 Robert G. Stalnaker |
Who are the judges? Hello everyone. 1] Just who are the judges? 2] What background do they possess that qualifies them for judging ALL classes of photos? 3] Why are there no threads where members can ask questions of management and the judges? Q1--How many? Who? One per category, or multiple judges each category? Q2--If a judge shot only family and pet photos mostly as their hobby, how can they possbily judge, for example, architecture or wildlife photos? Q3--How can this site be improved if there is no thread that has management and judges responding to questions. I know, the're busy. We all are busy. If we are paying cash, and if they are making money, then should there not be a way to ask pointed questions, and get "from the top" answers, so as to improve the website for both BP and its members? I know I can email Jim, but what about a thread?
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
There's enough until they look to add more. If you can judge a photo as good enough to enter, I'm sure they can judge a photo as good enough to say they like it. There's been threads, they keep rising up like restless ghost from the graveyard. ooooooooooooh wheeeeeerree's my efpppppppp?!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Debby A. Tabb |
Robert, This is Gregory! LOL,he's a lot of fun, but this question as with many when they arise,over and over, become somewhat boring to re-answer. There is many threads on this subject and fact is, if you need or want to win contests with your work it is better to enter more accurate judging on a local,state and National level. This is a World wide contest and when you look to see how many enter per month,can you even estimate how many it would take to compare all those and make a true judgement. No offence to them but if you try going through all those, your memory gets quite challenged, tying to remember all the ones you thought should merit. even with notes. I always suggest that no one take this contest to seriously. Just my opinion, Debby
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
In one of these threads, Jim indicated there were at least 10 judges; I think we can assume they represent a group from the list of instructors offering courses here at BP. These folks are excellent photographers or professionals in other aspects of photography who, I'm sure, have a personal and/or "corporate" set of guidelines for the major "weeding out process." I've often thought one or more of these folks "man the servers" and you'll note that, often, many of a given day's questions have answers by a single instruction [John Sisken, Richard Lynch come to mind - their responses are terrific.] It wouldn't be surprised if the initial cuts in a contest are made by the folks manning the desk. And, I'd expect them to select Photo of the DAy and Judge's Picks. Judging is subjective. I've had award-winning images slammed hard by another judge. Whether a judge "likes" the image is every bit as important as other factors. The technical aspects of the image might never be considered if the judge doesn't like the picture and, conversely, a judge may override his personal feelings and judge via technical issues. I judge all the time. If I feel unqualified with regard to a pet photograph, I rely on the technical merits of photography - composition, lighting, etc. That's what's expected of a judge. Your question seems to suggest your personal ire at never having won. In most instances, that will be because your images aren't meritorious. Try a little ruthless assessment of your work before submitting - you'll probably find you've been submitting too many marginal picturs. I don't know who's paying to be a member of this site. I do know that if you take a course, there's a fee. In the latter instance, the instructors respond. But, there never was a commitment that the judges would respond to entries submitted to the contest. The sheer number of members and the longevity of this web site attest to its success. So, continue submitting - but ONLY your best work. And stop complaining.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robert G. Stalnaker |
Debby, thanks for answering. If there were a really good thread where some answers were given, then Gregory could have shown the link. What is a "boring question" to an old-timer is not a "boring question" to somebody new who has a serious question. As to your answer, here is what should concern us ..... if BP is that big, "worldwide" as you say, and if BP is making money, then darn, use that money and add some qualified judges who specialize in certain categories. I see a clear bias AGAINST wildlife photos--obviously, there are no judges with a wildlife background. Create more categories--wildlife photographers get shortchanged here since their shots are lumped into an animal category with pets and zoo shots. If members are going to send cash in to enter the Cash Contest, then geeez, should we not know who the judges are and their photo background and area of specialization? It seems to me the judges have all concentrated on Digital Darkroom and perhaps no judge has ever been in the wild shooting real wildlife. That is my impression from what I see. Why should any wildlife photographer bother to enter the Cash Contest since artsy or Digital Darkroom entries seem to have a bias for them? I would prefer a membership fee, along with higher entry fees for the Cash Contest, as long as there were QUALIFIED judges who can appreciate all forms of photography. Also, since the Cash Contest has no category separation, exactly how does a judge compare a wildlife shot to a macro indoor flower shot to a portrait? Unless BP management can communicate with us on these threads, then I see no reason to enter any more Cash Contests once my cedits are used up. Perhaps you are right, Debby, concentrate on local contests or national contests that focus on only one category. Thanks so much Debby, you did what Gregory could have done. Any member who posts a question deserves a serious answer.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robert G. Stalnaker |
John, you have it wrong re "my ire" and about "not having won". I am new! I have only started to enter contests, so for gosh sakes, I have no "ire" about "not winning". You posted your response while I was typing my response to Debby, BTW. RE the courses, there is a course on "photographing your dog" and tons of courses on Digital Darkroom, et al. I see a bias toward these types of shots in POTD and winners. Since wildlife is my passion, and since I have been keeping stats to see what wins and what doesn't, I can make the statement now that there does seem to be a bias against wildlife photography. Jim Zuckerman has one wildlife course here--the only course on wildlife photography. I can assue you that Jim Zuckerman does not filter through pet, zoo, flower, portrait, etc. in oder to judge wildlife photos. I just do not see a fair shake for wildlife photography here. That's why it would be nice to communicate with the judges and management on threads. Thanks for answering. You and Debby, unlike Gregory, provided valuable input.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Jessica Jenney |
Robert, you can look at the following link to see wildlige images on BP: http://www.betterphoto.com/searchResults.php?limit2=all&szTerm=wildlife&schMod=Photos&page=1&rows=16
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Jessica Jenney |
An excellent wildlife photographer Bill Houghton: http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/gallery.php?memberID=69494
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robert G. Stalnaker |
Jessica, thanks for your two posts. I have seen many of Bill's photos, he does excellent work, and there are many fine wildlife photographers that submit here. However, my point was that wildlife photography seems to take a back seat to the other genres in terms of what the judges like. Take the latest cash contest, for example. Of the entire slate of Honorable Mentions right on up to the winners, not one--REPEAT--not one wildlife photo was chosen. Of the entire large list of super wildlife photos, not one photo of wildlife could even crack the "Honorable Mentions". That is astounding. Of the two photos that did have an animal, one was in a zoo/aquarium and was more a Digital Darkroom photo than a turtle photo, and the duck photo was also a Digital Darkroom photo. I remain convinced that there is a strong bias toward artsy type photos and digital creations--it seems that raw wildlife photography does not get any type of fair treatment. Yes, as a place to come and see beautiful wildlife photos, BP does have many of those, and the wildlife photographers here should be proud of their beautiful work. However, as to competing in the Cash Contest? Forget it. Unless you do swirls and twirls and layers and make a wildlife photograph look like a cartoon, you don't have a prayer.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Todd Bennett |
Robert, Your original post had nothing to do with what you say in your 10:08:12 post is your problem. You wrote an essay in your bio, and finally come out and say in your last post that you feel wildlife photos don't get the attention they deserve on this site. Your original post was questioning the day to day operations of this website. Do you honestly think that the management is going to discuss their decisions on day to day operations with you, especially in an open forum? Your first question is probably the only legitimate question that you've asked and it has been asked so many times here that if you had done a search of the Q&A's, you would probably have found your answer. In reference to Q2, as was previously stated, judging these is strictly subjective. What you like others may not and what others like you may not. In reference to Q3, just because you think this area needs improvement, the management may not. You seem to be looking at this from the bottom up rather than a top down. If you want answers to these types of questions, i.e. your Q2 and Q3, they are better directed to a particular staff member via email rather than in an open forum. After all, you don't walk into WalMart and ask the manager to discuss their pricing strategy with you. They're gonna laugh you right out the front door.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Robert - it's all in the mind of the beholder. In PSA contests and in those of the New Jersey Federation of Camera Clubs, "Nature" photographs are in a separate category. One of the reasons is that both organizations include in their requirements that there shall be no evidence of man. Say you took a picture of birds in a bird bath. Since bird baths don't exist in nature, they would constitute "the hand of man." If allowed into the competition, a judge is obligated to disqualify it. The latest wrinkle in NJFCC is that whenever a Nature Image [perhaps showing the hand of man] is entered in a Pictorial Competition [essentially an Open Contest,] the Nature Image, usually some kind of animal picture, wins. [That's your complaint in reverse.] This means the Landscape Specialist complains that s/he can't win because the Nature Pictures always take the prizes. The fact of the matter - if one shoots with a long telephoto lens, with camera set on tripod fitted with cable release, it's really a matter of luck if a bird happens to enter the lens' field of view. Under such circumstances the image could legitimately be deemed nothing more than a snapshot - as the photographer did nothing more than set up his equipment and wait [and pray] for a shot. Frankly, a well composed landscape in which texture and or shadows/highlights are considered may well be stronger images than the lucky snapshot of that bird. As such, one might well understand why a judge might by-pass the lucky snapshot of an animal. I know a fine photographer, who has returned to the Philadelphia Zoo four days in a row to wait for the right picture of tigers. Are you suggesting that, for a minute, a snapshot of a bird in flight is more meritorious than that taken at a zoo at just the correct moment, with just the right exposure and lighting? I would hope not. But, I do believe you heap too much criticism on the judges. How do you think the many, many Moms would feel if they couldn't win a prize for the picture they took of their babies? Is that lucky animal shot really better than the image Mom got at just the right moment when her baby smiled? And, yes, that perhaps is a snapshot, too. Three cheers for the judges who do an almost impossible job. All of us will question why our pictures don't win. It's up to all of us to keep shooting, enter only our best, and recognize that some intresting images might be lost along the way.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Rhetorical question. Do you first need to be able to get good photos before you question if a judge is qualified? You're also convinced of the theory that you have to specialize on subject matter. That's a falsehood that will always result in perpetual tragic returns. That's a waste of bandwidth.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Colleen Farrell |
"There's been threads, they keep rising up like restless ghost from the graveyard."
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Richard Lynch |
This has been one of the first threads of this type in which participants have saved me some breath. John Sandstedt in particular has been providing some very sound and reasonable responses here. As curt as Gregory appears, I think his heart is in the right place, and he is generally a helpful and humorous addition to many discussions here at BP -- beside being quite an excellent photographer. As far as knowing more about the judges, I think Jim has let on about all he wants participants to know. My first thought about knowing precisely who the judges are is that it offers no benefit -- for the judges or the contest. Bringing the judges from anonymity might only then allow people to contact them by name or via email about selections -- and I think that might cause more trouble than it would ever solve, and perhaps offer unfair advantages. I think I am at liberty to say, the selections are made by people, and these people are well-qualified photo professionals, and there is a group of them (Jim is likely to make an accurate count as he has all his fingers and toes ;-). As far as 'manning the servers', I can't speak for other instructors, but I come here for fun and to join the discussion out of no requirement from BP and with no residuals. I have been participating in forums for Photoshop and photography of this sort for more than 10 years, and enjoy them -- much like others come here regularly. As I teach courses here on BP, I think it is also a great way to get to know our visitors, their concerns, keep an eye on popular topics, do my job more effectively...and offer some help when I can. Hopefully my participation is helpful. The competition is genuine, I hope you will allow yourselves to enjoy it. It can be a lot of fun! Richard Lynch
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robert G. Stalnaker |
Richard, I want to thank you very much for responding. It will be healthy for the BP website to have instructors and management respond to areas of concern since we all want BP to be taken to the next level. Re your "competition is genuine"... no, it really isn't Richard. Take last month's Cash Contest--I will repeat from my response above: ... "Of the entire slate of Honorable Mentions right on up to the winners, not one--REPEAT--not one wildlife photo was chosen. Of the entire large list of super wildlife photos, not one photo of wildlife could even crack the "Honorable Mentions". That is astounding. Of the two photos that did have an animal, one was in a zoo/aquarium and was more a Digital Darkroom photo than a turtle photo, and the duck photo was also a Digital Darkroom photo." Richard, Jim Zuckerman is a wildlife photographer and is a BP instructor. If Jim Zuckerman had the entire slate of incredibly beautiful and amazing wildlife photos from that month to peruse, and then he was shown the results that NOT ONE wildlife photo even made it to "Honorable Mention", what would Jim Zucekerman say? I can give you stats of "Photo of the Day" winners and stats of finalists/winners--I can assure you there is a clear bias against wildlife photography at BP. Re your "knowing the judges offers no benefit" . . . how so? If a member sends hard earned cash to enter a contest, does not he/she have a vested interest in knowing the qualification of who is judging? Can you picture John McEnroe not knowing the background of the linesmen and chair umpire in one of his tennis matches of yesteryear? I see a clear bias against wildlife photography and for "Digital Bling". If I knew the judges never set foot one into the wild, but had a passion for macro flowers or portraits, then I know the deck is stacked against me if he/she is judging wildlife. Re your "knowing members concerns" . . . thank God. I hope more of you instructors know our concerns because we do want to correct known problems. I see an obvious bias here. Once my cash credits are used up, no more for me until a level playing field exists regarding wildlife judging. BP loses my monthly entry fees--I planned on entering 10 photos per month into the Cash Contest. If more wildlife photographers sense what I sense, they also will see it is useless to enter the Cash Contest, when a "Digital Turtle" and a "Digital Duck" are the two representatives in the "Honorable Mention" ranks, as happened last month. Re your comment about John Sandstedt . . . you said he provided a "sound and reasonable response". Richard, John actually said the following: "The fact of the matter - if one shoots with a long telephoto lens, with camera set on tripod fitted with cable release, it's really a matter of luck if a bird happens to enter the lens' field of view. Under such circumstances the image could legitimately be deemed nothing more than a snapshot - as the photographer did nothing more than set up his equipment and wait [and pray] for a shot. Now Richard, do you call this a "reasonable response"? If we had every single wildlife photographer at BetterPhoto who spent 10 hours battling weather and dodging alligators, sweating the elements and stalking animals, and finally getting a good shot of a bird in flight with a telephoto lens--this is a "lucky shot"? See what happens to this thread if I contact all the wildlife photographers I know and let them read this response by John. This is a spit-in-the-face remark to the many fine wildlife photographers at BP who have submitted amazing photos of wildlife, and I resent that "lucky shot" comment, and I am sure the others do also. John does not have one photo of wildlife in his entire gallery, and maybe never set foot one into the wild, so for him to make this type of terrible comment, I would have hoped that you, as an instructor, would have come to the defense of the many, many fine wildlife photographers at this website who submit incredibly talented work, not "lucky shots". Richard, you teach many of the "Digital Darkroom" courses. I have nothing against that and I plan on studying PS more as time goes on. Perhaps that is why the judges bias toward digital darkroom photos since the website wants to sell as many courses as possible, a reasonable objective as it is a business. But when a bias happens AGAINST natural wildlife photos, as is the case now, that is when it is a problem. Thank you Richard for responding. If every instructor and management and many of the top wildlife photographers all chimed in, the result would be a closer look at how BP is treating wildlife photography, and management may see more clearly that yes, there indeed is a bias here that needs changed. Thank you very, very much Richard. I hope you take this concern (backed by facts) to other instructors, management and the judges. All of us want to improve the site.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robert G. Stalnaker |
Todd, I disagree. An open forum is the only way a clear problem can be brought out and hopefully corrected.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Luwanda Grisswald |
Robert, what exactly is the problem, and what would it take to "correct it?" Are you upset that YOUR photos aren't being recognized, or just wildlife in general...cause I have seen many wonderful wildlife photos get silver and gold medals..
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robert G. Stalnaker |
Luwanda, not in the least re my photos. I am new here. I just barely started entering photos into the contests, so this has nothing to do with my photos. Re "siver and gold" . . . I am referring to winners. In the last 13 months in the Free Contest, only Ken Christensen's "Those Eyes" made it to the winners' circle. That seems hard to believe, considerig the extreme difficulty of shooting wildlife and the huge number of incredible wildlife photos over the last 13 months. I believe what really concerns me is that I see a lack of oversight. The rules state that images must be "truthful" and that if an animal is captive it should be disclosed. There were a number of members last month that broke these rules and STILL were awarded EFPs. In addition, these were captive raptors staged to look like wild raptors. Members who posted comments about "great wildlife" were not responded to by the photographer that they were captive. This was not caught by the judges, which really is shocking. That tells me the judges were not aware, and may have been fooled just like many members were hoodwinked. Obviously, the judges do not want to award EFPs to photos that break the rules, but they did so not realizing it. The other issue is fully explained above. All organiztions have areas to improve. We would all be fooling ourselves if we beleived that BP is 100% perfect--no organization is. The only thing I want is to have all concerned, from wildlife photographers to judges to instructors to management, that there may be a problem that needs fixed. We all will benefit if that is the case. Thanks for commenting, Luwanda.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
You're trying to restate John's point with the example of waiting for a bird with something that's totally different. And that pretty much goes right along with most of what you're so frazzled about. Without this long list of astounding wildlife photos, whether an alligator was dodged or not, can't go into what could, what should, what shouldn't, or why did. Is seems ridiculous to think that a photo contest would have a bias against wildlife, when wildlife is one of the groups that are for one, most often photographed for published books for sale, also most often one of the subjects that people like to photograph, and also one of the subjects that are considered automatic to have in a contest. You might as well say baking contests are biased against pies.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Todd Bennett |
Robert, You are grabbing at straws. You can disagree with me all you want; but, you can bet your butt BP isn't going to discuss this in an open forum. Richard is a nice guy and from what I have heard, a very good instructor. He is one of about 3 instructors that respond to questions here on a regular basis. You should count yourself extremely lucky that he even responded to this thread. Let me ask you this. If you own a studio doing portraits. You have a client come in that wants a portrait and knows absolutely nothing about photography. You do their portraits and when they look at the finished product they tell you you've used the wrong shutter speed and demand you take pictures with their shutter speed setting, are you going to change the way you operate just because one customer thinks your shutter speed is wrong?
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Diane Dupuis |
"If you photograph an animal in a zoo or "rent-a-beast" park, for example, volunteering this information in the description will not hurt your chances in the least. In fact, it may help by giving credit where credit is due." This is a direct quote from the BP contest guidelines. It's the closest thing I could find that you are referring to Robert about being truthful about where the shot was taken. It sure doesn't sound to me that we absolutely MUST reveal whether the shot is "true" wildlife or not and that we are liars if we don't. I do admire you and other "true" wildlife photographers for traipsing through alligator infested areas to get your shot. I live in a large city and my only chances to see "wildlife" here is in zoo-like settings. That's just the way it is. I still love animals and capturing their beauty. Does that make me a bad person? Does it make my photos less deserving of recognition? Did I write under each and every animal photo in my gallery where it was taken - probably not - but probably did in about 85 to 90% of them. Is it a big deal? I don't think so... If anyone asked me where I got the shot - I would certainly tell them. I think the difference in terms for me is "wildlife" is an animal that I wouldn't have as a pet. Was the photo captured "in the wild" - nope - very few of mine were (except for some birds, a squirrel, the young buck and herons). Now there were feeders in the forest where I got my bird shots - is that "wildlife"? What about the young buck - it's on an island near here where there are hundreds of these guys who live there. It's not a zoo like setting they are completely free - were they transported in or just happen to live there - I have no idea. Is it wildlife? I sure think so. I hear your frustration. The few times I did traipse around trying to get real "wildlife" shots I found it a totally frustrating experience. And I'm sure you feel your good captures are extra special because of what you had to go through to get them. Do they belong in the same category as cute studio shot puppies and kittens - nope probably not. Do they belong next to my Ecomuseum pics? We probably won't agree on that one. Anyhow - if you find your wildlife pics aren't doing that well here at BP - find other contests that are just for wildlife. Back to the question about the judges though - honestly the cash contest doesn't interest me one bit. But if I was paying to enter - I'd probably want to know who the judges are. But having been at BP for years, I know that's not about to happen any time soon. So if you feel uncomfortable not knowing - I'd suggest don't enter in that contest. Happy Shooting!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
- Ken Smith Contact Ken Smith Ken Smith's Gallery |
Robert, Diane beat me to the punch. Most folks, right or wrong, consider "wildlife" as the kinds of animals that you wouldn't have as a pets, in your home. When people comment by saying "great wildlife shot", they're not defining wildlife the same way you do. That's all. Nothing sinister about it. And if BP actually did have a wildlife category, what's to stop anyone from taking a shot at the zoo, and saying it was shot in Kenya? Also, what is true wildlife..would a lion on a protected open range be considered wildlife?
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Robert - You obviously looked at folks' galleries, certainly mine. You noted that I don't have one image of wildlife in my gallery. Duh! Didn't you read the line at the top that's says "The images shown give you an idea of the type of picture the photogrpaher likes to shoot." Just maybe, I prefer to shoot landscapes and portraits more than wildlife images. At some point, you need to recognize that wildlife shots are often, if not always, the result of a great deal of luck. You can get to a site and never see a bird or animal - so, if you do, it's luck. And, if you get a decent shot, because the bird flies in the right place, that too is good fortune. Certainly, it's not something you made happen or controlled. It doesn't mean you've taken a bad shot; it doesn't mean you've taken a prize winner either. And, most assuredly, there's no reason to suggest there's a conscious, nefarious plot against wildlife photos. Why not test the system - enter a well conceived landscape and see how you fare. Your gallery is crammed with many similar images; why not branch out a bit. You might like shooting with a normal lens. Returning to my gallery for a final moment, you'll note there's only about 20 images shown. And, for the record, I've probably entered less than 40 images in various contests held since I joined BP in 2001. Why? Because I'm my harshest critic and proud of it. I only enter those images that I think worthy and which I think have a chance of winning. This, as opposed to the many members that enter an image every day, whether or not it's truly a potential winner.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Richard Lynch |
Robert, I'll indulge this for another moment because I'm called out by name...but please consider this a final response on this thread lest I end up rehashing what I've already said here and elsewhere. I do not think your claim that wildlife shots are ignored is valid, even just considering the shots from January. Please note the following finalists: 1st Place These are all wildlife shots in one form or another, though perhaps you'll argue that the horse shot is not. Of the 111 winners, about 5 or so are wildlife...or 5%. If you specifically want more birding shots, well, I don't know if that is fair, as it suggests the need to meet a quota. As soon as you have quotas you are not selecting the best (at least from the standpoint of the judges). If you are suggesting the contest needs to bend a little in a definition of a category to support wildlife shots, that is re-determining criteria and not playing according to the current rules. [continued...]
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Richard Lynch |
To address specifics you mentioned: "I can assure you there is a clear bias against wildlife photography at BP." I don't think so. As stated above, I can't substantiate your research. You see there are 10 categories:
Only so many of those really fit with wildlife (about half), and as the contest cannot control the volume of what people submit nor how good it is, it seems harsh to insist on more wildlife finalists than there already are (5%). It would not be possible to do it in another way that is really fair or did not involve some type of quota. I think meeting a quota is not a good thing. If you have a look at the contest abstract and experimental photography may be under-represented...I happen to enjoy those things but don't think it is a flaw in the contest. Further, perhaps good wildlife shots are indeed very difficult as you suggest, and perhaps more involved from that aspect...that may lend to the lower volume submitted that meet your criteria and the volume that the judges see as superior within that lot. But to be clear, there is not specifically a 'wildlife' category. Other 'categories' may not be represented either...fine art, still life, abstract...the fact is that BP has established categories they feel are fitting for their contest, and these are the rules by which to play. "Re your 'competition is genuine'... no, it really isn't Richard." "Now Richard, do you call this a 'reasonable response'?" The contest is not judged specifically for wildlife in any category. You can find all sorts of exceptions if you try. As an instructor once said to me: "Make it so good it can't be refused". While that was in another context, it is super advice and applies to just about anything in art. If your images are superior to all the others out there and you enter an appropriate category, eventually you will have success...and if you don't every time, it is a testament to the great photography happening all around you. The genuine nature of the competition will not favor one photographer over another or particular genre or subject unless there are categories to support that bias. There are no conspiracies. The contest is meant to be fun, and you can have fun in the right mindset. Make your best images! Richard Lynch
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Todd Bennett |
Richard, Very well written; but, I am afraid you are wasting your time. Some people can't seem to see the forest for the trees.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Robert, I suspect everyone on this list is aware of my perspective and opinions regarding the "bias" of judges in particular areas as well as favoring particular members. I finally came to the conclusion it just does not matter. You can not change anything by asking or pointing out the obvious so in the end you'll have to decide if you want to enter the contest and accept it for what it is ignoring the things that bother you or find another contest site to play around in. Me, my playground is microstock since I'm such a dismal failure here lately. It's a lot more fun to make money than it is to win medals anyway.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Mundy Hackett |
I rarely comment in threads, but being a serious wildlife photographer who also takes a fair number of 'captive images' at zoos and the like I felt the urge to purge my diatribe here. Robert, I have to respectfully disagree with your across the board generalizations about BP and the contests and the lack of wildlife winners. Although I can certainly see your viewpoint. Let me bullet my opinions for ease of understanding for everyone. 1. The categories in the BP Free contest are what they, always have been and always will be. If a photographer enters an image into those categories then they know up front what to expect. There are so many other options for wildlife imagery if you only want to compete where wildlife truly means just that. I assure you the competition is far fiercer than anything here, and it requires a skin tougher than a buffalo hide! As for the cash contest, imagery that moves the viewer, catches the eye, savors a moment and translates that into palpable emotion on the part of the viewer.....these are the images that win regardless of their ilk. If a wildlife image does that, it does it, and will shine regardless of the competition if it is better. Again one knows ahead of time what one is submitting to imho. 2. We come here as a choice, true we pay, but we know what we are paying for if we ask the right questions and are open to opinions of others. The web is literally littered with photo sites all selling the BEST experience, so if this is not a good fit there are plenty of others including 1,000's devoted to just true wildlife and nature. 3. I do disagree with those who say wildlife is anything you would not own as a pet, but I respect their right to think that and have their own system of what constitutes what. 4. Lastly, I think the one point that I did find most troubling though is the thought that wildlife photography involves luck, chance, etc! This is so FALSE my dear friends! Serious and even not so serious WILDLIFE photographers can work extremely hard to get a shot, and it is DIRECTLY a result of knowledge of animal behavior, time spent in the field, perfect understanding of light, weather, wind, equipment. I will bet you even money that for every LUCKY WILDLIFE shot that is deemed incredible by the masses and breath taking there are dozens if not 100's that are better and more moving and impactful because of the photographers command of timing, natural history, effort getting ready when the moment does occur, and so much more! I know I am on a sopabox with this point, but I hate it when someone says that getting images of wild animals is luck and chance. That is bunk. Sure it can happen, but not too often. 5. Now I take alot of zoo images lately, and I also disagree that it is just as demanding, just as challenging, etc. I disagree that going back to the zoo four days in a row deserves as much praise as something in the wild. I can go to the zoo on any given day, and depending upon the animals/species tell you exactly what that critter is going to do and when it is going to do it if I have watched it over time. Yes, it may take a few days to get exactly the shot, but those critters aren't going anywhere and if the weather sucks I come back another day! In the wild, you do your homework, you look at the situation you will have, and you figure out a way to get what you want. If the animal fails to show in the wild, that is the breaks, but if it does show and you get the shot that is not luck or chance. That is planning in my world. Zoo, captive, aquarium images are no less beautiful, but from my background they hold less muster with me as being true accomplishments to be worthy of the highest praise because those animals are conditioned and not going anywhere! Just one opinion from a wildlife photographer and wildlife biologist.
P.S. Some sites like to be in the open about their politics and processes and some don't, again it is ultimately their site. It obviously has been very successful over the years, so I doubt they will be changing their modus opperandi any year soon. Thank you all for reading this far.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Richard Lynch |
Mundy, To quickly clarify, I did not mean to suggest that good wildlife photography was all luck, I don't think John did either, and I am not quite clear on where anyone suggested wildlife photography was strictly lucky. I think I tried to make that clear in my statement as well. Taken out of context, many things can seem like a dig. However, I also believe good photography of almost any sort requires setting yourself up to be as lucky as possible...and experience generally will get the payoff. I don't think 'luck' is a curse...you won't have a lot of luck trying to shot wild animals atop the empire state building; you have to set up for success. A little bit of luck is welcome in any photography for everything to come together perfectly in the 500th of a second or so the shutter is open. You can do all the positioning you want, but if an animal turns their rump to you when you want to shoot the head, that is bad luck...also bad luck if they fly away on your quiet approach because a predator appears...Some amount of the scene will be arguably be luck. If it were all skill it would be one trip to the zoo, and not several days. Richard
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Mundy Hackett |
No harm no foul here Richard, and I do agree with you that luck can be an extra benefit! My apologies to you and to anyone else if I misread or over simplified your points. Passion is an onery beast in and of its own at times!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
- Elida Gutierrez Contact Elida Gutierrez Elida Gutierrez's Gallery |
First to all please forgive my bad writing. Just two comments: One .- I remember when they first promoted the cash contest, they tell us all that the judges aren't going to be those from BP but the owner or editors of some Magazine. Two .- I believe that good pictures are a combination of so many factors and regardless of wildlife or zoo pictures all of them required a great amount of patience, and I really admire all those photographers who leave their families and venture to catch the right animal at the right moment. Just one tiny example of patient: Last month I got my very first EFP in animals and to get that picture I expend like a month behind my kitchen window freezing my fingers holding my camera outside the window -because it doesn't have a powerful zoon-. For last, I looked at Robert S. and Gallery and Bill Houghton' and this ignorant photo shooter saw a huge difference. Gook luck and Happy shooting.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robert G. Stalnaker |
Hi Diane. THX for commenting. I have nothing against zoo and pet shots--nothing at all! You may not have read everything. In the BP gudielines toward the bottom, they CLEARLY state that they are looking for "TRUTHFUL' images. "Member #1" (to protect his name), won EFPs with a photos of a captive raptor, never disclosing this. There were members who CLEARLY thought they were viewing a photo that he shot in the wild, based on the wording of their comments. He NEVER responded to these members that it was a captive animal. He is one of a handful of members who did this same thing with raptors. After a private email where I asked him to disclose this after he admitted to me it was captive, he failed to do that, so I had to then post comments on his thread. Only then did he inform the other members that it was captive. The judges were fooled since EFPs were awarded, since no judge would want to break BP's rules re "truthful images". Because this was not truthful, since memebrs were hoodwinked, and since the judges were fooled also, this is the type of thing that needs to stop for the sake of fairness. RE zoo and pet shots--we can assume to some extent that certain zoo animals are shot in a zoo, but what about those who spend thousands of dollars to go on a safari in Africa??? Their shots are then being degraded if compared to zoo shots. BP asks that disclosure be done.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robert G. Stalnaker |
Ken, I disagree. The reason is I am getting quite a few private emails from members who share my concern (and some their outrage of being fooled). Members were fooled, Ken. Judges were fooled, Ken, otherwise they would not award EFPs to an image that was not truthful and breaking a BP rule. I must state again BP asks that the images "be TRUTHFUL", and when a captive raptor is staged to look wild, and members oohh and aahh and say "how did you get this great shot", and "wonderful wildlife photography", then members are hoodwinked, as they do not realize that a trianer is holding it in their hand and the camera is stuffed in the raptor's face. Members have indicated they thought it was shot in a natural, wild habitat.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robert G. Stalnaker |
John, You are digging your self a bigger hole every time you post. If you continue to belittle the amazing wildlife photography that many members submit, you are going to have quite a few memebrs here very, very angry at you. Since you have never shot wildlife, it was ludicrous of you to make the statements you made about "luck". I don't think you realize how poorly you come across stating this and how foolish it reads, considering you do not know what it takes to get wildlife photos. Incredible!!! I do hope wildlife photographers come here to see this. This thread is about a perceived bias against wildlife photography at BP, and you just made the BEST CASE POSSIBLE underlying that belief. We can only hope the judges don't share your background and beliefs.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Bob Cammarata |
...Interesting discussion. Perhaps if BP were to re-name the "Animals" category as "Wildlife", all those pet and captive animal images would need to find homes in other categories. As to great wildlife photography being "luck", I believe this to be partially true. I've often heard it said that it's better to be lucky than good.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
- Ken Smith Contact Ken Smith Ken Smith's Gallery |
Robert, I simply said "Most folks, right or wrong, consider "wildlife" as the kinds of animals that you wouldn't have as a pets, in your home." I believe true wildlife is out in the wild, free, not at a zoo or other $$-entry wildlife safari place. I guess some at BP will try to "fool" people about the origins of the wildlife shot. But I bet most are innocently referring to them as wildlife, because they don't know the strict definitions. As for EPs being awarded...you're making the assumption the judges are cracking open the discussion thread for the 1,000+ entries a day. With so many, it's possible they are simply looking at the photo, as a quick filter. Some speculate they only look at thumbnails when awarding EPs...I don't but the point is, it's doubtful they're reading the discussions that early in the contest process.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robert G. Stalnaker |
Richard, thanks again for responding. If you saw John S's second post, you may retract what you said. It is just horrible that he has repeated this again--ALL wildlife photographers will be deeply offended when reading John's asinine statements re "luck". Richard, there are some things that work against wildlife photos, and unless the judges take these items into account, wildlife will never be judged fairly. BetterPhoto guidelines give these tips of what the judges look for: 1] "Does the photographer show an artistic eye?" With wildlife, there is not a lot of "art", because you are dealing with nature in a "natural setting". The beauty of wildlife is the overall impression, not the "art" like a portrait. Bob William's "Off and Flying", e.g., has a black and white Goldeneye duck, and the water is natural, but not "attractive color". The beauty in this photo is the capture of the duck in flight in a natural setting; there is not a lot of color here. A Barred Owl, e.g., is mostly brown. Wildlife often does not have blazing color, but should this make wildlife images take a back seat to flowers, or should some "adjustment" be made in scoring wildlife? 2] "Did the photographer use creative techniques to make an interesting effect?" Once again, "Digital Bling" may be fine for some genres, but wildlife needs to be "natural" to evoke its beauty. 3] "For example, an original use of the sepia tone effect, creative lighting, motion blur, etc., will cause a photo to score higher. " ??? OK, but the most BEAUTIFUL wildlife photos have the beauty in going into the subject's "natural world". These creative techniques are only suited for nonwildlife photos. 4] "the photo should be balanced in composition (e.g. by use of the Rule of Thirds)" In the wild, you can't move the subject like a model in a portrait. YOU have to move. If the photographer moves to get a perfect "Rule of Thirds", he/she may be finding themselves falling off a cliff or sticking their foot in a rattlesnake's den. I do hope the judges cut some slack about this, and if any of the judges ever shot wildlife, they know that it is not "shot in a studio" and "Rule of Thirds" can be hard to come by. 5] "Whenever possible, eliminate any extraneous elements" Sorry, but you can move a coke can out of the living room flower shot, but you just can't move marsh reeds and sticks and limbs out of the way in wildlife photography. The MOST beautiful wildlife photography is natural. The leeway in creativity is there to some extent, but not to the extent it is in all other forms and classes. 7] "Fill the Frame" It is easy to fill the frame in nearly all types of photo classes, but in wildlife photography, having a fair portion of the frame showing the subject's surroundings adds to the beauty of nature photography. In my "Loch Ness Monster", I could have put on a 1.4 teleconverter and brought the otter closer, but I feel having some portion of that marsh in the frame adds immense beauty to the photo. Richard, I truly feel that perhaps what the judges look for works against wildlife photography. As this small list of examples show, wildlife photography does not fit the mold like it does the other classes. Only until the judges, (hopefully with some experience shooting wildlife), recognize that these elements of "what judges look for" are totally contrary to what you find in wildlife photography, then wildlife photography never will get a fair shake at BP based on "what the judges state they look for". Thank you, Richard.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robert G. Stalnaker |
Ken, the judges should have noticed that these raptors were head shots. The way it is here at BP, if you see a photo of a raptor and the feet are not being shown, there is an EXCELLENT chance that the raptor is being held by a trainer with leather straps holding the raptor down. How hard is it to take that photo??? The judges should have known this. To award EFPs to this member, especially since "Member #1" titled one of the two photos "Free as a Bird" is inexcusable. A captive, caged bird titled as "Free as a Bird"!!! Because this member never responded to fellow members posts wondering "how he did this" and other comments indicating that they beleived it was a miraculous shot in the wild, the "Member #1" knowingly hoodwinked fellow members and apparently the judges also. (A couple others did the same thing). The judges must not have much background of knowledge re raptors, otherwise they would have questioned the fact that the feet are not shown. It was not a "truthful image" and broke the contest rules, yet two were awarded EFPs.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Colleen Farrell |
Robert, your passion is impressive, but I think you're wasting your energy on this issue. If I had youth, strength, health and the money to buy the equipment necessary for great wildlife shots, and if I had the thousands of dollars to go on an African safari, and if I were able to dodge charging elephants and wrestle alligators--and if, after all this, I was able to *also* capture "amazing" wildlife shots, I doubt I'd have the energy to worry about one category of one contest on the web. Until BP management wants to add a special "unmanipulated photos of wildlife taken only in the wild" category, we simply have to accept that all wildlife photos go in the "animals" category. And we also have to accept that in this contest--or ANY contest--there will always be people who fudge the truth, and what *we* feel are unworthy images will win while what *we* feel are worthy images get overlooked.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robert G. Stalnaker |
Mundy, I don't think anybody can misread what you said or what John said. What John said (twice) is ludicrous. To call the single most difficult type of photography--wildlife photography--luck may be the dumbest statement of the year. I'd like to hear what Jim Zuckerman has to say about "luck". He wrote books on wildlife photography. I can tell stories of the trials and heartbreaks and difficulty and danger I faced getting many of my wildlife shots, and every wildlife photographer here can also. That's just a flat out plain stupid statement by John, especially since he never shot wildlife photography.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robert G. Stalnaker |
Colleen, thanks for the input, but all organizations, including BP, have areas in need of improvement. If the points are not raised, there will never be improvement.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Bob Cammarata |
"It was not a 'truthful image' and broke the contest rules, yet two were awarded EFPs." ...but who really cares about EFP's? (Sorry, but I just couldn't resist adding a little salt to old wounds.);)
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Richard Lynch |
Robert, I have no need to retract anything I have said as it was and still is valid. John suggests playing the game within the rules as they stand, and that is what I agree with. It also seems presumptuous to think that wildlife photography needs to be judged by some other criteria, or that you know better than the judges. The fact is, you CAN remove weeds and branches -- and trees for that matter -- if they affect the image. All rules of presentation and composition are essentially the same. There is no 'level of diffficulty' bonus like you might get in a video game. If you choose not to enhance your photos digitally, that is your choice to the benefit or detriment of the image. I remain unclear on your statement that you believe wildlife photos are not well represented. As I pointed out with examples, 5% of the photo winners are wildlife for January. For some reason you suggest that none were, even in the finalists...and that is just not true. Perhaps you'd like the rules to be different, but that is your preference...I have mentioned others (fine art, abstract, still life, and more that are exclusive of wildlife). Again, there is no 'wildlife' category specifically...if there were things might play more your way. Right now there is no reason why wildlife has to be represented at all if the images in other categories are superior. You need to be honest about the representation which is indeed significant. Your statement to the contrary "I truly feel that perhaps what the judges look for works against wildlife photography" is not founded in the reality of the results. You can learn a lot by participating in the contest and challenging yourself to grow in rendering the best results and taking your work even further. Ultimately that challenge will need to come from within. To me this subject was at rest already with my previous post. I feel bad that you continue to fight, and hope you can simply enjoy the competition and use it to learn and grow. That is far more beneficial than making a stand against the rules. Richard Lynch
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robert G. Stalnaker |
Diane, another comment re disclosure and you stating that you did not disclose 100% of the time. There is a 2nd memebr here, I will call her "Member #2" to protect her identity, who stated the following to me in a private email regarding her hoodwinking fellow members: QUOTE...."I have paid my dues and earned the right not to give any one Member #2 hoodwinked fellow memebrs and broke BP rules. But, she feels that is her right! The judges awarded her a EP! Look how some members were fooled... 1] "Your gallery is a magnificent wildlife wonderland" Note--captive animals housed in a cage are not "wildlife" 2] "AWSOME CAPTURE [name withheld]!!! Just so beautiful! Note--captive animals housed in a cage are not "wildlife" 3] "[name withheld], how in the world do you capture these spectacular images? You amaze me -- this is out of this world!" Note--if this member had known that this raptor was actually being held by a trainer, and Member #2 did nothing other than walk up and take a snapshot, then the response would have been "more muted". Did this member answer any of these posts? No. I finally asked her this: "is this a captive red-tailed hawk or in the wild", but I knew it was captive. She never responded in the thread. However she did send me a private email admitting this was a captive animal, but justifed by saying she also shoots real wildlife, and then says, again: QUOTE: "...."I have paid my dues and earned the right not to give any one I do hope that BP does not make a mockery out of its own rules regarding "truthful images" and stops awarding EP, EFP and winners to members who make every effort possible to hoodwink fellow members and judges alike. As long as members and judges are fooled, then the true wildlife photographer is at a tremendous disadvantage.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
KV Day |
Who cares if it's head shot in the wild or zoo? Again, it's someone forcing their opinion about photography shoulds and shouldn't. A good shot is just that, a good shot. Sounds to me like a bitter pill being voiced on getting slighted in the contest (again). Personally I don't think it's your business where or when or how I take my images, just that they are mine. I don't know why someone feels they should get a bigger award because they were standing in the mud on a cold day watching a hawk fly by. If the shot sucks, you don't get bonus points for effort. If a pro is getting paid to take a photo in Africa, then it better be in Africa because that is what is expected by his customer. Other than that Robert, your up in the night as far as the contest. You have just as many "staged" professional wildlife shoots out in the open as you do zoo shots. All the same. End result is all that matters. Do yourself a favor, work on the "quality" of your photos, not how long it took you find something outdoors you call wildlife to shoot. Then maybe you can compete with the high quality zoo shots.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
KV Day |
By definition Wildlife: living things and especially mammals, birds, and fishes that are neither human nor domesticated
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robert G. Stalnaker |
OK, Richard, no need to respond further. However, your defense of what John said will not carry well with wildlife photographers here, I can assure you of that. The seven points I raised, you didn't fully respond to but I hope these points are reviewed with the judges who may not have wildlife experience. Finally, if you REALLY believe that "The fact is, you CAN remove weeds and branches -- and trees for that matter -- if they affect the image."... Richard, if you are referring to the nondigital world, please come with me on my next field shoot as some 16 foot alligators will love to have you go into the swamp to remove some reeds for me. Cutting the tree down would violate federal laws at the locations I go to. If you are referring to the digital world, most wildlife photographers and lovers find the beauty in nature, not in "Digital Bling". I have seen some photos win awards with layers of a different background and BP anxious to award these photos. I suppose I am a purist. The National Wildlife Federation contest and those like that would reject these photos in a heartbeat. All I hope is that in the future, 1] the judges take those seven points I raised into consideration, and 2] BP stop breaking its own rules by giving awards to untruthful raptor images.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robert G. Stalnaker |
Vicki, a captive raptor is no more wildlife than a jailed man is a free man.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Bob Cammarata |
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
|||||||||||
