The Camerazzi Community
Where shutterbugs unite to share their wisdom, skills and resources
Been there, Done that – Contest feedback
From Pikkie’s desk:
The Been there, Done that…, March contest was yet another Camerazzi Great! “Thank You” to all who participated!
In general, the pics were just awesome and the judging quite difficult… however it has been done and we are almost ready to announce the award winners chosen from the just under 200 entries – as soon as I have completed the award certificates!
Meanwhile in true camerazzi-spirit of sharing knowledge, skills and resources in order to help everyone to improve on our photography, I deemed it fit to discuss a few photos and issues that surfaced during the contest, hoping that we could all learn from it.
Stick to the theme and naming conventions
When entering any contest, it is important to stick to the theme. We choose the Camerazzi contest themes intentionally wide, to allow for different and creative interpretations of the theme. Naming your entry according to the theme and prescribed naming conventions is equally important and the name contributes a lot towards fitting a photo with a theme. Naming convention prescribed for this contest were either/or – either “Been there…” or “Done that…” illustrated by means of examples: Pikkie Wolmarans-Been there-Top of the world OR Pikkie Wolmarans-Done that-Sandboarding.
In the light of the above I’d guess it would be ‘reasonable’ to expect that when a photo is cited as “Been there”, the title should end with a place name or description of a PLACE – for instance “Been there – New life…” would not be appropriate, but “Been there – Bloemfontein.” or “Been there where the lions eat” will be quite OK. Similarly, “Done that” would require some action and therefore “Done That– Navy ship “ does not make as much sense as “Done that – bird watching.
We did not disqualify photos for not being named correctly, but it did serve as an indication if a photo really fits the theme and photos being ‘squeezed’ into a theme are usually not looked upon very favourably by the judges.
Almost Awards
I often wished that we could give more awards as there are so many great entries, but alas that would devaluate the achievement, so we stick with the guideline of: Golden awards +/- 2% of the entries; Silver 3%; Bronze 5% and another 5% Merit awards which means that from 200 entries, 5 got Gold, 6 Silver, 10 Bronze and 10 Merits.
There were quite some ‘great’ shots that just missed the awards-boat due to the togs shooting themselves in the foot 
I believe the authors will forgive me for using their images as examples here – they are all great shots but all have something counting against them – so we could all learn something from them.
Look at this shot by Hugo Klaasen – Great impact, mood, composition, tonal range to suit the mood, technically good for both camera and computer work… but why framed with a thick, black, (funeral) frame? Not only is a condition of the contest that digital frames are not allowed (See terms and conditions on the Been there, Done that contest page, but does the frame really improve the photo? For me the answer is a definite ’No!’ Also I do not see any reason why the photo had to be cropped to a shape (aspect ratio) different from that of the camera – did it improve the photo to cut down on the height but not on the width? Again I think not as the content is ideally suited for the taller shape produced by the camera. The little devil on my shoulder told me that it was maybe cropped for the sole reason to fit it into the shape of an ‘instant’ yet ‘illegal’ frame… This would have been a winner if you presented it like my rendition in the right, Hugo.
Frames are not necessarily all ‘bad’ – in some rare cases they may actually improve the photo, but fact is that they take some valuable space from the photo and they are strictly speaking not part of the photography – we are judging photographic merit and not presentation merit, and ohhh, they are prohibited by the rules…
And about imprinting your names on a photo – that is not prohibited, but if it distracts attention from the real photo, it WILL count against you. Speaking for myself, imprinting may be a form of advertising but I do not do it when publishing on photo sites and definitely not in a competition …. well this was after I had a big fight for almost having a winning entry disqualified due to that in a contest some years back… Anyways I’d be quite flattered if someone think my photo is worth stealing from millions and millions other great ones on the web…:)
Amanda Currie’s great photo below probably missed an award due to the frame and the imprint may have counted against it a little – remember that the difference between an award or not is very little – small things do count!
Impact is the most important first judging criterion as it decides if a photo will go through to a second and third round of judging – however there are quite a number of entries that made a great immediate impact but then lose out either aesthetically (mostly due to composition) or technically (mostly due to incorrect exposure)
The following great image of the Orlando Power Station by Matthew Coetsee made a great impact, but alas, the foreground structure and wall in the right kills it as does the over exposure.
This shot below by Annelie Potgieter makes quite an impact, tells a great story, is fairly well composed, but unfortunately over-exposed.
I could throw in many more examples but think it suffice to conclude by quoting the judging criteria and standard terms and conditions of our photo competitions:
Judging criteria
Impact – Does the photo make an immediate and hard impression on the viewer ? This impact can be the result of a unique or special subject; it can be visual from factors like lighting/form/contrast etc. or it can be emotional due to a catchy or gripping message/story or mood.
Aesthetics – Artistic value as shown in creativity, universality, timelessness and application of compositional aspects to enhance aesthetics (orientation/focal point or area/positioning/balance/depth/framing.
Technical excellence (camera) – aspects of exposure/focus/dof/wb/noise
Post processing – sensible and functional cropping, sharpening, colour rendition and brightness/contrast
Terms and conditions
• Anyone can enter on facebook or on the Camerazzi website. To post on facebook you need to like the Camerazzi fb Page.
• Up to …. entries pp allowed
• closing date …….
• Photos must not be digitally framed
• Digital editing is allowed but note that this is a photographic and not a design contest – so better keep it to cropping, colour correction and maybe a little sharpening
• You retain the copyright, but by submitting your photo you grant us the right to re-publish it however we deem fit, either digitally or in print with acknowledgement of the author
Watch this space…winners will be announced soon.
Happy shootings
Pikkie
Your comment about frames is valid for printed media but defnitely not for images on the web. Look at Amanda Currie’s image. It has lost a lot of impact because you have removed the frame. The BG’s on the web are not complimentary to any images.
Also, to not allow someone to put their name or copyright on their image is not the best idea. Have your competition members no rigyts i.t.o. trying to protect their images?
I think you missed something Robbie: I actually did say that frames “are not always bad” and I totally agree with you that in the case of Amanda’s photo the frame improved the photo. But what about Hugo’s photo then? Did the frame improve that as well? For me the answer is a definate no! So rather than being valid for the web, your argument would rather be valid for certain photos but not for others. Bottomline is that ‘no frames’ are part of the terms and conditions and even if it does improve a photo, it will still count against it. By not allowing frames we simply level the playing field.
I dunno what gave the impression of “to not allow someone to put their name or copyright on their image…” I explicitly said: “And about imprinting your names on a photo – that is not prohibited, but if it distracts attention from the real photo, it WILL count against you…” The issue is clearly not about doing it but about how it is done. If Pacasso signed his name on his paintings in such a way that that it was the first thing you see, it would even devalue his work. If I am a judge and the first thing I see in a photo is the author’s name, I will simply judge it as distracting attention from the subject.
Pikkie,
Well our opinions certainly do differ i.t.o. the frames. It is however your site and your rules so those that play here, must abide by your rules.
I would however expect that you would have an understanding of image theft and therefore would look past any watermarking or copyright marking. Quite frankly to draw a comparison to Pacasso signing his art is a little archaic. He was certainly not protecting his image from being copied in a matter of seconds by the cut and paste option available to anyone in the world. Do you honestly believe that any top photographer would place an image on the WEB without any sort of marking to protect their image, even if it is slightly distracting to that image?
Denis,
There is no level playing field. My equipment, photographic and PP skills are far better than any novice out there so how on earth can they ply on the same field as me?
Robbie good debate. You don’t need a good camera to capture an amazing shot. It helps but even entry level cameras have great quality. Composition skills are camera agnostic.
The competition allows pp ..see my images I love pp..but not everyone can do frames which I why I agree it should be excluded. Also rules are rules..frames were excluded upfront.
Also Pikkie is totally agreeing to watermarks he just suggests that it not interfere with the photo which is quite sensible actually.
Please accept my apologies for not earlier responding to the statement: “Do you honestly believe that any top photographer would place an image on the WEB without any sort of marking to protect their image, even if it is slightly distracting to that image?”
My answer is: I do not only believe it – I have ample proof that MANY top photographers places their images on the web without any kind of marking! On the other hand… maybe the winners of 2010 National Geographic Photography Contest and those of Sony World Photography Awards 2011 are after all not such top photographers as I might have believed…
You can see their photos without any sort of markings here: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/photo-contest/2010/entries/gallery/nature-winners/
and here: http://www.worldphoto.org/images/image-gallery/5588/?FromImageGalleryCategoryID
Also interesting is a poll conducted by Digital Photography School – one of the biggest photography websites in the world from 15,133b responses:
Do you Watermark you Images Before Sharing them Online?
Yes – Always (23%, 3,523 Votes)
No – Never (43%, 6,469 Votes)
I don’t share images online (7%, 1,067 Votes)
Sometimes I do but not Always (27%, 4,074 Votes)
Total Voters: 15,133
http://www.digital-photography-school.com/poll-do-you-watermark-you-images-before-sharing-them-online#ViewPollResults
Seems like the alays watermarkers are in the minority…on the other hand, they most probably are the top 4000 from the 15000 photographers…
“My answer is: I do not only believe it – I have ample proof that MANY top photographers places their images on the web without any kind of marking! On the other hand… maybe the winners of 2010 National Geographic Photography Contest and those of Sony World Photography Awards 2011 are after all not such top photographers as I might have believed…”
Firstly, I didn’t believe that sarcasm would be a suitable reply but so be it.
Have you visited these winners own web sites? Do they have no markings on their images? To enter National Geographic and competitions of that stature, the togs do not watermark their images.. but for everyday internet communities like this, I’m afraid you are not yet at either National Geographic level nor The Sony Pro awards..
Looking at your stats from the Digital Photography School, the yes and the sometimes equate to 50%, the majority in my mind…
“Seems like the alays watermarkers are in the minority…on the other hand, they most probably are the top 4000 from the 15000 photographers…” Still valid?
But this is anyway all arbitary.. it’s your website and you run it the way you do.. a bit draconian in my opinion, but still it’s yours. If other photgraphers are happy if their images get uplifted and want to post in the competitions, then that’s their prerogative…
I have voiced my opinion and for that I thank you.
Hi I like using frames myself and consider them part of the “work” Does not work on all images though so should be used where it adds to the “effect”. Its a visual impact and “polishing off” thing for me more than an ego thing too. Especially now that Facebook has a black picture viewer background (which BTW is a Frame itself) a frame differentiates the photo. FBook of course did not consult us on this matter. I do believe that watermarking “in-photo” should be done so as not to interfere with the photo. I prefer naming in the frame myself.
However not everyone has Photoshop or other framing software so to “level the playing field” in a competition is entirely reasonable.
I would like to add to this discussion with this comment: Read the rules of the competition and then abide by them. If you do not agree with the rules, do not enter the competition.
Peppie,
If you read above, you will note my comment “It is however your site and your rules so those that play here, must abide by your rules”
Does this mean that no debate must be entered into if the rules are seen as unreasonable? To draw comparisons to an artist that never lived in the digital age is a bit out of the times don’t you think?
Pikkie says “If I am a judge and the first thing I see in a photo is the author’s name, I will simply judge it as distracting attention from the subject.”
This is not a closed forum, in fact it’s pretty open. Will Pikkie guarantee that my image won’t be uplifted and used without my permission by someone else? Yet I am being asked to submit my best work to be able to win the competition and if I do watermark my image, that this might be distracting therefore my image will be judged down! Pretty unreasonable not so?
Note 1: There is no rule on this site or in our competitions against watermarking your image – Feel free to watermark your images.
Note 2: Anyone is free to debate the rules you regard as ‘unreasonable’ just refer to my Note 1 above.
Note3: If and when I judge a photo I purely judge on what I see – If a branch or a white spot or a pole or a big white name distract my attention from the subject, I will penalise for that. That does not mean that it is disqualified – just check the top awards in this very contest and you will see that there are watermarked (or signed or name imprinted) images amongst them
Note4: Please try and distinguish between terms and conditions as published on the contest pages and My personal opinions – I do distinguish between those clearly in my writings.
“If a branch or a white spot or a pole or a big white name distract my attention from the subject, I will penalise for that.”…..
If there is a branch or a white spot, it is bad photography.. if there is a big white name, it was put there intentionally to protect the image.. pretty easy enough to distinguish and to look past.. but thats only my opinion..
Opinions shared here seem very much club orientated and regimental..
Hi Robbie, we may differ in opinions and that is good – else the world would be a very boring place… I do drive a hard argument and will always defend anyone else’s right to do so, albeit on my websites or anywhere else.
May I just ask one clarification before I reside from the debate – with reference to your statement: “To enter National Geographic and competitions of that stature, the togs do not watermark their images.. but for everyday internet communities like this, I’m afraid you are not yet at either National Geographic level nor The Sony Pro awards..”
Do you suggest that I apply a different principle because my everyday internet community’s competitions are not of the same stature as theirs and I am not on their level? A simple yes or no will do.
I wouldn’t know what level you are personally at so cannot comment, but competition wise, at National Geographic level you have to supply your RAW to substantiate your image and what PP you did. The entire world knows National Geographic… does the same apply to your site?
So is it “Yes” may I apply similar standards to my site competitions or “No” I should not because I am not in their leauge?
It’s your site, apply whichever rules you like…
From my first comment “It is however your site and your rules so those that play here, must abide by your rules.”
I just don’t think that some of your rules are conducive to everyone participating. I am sure that the likes of Amanda Currie won’t submit an image to this site again because of these “rules”.
So, I’ll take that as a “Yes”
Go look at this thread and then tell me that there is no need to watermark images!
http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/forums/showthread.php?21693-Are-Images-Placed-on-the-Net-a-Free-for-All&p=235479#post235479
I don’t know who on this site ever said “there is no need to watermark images” but it was not me, nor have I intended to ever say that…and your arguments and most responses in the referred thread is sound and perfectly valid. Congratulations on exposing at least some of these malpractices!
I would however appreciate if you kept your arguments to what I really said and not base them on a seemingly erroneous interpretation thereof.
1. The entire article was a feedback on a specific competition that I conducted on my websites and concerns the competition – nothing else, not even my own site as I freely allow frames and imprints despite the “draconian” way in which I supposedly run it
Allow me to summarise what I really said about watermarking in the (a) competition:
1. ” that it is not prohibited, but if it distracts attention from the real photo, it will count against you.”
2. “Speaking for myself, imprinting may be a form of advertising but I do not do it when publishing on photo sites and definitely not in a competition” This was identified as what I personally do and why I do it (because of an incident). I did not advise anyone else not to do it or made it into a rule or anything.
3. I stated a fact that some top photographers do publish photos without a watermark (in response to a question if I really think that top-photographers would do that) – and proved it with a link to websites of world-renowned institutions where such photos are published – and next I had my site compared to theirs r.e. “I’m afraid you are not yet at either National Geographic level nor The Sony Pro awards..”
It is fine if we bark up different trees, but please let us stay in the same bush!