinking. In his case he has to judge the benefit/loss ratio of submitting a print to a contest of the type that Steve wants to do.

[Vaughn]

Mike, I think Vaughn pretty much responded in my same line of thinking. In his case he has to judge the benefit/loss ratio of submitting a print to a contest of the type that Steve wants to do.

That's about it. My experience with that VC contest was positive...for the entry fee, postage, and a superficially damaged print, I got an image printed in the magazine and a Ries tripod head. I came out ahead. Personally, I'd like to think the print got damaged because they had never seen a carbon print with a raised relief before and they got all excited so it got looked at a lot...oh well, we all live in our own dreamworlds.LOL!

But in the end, it is up to the artist to decide for him/her self to enter a contest..weighing the cost vs benefit.

Vaughn

[RDKirk]

RD, this is not the PPA....it is a magazine contest for christ sake!

Actually, a magazine contest has zero need to look at prints, period. They may want to simply because they like looking at prints, but for publication it's going to be digitized, halftoned, and reproduced at a fraction of its original size anyway.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Actually, a magazine contest has zero need to look at prints, period. They may want to simply because they like looking at prints, but for publication it's going to be digitized, halftoned, and reproduced at a fraction of its original size anyway.

Actually that is not true, specially for the contest. They have under their control how the print will be scanned, etc. SO they DO have a need to see prints, besides the fact that if Steve can wrangle a gallery I am sure they will like to see the print....not a scan. Like I said, you dont like it, don't enter....or offer a better suggestion...not what the PPA does, who gives a rat`s ass what they do.

[paulr]

if it comes down to the contest requiring prints and you don't want to send a print or want to send it in bomb proof containers only, then don't enter the damn contest!

i wouldn't enter, nor would i whine about it, and on top of that i'd wish the contest and all the entrants the very best. If you think anyone's having a hissyfit, it's all in your imagination, my friend.

an alternate point of view is not the same thing as negativity.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

an alternate point of view is not the same thing as negativity.

An alternate point of view provides an alternate solution, you have yet to provide one. All you have done is post it should not be prints, hell you have not even given a good reason why it should not be prints other than "my prints are too valuable for people to touch", you did not even give a good explanation like Vaughn did.....and that is negativity... my "friend"....

[tim atherton]

For ViewCamera, based on my experience with running previous competitions, if you are taking only prints I'd suggest limiting print size to 8x10 with the usual waivers and requirement for prepaid return postage and materials.

Also, I'm assuming it's not analogue only, anyone who is dubious about sending prints they've sweated over in the darkroom can send inkjet prints, as will those who print exclusively in ink (along with those who print via other digital means)

[paulr]

An alternate point of view provides an alternate solution ...

the alternate solutions are the obvious ones we've been mentioning ...the ones used by most contests, juried shows, publications, galleries, collections, etc.: digital files, slides, or work prints.

we all understand your objections to these methods; i'm pointing out why some of us prefer them.

you've made your suggestion, i've made mine. steve will do what he thinks is best.

[Stephen Willard]

All to often most competitions focus on the best image, the perfect image, the winning image. Of course there is no such thing and the process for selecting a winning ticket is very subjective. To many of us, the photographic competition is more about the best subjective image which is contradictive in nature and makes the concept almost meaningless.

If the mission of the competition is to promote photography then the competition needs to be looking for more than just the winning image. Perhaps a more noble and responsible mission would be to identify those photographers who are truly talented and undiscovered. There are millions of photographers who all have two or three images that will benchmark against any of the great photographers. However, there are very few photographers who have an amazing body of work that is significant in size with consistent image quality. Galleries long to find such photographers, and believe me there are not many of them, but they are out there.

Portfolio reviews, which in many cases are sponsored by gallery owners, are all about finding such photographers. Perhaps photographic competitions need to be moving in this direction as well. No competition could be as comprehensive as a portfolio review, but they could come close. I believe a competition should be asking for both prints and CDs or slides. The prints would be used to judge the photographers workmanship and be representative of his best artistic work. The JEPGs or slides could be used to demonstrate size and consistency of the photographer's portfolio. Those photographers who exhibit superb craftsmanship, excellent artistic renderings, and have an expansive portfolio would bubble to the top very quickly and stand out from the others with distinction.

Unfortunately, I have never encountered such a competition, and probably never will.

[paulr]

All to often most competitions focus on the best image, the perfect image, the winning image.

I didn't even want to get into that, but I agree completely. The more time I spend making and looking at photographs, the less interesting "winning" images become. It starts to feel like producing the ocasional great picture (which tends to mean a striking, gushing, obvious picture) isn't that big a deal. What sets good artists apart is the ability to produce an excellent, cohesive body of work that explores something in depth.

For any kind of submission, the mimimum number of pieces I ever take seriously is three. Five is better. Applications that ask for one, and then charge a per-piece fee for addiitional submissions go straight into the trash.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

the alternate solutions are the obvious ones we've been mentioning ...the ones used by most contests, juried shows, publications, galleries, collections, etc.: digital files, slides, or work prints.

we all understand your objections to these methods; i'm pointing out why some of us prefer them.

you've made your suggestion, i've made mine. steve will do what he thinks is best.

There you go, this is the first post where you actually proposed alternate methods of presenting the work. You dont understand my objections, and don't pretend to be so "smart" since I have yet to make an objection to any other of the alternative ways to present work. I simply said, the end product of photography is a print and that is what should be judged. Seems to me you are the one who has an objection about sending prints.....

You could have simply posted "I would like a contest where the work is presented with slides, etc..." instead of posting objections to what I proposed, but then, I proposed it so you had to try and "explain" to me your objections. You should know by now I do not give a dogs turd what you think.

[Stephen Willard]

Actually, a magazine contest has zero need to look at prints, period. They may want to simply because they like looking at prints, but for publication it's going to be digitized, halftoned, and reproduced at a fraction of its original size anyway.

Any publication that is reputable needs to ensure the photographers they pick for competitions are indeed talented photographers who can produce images that exhibit high quality craftsmanship, are artistically excellent of course, and have a profound body of work that is sizable and consistent. Simple JPEGs are not sufficient for making this kind of an assessment. I believe you also need to see the real print even though the final images are destine for publication.

No respectable publication wants to be promoting a someone who has three great images to his name as great photographer while the rest of his portfolio is marginal at best. We all get lucky once in a while, but there are some who poses a special talent and seem to consistently hit a home run every time they pull the trigger. Those are the guys we want to acknowledge with distinction in a publication.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

All to often most competitions focus on the best image, the perfect image, the winning image. Of course there is no such thing and the process for selecting a winning ticket is very subjective. To many of us, the photographic competition is more about the best subjective image which is contradictive in nature and makes the concept almost meaningless.

If the mission of the competition is to promote photography then the competition needs to be looking for more than just the winning image. Perhaps a more noble and responsible mission would be to identify those photographers who are truly talented and undiscovered. There are millions of photographers who all have two or three images that will benchmark against any of the great photographers. However, there are very few photographers who have an amazing body of work that is significant in size with consistent image quality. Galleries long to find such photographers, and believe me there are not many of them, but they are out there.

Portfolio reviews, which in many cases are sponsored by gallery owners, are all about finding such photographers. Perhaps photographic competitions need to be moving in this direction as well. No competition could be as comprehensive as a portfolio review, but they could come close. I believe a competition should be asking for both prints and CDs or slides. The prints would be used to judge the photographers workmanship and be representative of his best artistic work. The JEPGs or slides could be used to demonstrate size and consistency of the photographer's portfolio. Those photographers who exhibit superb craftsmanship, excellent artistic renderings, and have an expansive portfolio would bubble to the top very quickly and stand out from the others with distinction.

Unfortunately, I have never encountered such a competition, and probably never will.

Now you are talking, I think this is a good idea. Perhaps instead of making it a "print" contest it could be a "portfolio" contest where as you say one photograph is sent and the rest of the portfolio is sent on a CD. From the contest organizers point of view I guess this would require the entry fee to be higher, it will requiere more work to choose the best portfolio, but I think this is still manageable. This would probably also make a gallery to be more receptive to work with Steve since they will be seeing an entire body of work.

[paulr]

There you go, this is the first post where you actually proposed alternate methods of presenting the work.


sorry, jorge, in the future i'll try to do a better job of stating the obvious as explicitly as possible.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

sorry, jorge, in the future i'll try to do a better job of stating the obvious as explicitly as possible.

Yeah well, you have to bear with those of us that don't know everything like you do.....

[Stephen Willard]

Now you are talking, I think this is a good idea. Perhaps instead of making it a "print" contest it could be a "portfolio" contest where as you say one photograph is sent and the rest of the portfolio is sent on a CD. From the contest organizers point of view I guess this would require the entry fee to be higher, it will requiere more work to choose the best portfolio, but I think this is still manageable. This would probably also make a gallery to be more receptive to work with Steve since they will be seeing an entire body of work.

So Jorge, this brings me back to my initial posting. I will send the CD as required, but I will also send a print as well even if it pisses someone off. Most likely I will include a letter explaining why I am doing this in hopes of influencing future competitions requirements and direction. It is at no risk to me simply because I have never won or placed in a JPEG limited competition.

I suggest that other people on this site do the same, and who knows where this may take us.

[SAShruby]

IMO, Stephen idea to present one print (measure your craftmanship) and your porfolio (measure your talent) as a good compromise. I second to this one.

This one would put me on the last place today. But I promise, I'll work on that.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

So Jorge, this brings me back to my initial posting. I will send the CD as required, but I will also send a print as well even if it pisses someone off. Most likely I will include a letter explaining why I am doing this in hopes of influencing future competitions requirements and direction. It is at no risk to me simply because I have never won or placed in a JPEG limited competition.

I suggest that other people on this site do the same, and who knows where this may take us.

I think you thought of a good compromise and most importantly it would make for a more interesting contest for both the participants and the judges. IMO it is going to be harder for the judges to pick a winner, one might send a great print and the rest of his work might be weak and viceversa. If Steve manages to get a gallery to work with him and give a show to the winning portfolio, then all of the prints will have to have an outstanding quality, this might be a source of trouble.

If Steve is willing to do this then I think the submission should be a print and a CD containing no less than 10 images to make a portfolio, and call it a portfolio contest. B&W magazine does something like this but they only accept JPEGs for the competition.

In any case, you struck a good balance and I hope Steve is willing to go for it.

[Stephen Willard]

IMO, Stephen idea to present one print (measure your craftmanship) and your porfolio (measure your talent) as a good compromise. I second to this one.

This one would put me on the last place today. But I promise, I'll work on that.

This has always been my feeling, but even more so. Most competitions intentional obscure the judges bias so as to garnish the largest audience and applicants as possible, and inturn, generate as much revenue as possible. I have called up competition offices trying to get more specific information about the judges without any success. Those applicants that are not aligned with a jury or judges bias have no chance of placing or winning. Thus, in addition to the ideas I have noted above I would love it if all jury members had to publish a website of their work. Links from the competition website to the juries website would be provided. This would allow all applicants to see if there is chance in hell of winning or placing without any verbal spin.

Furthermore, I believe that once the applicant pool has been narrowed to ten participants then they would be required to submit additional prints as requested by the jury to further substantiate their work.

From where I sit many competitions are down right unethical about how they conduct their affairs. I would love it if there was a governing body of photographers or organization that would give there approval if certain ethical rules were followed. This organization would also publish a list of competitions that were denied their approval if certain practices were not met. This may seem dictatorial, but this is what is done in the sciences all the time. Their called standards. I believe the arts are in great need of such standards and rigger.

If all competitions required real prints to demonstrate craftsmanship, either slides or CDs to demonstrate the breath and focus of their portfolio, and required judges to publish their work on the web, then the impact on the photographic community at large would benefit in unmeasurable ways. Photographers would start to think about their work more as a body of work rather than just a few potshots here and their. SAShruby statement is exactly the behavior that would occur if such standards were imposed. I think these standards should apply to competitions as well photographic publications in order to have as broad effect as possible.

Perhaps all the leading publications and galleries in the photographic community need to get together like many if the leading high-tech companies do and create governing body to do such things. The benefit over time to them would result in a better pool of photographers.

I particularly believe the impact on the LF community would be immense. The inherit effect that big film has on craftsmanship and the artistic mood of the image would put LF photographers at the forefront of many competitions. I never sold a photograph shooting 35mm until I switched to a LF camera. The content remained that same, but the visual power of a LF image can be overwhelming when not dummied down to a smallish JEPG. I believe this would greatly add prestige and growth to the LF community.

Anyway just pipe dreaming and rambling!

[tim atherton]

wow - that's some pretty wild stuff...

Most competitions intentional obscure the judges bias

How exactly do they do that? Every good competition I see lists the jurors plain and simple - and any decent competition has decent jurors - you can simply look up their work, their publications, their gallery or institution. Id they aren't distinguished enough for you to be able to do that, then it's probably not worth entering.

The inherit effect that big film has on craftsmanship and the artistic mood of the image would put LF photographers at the forefront of many competitions.

I'd love to know how you quantify that... there seems to be just as much dross produced in LF as in most every other serious area of photography for one thing

Perhaps all the leading publications and galleries in the photographic community need to get together like many if the leading high-tech companies do and create governing body to do such things. The benefit over time to them would result in a better pool of photographers.

I particularly believe the impact on the LF community would be immense.

probably quite the opposite (and you'd have as much luck herding cats). Sounds like the old style Academies - which inevitably led to the stagnation of art in most case. Most of the good stuff always seemed to comes from those who rejected the academies and walked away from them

This organization would also publish a list of competitions that were denied their approval if certain practices were not met. This may seem dictatorial, but this is what is done in the sciences all the time. Their called standards. I believe the arts are in great need of such standards and rigger.

Art isn't science- why compare the two? And there is plenty of "rigger" in most arts - in fact it's always one of the things to look for in any artists or curator - the rigour with which they approach their work - without it the work is never any good - it's self evident.

But many of these ideas seemed to work well in the Soviet Union...

[QT Luong]

for the entry fee, postage, and a superficially damaged print, I got an image printed in the magazine and a Ries tripod head. I came out ahead.

They got an image to print in the magazine and you got a Ries tripod head :-)

[Gordon Moat]

In the commercial photography world, the most highly regarded of competitions (actually an Annual publication) is CommArts Photography Annual (http://www.commarts.com/CA/). Click on Competitions, then scroll down and click on Photography, and you can read their requirements.

Unmounted print samples no larger than 18" by 24" or RGB JPEG files no larger than 1024 by 768 pixels (which they note will be projected for the judges). There is an array of choices in what types of printed samples can be sent (includes tearsheets).

Another interesting aspect is five jurors plus one staffer from CommArts. Then they have several rounds and matchings for judging. Probably one of the better systems I have seen.

I am not suggesting this is the only way to run something like this. I do think the option of unmounted prints and JPEGs is not a bad way to go. My personal feeling is that I would not want to send JPEGs, since I feel projectors miss some colour quality in some images. I would be more likely to send C-prints (RA-4) of my images, probably all the same size just to be consistent.

Anyway, the value of a photographic competition likely to generate thousands of entries is to allow you to state that you were part of the final selected or exhibited photographers. Very few competitions really do much promoting, and some even do not directly generate much in the way of sales. I don't think some of these are a bad idea, but each person needs to carefully consider what, if anything, getting exhibited through a particular competition or event would do for their print sales, or how it might help generate more gallery exhibits, or if a commercial photographer how much new work might be generated.

Want a really easy, if somewhat free-for-all type of publication, then check out JPG Magazine (http://jpgmag.com/). They now have a print version for what started as an on-line only publication. The idea is that viewers select what they like, and the most voted actually get published. Perhaps even someone here could post something, and we could drive up the views enough to get someone from here in the next printed JPG.
:cool:

Want to try a different sort of magazine, then check out CMYK (http://www.cmykmag.com) magazine. They run advertising, design, illustration and photography every quarter. Entries use to be student only, though they recently opened this up to self taught individuals.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Jon Shiu]

A local competition I recently participated in had us submit one jpeg by email and then asked finalists to send in prints for a final selection. I sent a poor quality scan, but then sent in a silver gelatin print I just got back from a show in Toronto last year and it worked out ok.
Hippolyte Bayard Competition, www.viewpointgallery.org

Jon

[RDKirk]

Any publication that is reputable needs to ensure the photographers they pick for competitions are indeed talented photographers who can produce images that exhibit high quality craftsmanship, are artistically excellent of course, and have a profound body of work that is sizable and consistent. Simple JPEGs are not sufficient for making this kind of an assessment. I believe you also need to see the real print even though the final images are destine for publication.

You actually have presented two distinct propositions there. "Any publication that is reputable?" A publication concerned with photojournalistic excellence, would not worry about perfection in the print, for instance. Were there no National Geographic photographers--shooting only transparencies--or other PJs who created "a profound body of work" in your opinion?

[Stephen Willard]

You actually have presented two distinct propositions there. "Any publication that is reputable?" A publication concerned with photojournalistic excellence, would not worry about perfection in the print, for instance. Were there no National Geographic photographers--shooting only transparencies--or other PJs who created "a profound body of work" in your opinion?

My last reply was more about generating ideas. Some call it brainstorming, others may call it food for though, and as Tim Atherton just noted in his reply, "wow - that's some pretty wild stuff". The idea is to get stuff on the table for discussion without regard to whether it is a good or bad idea. That is why I ended my reply as "pipe dreams and ramblings".

My statement about "Any publication that is reputable" was not well qualified. What I was referring to was publications whose focus was on fine-art photography like View Camera or Camera Arts. National Geographic is more about stock photography relating to feature articles. However, this does not mean that photographers for National Geographic are not artist, but their focus is slightly different then a pure fine-art photography.

Furthermore, I believe once a photographer weaves politics or socialism into his images it is no longer fine-art, but rather propaganda unless it is practiced at an extremely high level. By this definition most photojournalist and stock photographers are not fine-art photographers. They are nothing more then what their job title states.

[RDKirk]

Furthermore, I believe once a photographer weaves politics or socialism into his images it is no longer fine-art, but rather propaganda unless it is practiced at an extremely high level. By this definition most photojournalist and stock photographers are not fine-art photographers. They are nothing more then what their job title states.

Back in my youth, it was a central ethic of journalism that if you could discern the politics of a journalist from his work, he was a bad journalist. I'll give you that in journalism today, that ethic appears to have been largely forgotten.

However, I won't give you the unqualified statement that even by your definition, "most photojournalists and stock photographers" even today are nothing more than propagandists.

And there is some fine art that is very clearly propagandistic, such as some of Goya's work.