 Ariel Lepor |
Recent wins When looking at recent entries lately, it seems that the contestants have really been getting better! But it seems that the winners have been getting worse. Is it just me? I'm seeing it all the time: grainy, over-sharpened, too soft, dirty, other problems, in the winners. There are better pictures for the judges to pick (and I'm not saying they are mine). Are they slacking off, or is it just me?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Colleen Farrell |
Hi Ariel, I haven't noticed that problem, but I don't think I've seen every winner yet.
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
It's the scratch on that cd that keeps making it skip.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
Gregory, did you post that in the correct thread?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mick Burkey |
It's not just you, Ariel. Though it may be just you and me. And I salute your courage to bring this up in an open forum. Not to knock the winners, but I agree that the level of contestants and images has gone up while, IMO, while the winning images are not as impressive as they were. I have seen some amazing images in the entries and the finalists, then been somewhat disappointed by those chosen as the best. It's an interesting subject, would like to hear from others, and don't think these grapes taste too sour. :)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Colleen Farrell |
I agree that it takes courage to bring up such a sensitive topic! Considering the huge number of entries, I guess it's not too surprising that some winners would get through that aren't 100% perfect...? But there's a difference between photos that are technically sloppy and those that we just don't think are "all that"--Ariel and Mick, are you referring to the same thing? Anyway, I'd be interested in knowing which winners look less-than-stellar technically (*off* forum, of course)--mostly just out of curiosity and the desire to improve my skills. I'm still learning, and sometimes wonder if my own photos are too sharp or too soft, etc. Whether they ultimately win or not, I don't want to upload messy photos. As for the level of quality of the entries, I haven't been participating in the contest for very long, so I can't say if they're getting better or not. But I'm continually amazed at how good so many of them are.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
I'll email you some examples, Colleen. There are many terrific pictures that still win, but there are many pictures that are obviously not winner quality -- both technically and also poor subject -- when the alternatives are by far superior.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
Colleen, in my email to you with examples, I didn't search through each winning picture from the last two months to find the worst ones. I only enlarged a fraction of the pictures and told you about the ones I thought were less than worthy.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mick Burkey |
Colleen, IMO there have been winners which are technically flawed and winners that are not "all that".
|
|
|
|
||
|
Colleen Farrell |
I see what you guys mean ... thanks for the clarification! I really think that's the best thing about BP's contest--at least for me--just knowing that many other photographers are looking carefully at my work makes me want to produce the best photographs I possibly can. I know it's helped improve my skills.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Lani J |
If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to see the "flawed" images as well. Honestly, looking through the winners this month... I didn't see anything immediately jump out at me. Which is why I could use some help! :) Are you talking finalists AND winners? Or just the actual 1st and 2nd placers. Thank you!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
I was only looking through the winners, but that doesn't mean there are only good finalists. Colleen, if you wouldn't mind, could you copy the BP email I sent you and send it to Lani? Lani, some problems, while subtle, could make a recent winner worse than a loser. For example, look through this list of winners: http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/dynoGall2.php?catID=17002
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
From the winners in that category, I see several which are really terrific, but I see at least one which should be nowhere near finalist. It would be hard to argue that for that image, if you know which from that list I am referring to, was creative enough to be bad in every other area.
|
|
|
|
||
- Dennis Flanagan Contact Dennis Flanagan Dennis Flanagan's Gallery |
I don't know which one you are referring to. I think they are all outstanding. All are interesting and have out of the ordinary POVs.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
"Out of the ordinary" - I'll say. The main picture I think should not be there wasn't taken with an SLR and doesn't have much of the picture very sharp. I'm not going to say which picture here, but you can look at all those which match my description and see which one you think is "outstanding" in a way some may not think is good.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Dennis Flanagan Contact Dennis Flanagan Dennis Flanagan's Gallery |
Realize that the judges pool is at least 5 judges, so accidents are not likely to happen. That's why that category is catch-all.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
Hey, I'm not saying that five judges against thousands and thousands of pictures a month means the judges should only pick the very, very best. I'm just saying that it should be obvious for them to pick some pictures over the ones they do pick, and that if they pick a picture for grand, they better be pretty darn sure that it is the best one entered that month. They do see all the pictures, and it isn't that hard to tell the difference between some bad winners and good losers. I don't think you understand what catch-all is for. It is not for the bad pictures. It is for pictures that don't neatly fit into other categories. It is not the "bad" category. Look, I don't want to sound grouchy or argumentative. I was just noticing a recent trend and thought I'd bring it up. I mean, a month before, I thought that almost all of the winners were breathtaking. But now, I'm surprised that a tenth of the winners got to finalist. About half of the winners I think are still awesome, and the remainder, I could see why they won.
|
|
|
|
||
|
KV Day |
Your talking a trend yet the month before they were almost all breathtaking? lol Your one month "trend" of one month sounds like your jealous, whining or just plain bored. Not sure what your trying to achieve by trying to slam the winners. Makes no difference what you think at this point, if you want to judge a contest to your guidelines, start your own website and have at it. No where does it say it needs to be a SLR for that matter. Anyone with a artist eye would recongnize the worth in all the winners. It all boils down to personal taste. This an amature site, an BP allows all level of photographers to be recognized in the contest, not just the pros. You are going to have some rough work but the value and artist intent is still there and worthy. I have taken a look at both your gallerys....Complain when your photos all match the criteria you are imposing on the winners. Neither of you are quite there. The winners are great, let them have there day, myself included.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Dennis Flanagan Contact Dennis Flanagan Dennis Flanagan's Gallery |
I never implied Catch-all meant bad. I fully believe the best means the best. I am not interested in winning a first place if my photo is not truly the best. Heck, I don't think the word "winner" should be associated with anything but 1st place. 2nd place is just the top loser and should be called "runner up".
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Way to much is made of the contests AND way too many entries are allowed. Many people just don't make 30 great images per month, but they enter them just the same. With upwards of 20,000 entries [not necessarily from 20,000 entrants,] the judges must be overwhelmed. Hence the initial assessment must be cursory at best. And, even if an image passes first cut, there still will be "losers in that pile" remaining because all of us will not see the same things in a given image. As I read the thread, it occurrs to me that, once again, egos have been bruised because someone has thought his/her image is better than the winner's. S/he might be right, but s/he's not the judge. And, because the judges won't tell us their criteria [I asked for a long time ago and was turned down,] there's no arguing. Finally, Dennis's concept of "first loser" is certainly not original, but true. Nonetheless, being a finalist in a contest involving 20,000 entries is something anyone can take pride in.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mick Burkey |
I think we are missing some points here. Ariel’s original statement was “the contestants have really been getting better! But it seems that the winners have been getting worse.” That’s an opinion, nothing more and nothing less. And while I don’t necessarily feel the winners have been getting worse, I do believe that over the last few months they are not, IMO, the standouts they were before. But art and photography are subjective things. They ain’t math. And there is no accounting for taste, as they say. I, for one, am not a big fan of paintings where people have both eyes on the same side of their nose. But a guy named Picasso did pretty well with that concept. I don’t believe her question about judging is a knock on the winners; it is a questioning of the judging. To shoot the messenger, or opinion-er, with those tired old attacks of jealousy, hurt egos, and “why don’t you do it yourself” comments misses the point and, to me, is counterproductive. Expressing one’s own opinion usually works much better. As for the judges, their work is certainly daunting, but that’s the job.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
Okay, if I said, "trend," perhaps I should have said, "dip," but there were also some disappointing winners the previous month. Mostly breathtaking doesn't mean the a month before that had even better winners. Mick is right - I'm not trying to say that the winners stink. They are generally very good, but many of the recent ones, and yes, several of the ones from the previous month, were not what they should be to have the winner tag. If they would win or not, there is nothing wrong with saying "good picture." But there is no arguing that the last month and a little in the previous month there were definite downturns in which pictures are selected. Many are not tack sharp like they were in previous months, many have too much grain or other problems (perhaps I recently started noticing this more, but the problem has increased). I am not saying that a picture with a style I disagree with should not win. But there is no style to be bad. If there were, I could mess up a picture as best I can and win grand. And no, I am not jealous of pictures worse than mine technically, and I just ignore pictures of a different style. Some winners are worse than mine (technically), most are better, but I am not jealous of pictures which should not win. And for the record, I don't think I entered any pictures last month. If I did, it was only one or two. So how could I be jealous of others winning if I didn't enter? The contest being open to all levels of photographers means that everyone gets a chance to enter. No, you don't need an SLR, but taking a picture with a camera loaded with grainy results, no good focus, and low resolution pretty much means it will not win. Equal opportunity does not, and should not, mean equal outcome. Bottom line, in recent months, the judges have many more excellent pictures to choose from, and they should choose at least from the best quarter of entries.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Scratched cd is a modern version at an old saying, a broken record. Sometimes grain works to give a mood, like tint, blur. Sometimes it works because it's different than all the copycat underside of a poppy, black and white bride with a color bouquet, water drops on glass with a flag or flower underneath. I don't think the judges are overwhelmed. The creators of this annual topic, like the person who made the point about galleries not matching the criteria they impose, all seem to be underwhelmed.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
Pardon me if I was not clear. I understand how blur, grain, and color tint, etc., can be used to make a nice artistic effect. I'm only referring to the pictures where it clearly doesn't work well or where it wasn't intended.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
Take the recent photo with the id 3791072 for example. It is very nice, and the blurred background plus the composition is excellent. This is a good picture. But the bird is not sharp enough and the background has too much grain for it to match similar pictures in the winning circle.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
You're hurting your case really bad. It's not nice nor a good picture. And it's in the new arrivals, not contest winner, where it won't end up.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
What do you mean? First of all, it is a good picture aside from the softness. Second of all, the example picture is comparable to some of the recent winners. Last month, I would say that there is no chance for it to end up in the winners, but now I'm not so sure, because I'm seeing pictures with these problems win. Anyhow, were getting away from the only thing I started my thread with: entries are improving, winners are not. When I look through the winners, I want to see the best. Not the best plus a few bloopers. Disagree? Fine. I don't have to or want to argue with you. If anybody disagrees with me, say so here. If anybody agrees with me, say so here. I'm going to just take one or two steps away from this thread before I start making all the winners feel bad when I'm just trying to say the judges should do better when screening winners.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Winners and judges will breathe easy if they see what you call a good picture.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
There are some of the good winners from last month. http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/dynoGallDetail.php?photoID=3524810&catID=16993 http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/dynoGallDetail.php?photoID=2912049&catID=16993 http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/dynoGallDetail.php?photoID=3433853&catID=16993 http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/dynoGallDetail.php?photoID=3515872&catID=16993
|
|
|
|
||
|
Diane Dupuis |
Interesting thread. I like the fact that you can with with a cell phone camera! How cool is that! I won my first finalists with my 2 megapixel point and shoot. You shouldn't need a dslr to do well in the contest. I'm not saying it doesn't help - but there is more to it then how many megapixels... Composition, originality, etc. are also important. Anyhow it was brave of you to bring up this topic - but still - let's put everything in perpsective. It's still a free on-line photo contest. It's just for fun. Really. The world doesn't end if we don't make finalist or more. Trust me - I know! It's great that BP allows the contest to continue free of charge. And last but not least - and it's been said before - Photography is Art - Art is Subjective! Show 10 different people a photo and you'll get 10 different reactions. So depending on who is judging this month - you'll get a different set of finalists and winners. That's life. It's ok - life will go on. Congrats to all the winners - past, present and future!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
Diane, I agree with you 100%. Everything you said is true and correct, and I am happy for ALL the winners, no matter what I think of their shots or their style. Really. It's just the way I brought up and discussed the topic, I probably connoted the wrong feeling and approach.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
Art is subjective...technique is either there or it isn't. Un-intended softness or other imperfections should never advance past the Finalists. Those entries demonstrating originality and creativity of vision commonly make it to the Finalist round. After that, technical excellence should be the primary criteria for deciding which photos will advance higher. Bob
|
|
|
|
||
|
Lani J |
I would never presume to actually know the answer to this, I just wanted to say. However I did want to add, that naybe the things that you find 'distracting' or as faults are the things that the judges found interesting? It is possible that your faults are their pluses? Art, a hard thing to judge. It's all subjective and truly beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Colleen Farrell |
Hmmm ... I see a green line ... and a red one ... :)
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Diane - Now I'm confused. You had a winner with a 2 MP point and shoot. But, all those nasty, lying camera manufacturers say we need 10-12 to survive! Why, for years, some of us [we're called heretics, by the way] have been saying it's all a hoax! And, it is - I can make [with a little bit more work] wonderful 11X14 prints from a file produced with a 3 MP camera [my DIL's.] And, what's so brave about stating the facts about so many poor pictures. I do agree with Ariel on this point, however.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
Sorry,...but I'm still laughing my butt off at Gregory's last post. (Thanks for the reality check.)
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||