Digital Photography Competition - September 2009 Results Comments

i must say the Tiesto concert in London photo is by far my favorite of all.the photographer captured the HYPE of the crowd, the LOUDNESS of the DJs music and best of all the FUN of the night..making me wish i was right there where the photographer is standing!excellent job with the colored glow stick on the bottom left corner, adding fun COLORS to the darkness..very interesting.WELL DONE!

Well well, I had suspicions that the quality of entries had dipped in recent months, but now I know for sure. Here are my reactions:

1: Dancers. Simply dreadful photograph. Subjects' faces are shockingly underexposed. The only musician in the image is at the edge, and facing out of the frame. There is no focus to the image, it's dark, cluttered, and horrible to look at. One of the worst winners Cliff has ever picked. Sorry for the harshness of my comments, but I've got to be honest.

2. Skirt: What is the focus of this picture? For me my eye jumps between the lady in the midground (who's face is totally underexposed, eyes hardly visible) and the strange triangle of black negative space on the dress. Horribly cluttered, too many people, shoddy composition. Difficult to see any link with music: there are a few drummers in the background, but this is really a dancing picture.

3. Sax player: What a disappointment. Anyone going to a jazz gig could walk away with an image 'miles' better than this. The subject's eyes are hidden in deep shadow, his right arm is intersected by a mic and stand, there is a bright yellow hand growing out of his sax, the mic in the background is at perfect height to interfere with the sax mouthpiece and the player's face, the shiny patch on his forehead looks awful. This is such a poor photo. Whoever picked it knows very little about photographing musicians.

I'm sorry I've been ultra harsh this week but it really upsets me that these guys will be walking off with amazing prizes for seriously weak photography. I would love to get a pro's critique. Can Cliff arrange this?

I must admit, I was enjoying the runner up shots considerably, and then when I got to the winners page I was like... oh. Really? I'm no expert but I would pick any one of the runner up shots over the winners.

@ Johnbaker

I think you're being far too harsh. Yes there are faults in all the shots but this competition is open to the public, not just pro's like you clearly are..

@johnbaker

While i would agree that i wouldn't have perhaps chosen a couple of these as winners out of the featured images, i find your harsh 'critique' really unhelpful and really quite insulting. Those who won took the time to go out and take a shot (or find one in their archives) and enter the competition. Can you say the same? Month after month you feel the need to insult and rubbish every entry that wins something without giving us the chance to see some of your own work. We all have differing tastes and preferences, and while some may not appreciate an image, others certainly will.

As for "the quality of entries dipping in recent months" comment, well, i'm afraid that just smacks of sour grapes and jealousy. Having been a previous winner and also having one featured out of the two competitions i have entered here, i find that quite insulting. While those entries may not be the best of my photography, i feel they show a creative and alternative look at the given themes.

So please, consider entering one of these days and perhaps a pro could judge that competition, and the rest of us could give you some 'constructive' critique.

Congraulations to the winners!

@Johnbaker,
Don't be so harsh in your words my friend. You may have a different view of your own. But judging a photograph is not a mathematics where you will get a firm and certain address. Winning in photography must be depends upon the photograph itself and mostly upon the judge's personal likings.
If you think deep regarding the theme "Music and Entertainment", (a little difficult to express it both in a single frame)all three winning photographs follow the theme wonderfully and artistically.
I have faith over Cliff for his impartial judging and hope he can continue this wonderful competition in all months.

Partha Pal

@ johnbaker - if it upsets you that much (which, lets be honest, clearly indicates you have your head too far up your own arse), then surely the logical thing to do would be to submit your own entry each month? I'm sure that someone with such immense talent as yourself would walk away with the prize every time. I would love to get a pro's critique of your work.

@johnbaker

Firstly, I am nothing more than a keen amateur and have much to learn. I've not submitted anything to this competition so am completely unbiased in my view. Your comments are not helpful in the slightest. As other people have already hinted at, any brief can be interpreted in any number of ways. Just because you are unable to see an obvious and instant link between the brief and the photo doesn't mean that the shot does not meet the brief. It does nothing more than show that you are not very open minded and certainly don't "think outside the box" - (I hate that phrase, but it fits here!). Just like any other art form photography is subjective. One person's throw away snap can be another's work of art. Just because it doesn't get YOUR juices flowing or is perhaps not as technically exact as your work obviously is doesn't mean it is not of merit.

As for the technical er.."critique", perhaps you would be so kind as to post a link to your photos so that mere mortals, such as myself, can be shown exactly how to do it properly. I relish the chance to pick up some tips.

One last thing, regarding the "shockingly underexposed" comment, when was the last time you calibrated your monitor? I've just finished doing mine and although they are slightly on the dark side, they are certainly not what I'd call underexposed. Perhaps your equipment could do with a quick tweak???

Regards to all who entered and congrats to the winners!

i so agree with ---piesforyou--the runners up's photos are so much more interesting and much much more artistic...im quiet disapointed..

I am very much in agreement with johnbaker. I don't think it's too mean spirited to offer a critique such as his on the 3 winning photographs as all points are very valid. That said the shots were not so bad in themselves just very far from being "up there" with the best truly award winning shots. There were many great images that deserved better placing than the final 3, which I too thought were quite poor in comparison. Certainly no offense intended to the three winners, who's shots were ones I would have been proud to have taken myself.

As for sour grapes, it's very typical for people in defending others in the belief they have been slighted, for them to then up the ante and launch an attack on the original commenter. Why do you feel the need to challenge him to put his money where his mouth is (so to speak)? Personally, other than a stern (but constructive), though admittedly negative, criticism, I don't see any need for that site user to have to prove himself at all, as either a professional photographer or else competent amateur.

Of this month's photographs, my favourites are The Conductor, Black & White Saxophonist (Lanzarote), The Studio Mic and Husband's New Guitar. A special tip of the hat to Nikola Sekulić's amazing black and white picture shot in Varaždin, Croatia. Sandipan Majumdar's shot was very good too though I think to make it award winning a tighter crop to better highlight the main subject was much needed.

I don't think Cliff is solely responsible for judging winning entries? If so, then it'd be a good idea to have a number of judges (for obvious reasons). I look forward to these monthly competitions as it's always nice to see what people come up with. I think it'd be a good idea to limit a person to not winning a top prize more than once a year though.

What's the subject for next month then? Did I miss it or has Cliff been too busy writing his Wedding Photography tutorials?

i agree with John baker...completely..im not saying im a pro or anything but it is VERY obvious that ALL 3 photos subject are out of focus and out of place..you guys are attacking johnbaker not because of his photographic critics but more so with his 'harsh' critics words.leave him along..he have the right to write whatever he wishes..i am not a pro photographer but i do have an eye for art..i believe that majority of the runners up photos deserves credit.good try guys, better luck next round:)!

Well I'm glad I wasn't the only one who got all worked up on the first few pages only to be disappointed on the last one.

I'm not an expert in photography by any means, but I have to agree with all those criticizing the winners, not worthy imo.

seeing the winners gives me hope that if I were to enter with my basic n95 I have a chance of winning

lol ;)
all three winners have a naturalness to them something that is possible you could see in real life, as a person who knows nothing substantial about photography and only have my phone as my photographic device I wouldn't be able or know where to start for the more posed shots, and would like to think I would be able to get slightly close to the third place type of shot (hopefully trying to keep the camera shake at bay)

Just to clarify, my comments to johnbaker are not solely based on his 'critique' on this month's winners (as i said, i would not personally have chosen those images over some of the others), but more at the fact that month after month he feels the need to insult the winning entrants and only point out negatives without commenting on the positives,

The only reason i 'challenge' him to submit one of his own images to a competition here at TR is because of his final comment. If he is so upset by weak photography winning prizes then by all means enter the competition and make a difference!

I think most of us are in agreement that this month's winning images are perhaps not the strongest, but they are the winners for whatever reason(s) Cliff chose.

I love the photo of the conductor, and out of all the photos this month, I would have picked that shot for No.1 for sure!

To add to the debate, there are a number of aspects to a photograph - e.g. technical, artistic, and emotive.
When I look at a photograph, generally the more pleasing aspects to me are the emotive and artistic side, rather than the technical, and of course these aspects are very subjective. However the best photographs are usually a combination capturing an emotive/artistic subject and getting it right technically.

I believe the judge(s) (Cliff?) have let the emotional side get the better of him this month in choosing the winners (nothing wrong with that - as I've said these are the aspects of a photo I personally prefer) however like others I think there are other photos featured (such as the conductor, the guitar close up, and the two concert going shots on page 1) that are better than the winners.
It's all subjective though so congratulations to the winners and all the others featured.

Publication of pictures means getting opinions on them - both critical and praising - everyone should accept that different people see and think differently. In several occasions I agreed with Johnbaker's sayings and in several others doesn't - but in general I think it is good to know others's opinions. And as Johnbaker says mostly the critics - this is his style. Instead of taking offence, let's try to learn from these. We are here with quite different backgrounds and level of experience, I think many of us are amateurs, but there are here some professionals too for sure (like Steve Ayres). It is not worth to ask Jonhbaker to show his pictures (he will when he wants), having opinions and criticizing is not equal to doing the thing on a high level, and may be John is as much critical about his owns shots than about others'. Usually a drama critic can't play a role or direct a piece, a music critic can't sing or compose, etc ...

Look, I also agree that the winners weren't necessarily the best (personally I would have picked the three on page 4), but that doesn't mean I agree with what he has to say.

The thing is, he isn't offering advice at all and his comments don't come across that way, with unnecessarily snide jabs mixed in with generally derisory comments. He's just one of those odious people that scours the Internet looking for articles like this, only crawling out of the woodwork when he has something negative to say, most likely in an attempt to boost his ego to cover up his own insecurities. An asshole with an opinion is still an asshole. Of course, he's more than welcome to prove me wrong by posting some positive comments, but somehow I find that unlikely.

At the end of the day, his comments will put people off entering these competitions and having their work published on a popular website, where they should instead be encouraged to do so. johnbaker's trolling comments only serve to undermine a generally light-hearted competition which welcomes amateurs and pros alike.

I agree that Johnbaker's comment(s) could include a little bit more constructive criticism but, seriously, I had pretty much the same reaction as him and some others when I got to the winners page. As I was moving page to page and seeing how wonderful the pictures were, I couldn't imagine how great the winning photos would be! I was kind of disappointed with what I found... no disrespect for the photographers but none of those pictures would get to the top 3 if I was the jury and I almost bet the same would happen if there was a poll here on TR.

Hey, that's an idea ;) How about adding a poll to the next contest (Cliff would still choose his winners of course) and letting your members choose their winner among the selected photos (maybe even adding a special 4th prize)?

oh and don't give me the "show us your pictures" argument just because I'm criticizing. I already sent mine a couple of times at least but clearly I'm not good at photography haha
Still, that doesn't take away my right share my opinion, like someone said before... just because I can't do better, doesn't mean I have to like it.

My Congratulations to the winners anyway. Keep shooting :)

- excuse my english, obviously not my mother tongue ;)

johnbaker@

has a desire to be a critic, but his views do not really help in anyway.
John please go back to your forum somewhere to share your great wisdom.................oh you cant as they have had enough of you as well ??

There are some interesting comments here, at the very least it has got some of you thinking.

I accept that my comments are downright unhelpful, and serve more to undermine the judges' decisions than help to improve people's photography. I will try to bear this in mind in two month's time. Though I should point out that there are plenty of sites where shooters can get honest (and more constructive feedback).

I should also point out that I do enter almost every month. Of course, I don't use this login. I expect some criticism for hiding behind anonymity, and I'm prepared to take some stick for that. I did win something a while back (as a runner up). That's when I got hooked on this great competition, and that's when I started to get upset by the poor quality (in my opinion) of some of the entries.

I guess it's really frustrating when these amazing panasonic prizes get won by cowboys who then strut around thinking they're the bees knees, when really they should be brushing up on basic composition.

Now of course we know photography is subjective, as is much of art / music / indeed lots of things in life. But that doesn't mean we can't attempt to separate good from bad, or identify why some shots work and other don't. Photographic critique is so wooly these days, and so many photographers who spend £10000s on gear have no idea about what makes good shots good, and bad ones bad. I don't have any secrets on how to make the perfect shot, but I know enough about great photography to know when I see a good image. There are lots of good images out there, you should go and see them in books/magazines/websites/exhibitions. But a lot of people are unable to tell good from bad. I have a suspicion the judges might be guilty of that.

It may boost my credibility to submit a web gallery of some of my favourite shots. I will prepare that, assuming I'm allowed to post a link here. I haven't yet taken the perfect shot, so I'd expect some hearty criticism, and maybe you could point out some failures in my shots that I haven't noticed.

But I accept that my comments may be demoralising to some of the people that read them, and who haven't signed up for abuse, so in future I'll see if I can be less abusive. I don't see the need to match every good comment with a bad comment though, that's just for teachers and management consults.

Hello, complete outsider here. Very rarely post but felt moved to do so on this occasion.

The skirt photo in 2nd place is amazing. Great energy and colour. Very naturalistic and you can feel a lot from it.

But I am so shocked by the choice of the winning photo that I feel moved to comment.

It is okay - of course it is. All due respect given. But it is absolutely nothing special. That he is a 'friend in Devon' is especially shocking. A friend of Trustedreviews.com by any chance? I don't understand any other reason why this was chosen. It's a Jazz player on stage. Lit up blue. There is nothing special in the actual photo taking at all. The highlight caused by the light on his head are blown out. It doesn't look well composed. There are mic stands jutting in the way of it. You can easily take a low light photo with a VR lens and high ISO on a modern Nikon. There is absolutely no art in this photo at all. I don't feel anything from it.

It really is just... man.on.stage.playing.jazz.

Um...!

The photo in 3rd place is a nice scene, but also not taken in a special way at all. The composition isn't great, it's a bit point and shoot. It's a shame considering how nice the individual elements of the photo are. It just needs a more interesting angle.

Very strange results indeed.

@CommanderSpike - I wasn't aware that Cliff said anything about a 'friend in Devon. What Cliff actually wrote was 'Having seen pictures from all over the planet, our top prize winner this month is almost a neighbour from right here in Devon.' If your going to imply something it helps if your basic facts are correct..

I think the theme that's emerging is that this is a thoroughly amateur competition for thoroughly amateur photographers. Some people, myself included, are taking it a bit too seriously, and our expectations that the best images 'ought' to win are a little naive.

If it wasn't for Cliff then there'd be no competition, so what he does is great. The quality of prizes is amazing compared to other competitions, though I gather that some of the time winners don't actuall receive them, which is a shame.

I suspect judging is done fairly casually around the office, perhaps including different staff of different photographic backgrounds and competence. And while Cliff is clearly a nice guy, if you look at the examples on the wedding photography tutorials (assuming they're his) it's pretty clear those shots are several leagues below the decent wedding photographs out there (eg Crash Taylor - stunning pics).

Which boils down to: by all means enter the competition, and in some ways treat it like a lottery. Even if you're picture isn't that great (according to convention) there's still a chance that the judges will think it's amazing. And if luck's on your side then you'll get a nice prize.

It goes without saying that competitions in which luck doesn't play such a big role tend to enjoy a better reputation, but the TR photo comp isn't about serious photography, it's more a chance for aspiring photographers to try their hand at a different theme each month, and see if the TR office staff like their efforts.

Those are my thoughts, and they may help some readers (myself included) to revise our rather inflated expectations of what purpose this competition serves.

Just returned from holiday to see the 'flurry' of activity on the posting of results. In my opinion it's all very healthy, although John I think you are trying to demand respect rather than command it. For example if you so bluntly criticised one of my images I would of course listen to it, but I would listen a lot harder if Csaba did the criticising, that's just human nature.

Looking forward to the Nov competition!

@Rita - Sorry just had to clarify. I'm no professional, far from it; I work in boring IT, but I have a great armature photographer in my father to learn from and perhaps one day, who knows! Shameless plug really, but my website here <a href="http://www.imagearcade.net" target="_blank">ImageArcade</a> confirms as such (not that the rules exclude pros anyway as far as I know). Sorry, just had to clear that up ;)

@Cliff - The shameless link above did get me thinking though. I don't know what TR's policy is, but you could ask each entrant to also submit their personal site and then link off their names if their images are selected. For armatures like I who would perhaps consider taking a step further a link of a highly ranked site such as TR would be quite a boon!

Cheers all! Steve

My apologizes, Steve, I thought that http://www.steveayres.com/ are you. My remark was intended to express only that our photographic backgrounds and experiences are quite different.

@Rita - No problem at all, didn't intend my confirmation to be confrontational at all. I just thought as a previous prize winner it might be prudent to point out I wasn't a pro ;)

@Johnbaker: I don’t think you’re in the wrong here John, on the point of principle (everyone is entitled to express an opinion, no matter how negative) but it does genuinely surprise me when people make posts such as yours without any obvious effort to be…..diplomatic. The blunt nature of your approach is naturally going to attract criticism, and people will (perhaps wrongly) characterise it as an embittered rant, rather than pay attention to the sentiment or content BEHIND the language. If I can offer you a free tip: knock the corners off the way you speak to people if you’re interested in debating the issues rather than your attitude.

I’m assuming you’re cool with a bit of unsolicited advice, since otherwise you’d be a hypocrite ;) Oh and for the record – and I don’t mean this personally – but it is somewhat cowardly to post on one account and submit entries to competitions on another. People would find your harsh critique easier to swallow if you appeared game to accept some yourself.

On the subject of photography itself, I am often sympathetic to some of the critique you post, if not the way you post it. That said, as a photographer, I do question your empirical approach to photography as a visual art.

Your rules about composition are the product of rules about aesthetics. Well I’m afraid art isn’t necessarily about aesthetics. A lot of modern photography is stagnant, and your analytic approach to critique is acutely indicative of this. Photography is taught like a science, and adhered to like an engineering discipline. Creativity should not be corseted by hard and fast rules, nor should a visual artist only ever strive to create things which are “pretty.” I saw a shoot for a big glossy fashion mag recently, by top photographers working with top models, MUAs and stylists, shot entirely with direct flash on a compact camera. The light was harsh and unflattering, the shadows were pitch black, and the background was dimly underexposed. The shots were “ugly.” The photographers however, new precisely what they were doing.

I don’t know how long you’ve been a photographer John, but there will come a day when you realise the “perfect” photograph as you seem to define it, is simply a function of time, effort and attention to detail. Even if you never take it, you realise you CAN take it, with the right application of the aforementioned. In fact, ANYONE can take it if they just follow the rules, and know their way around a camera. But there’s nothing of you in it. It’s like writing the perfect pop song. The perfect pop song has been written thousands of times, and sure, it’s enjoyable in a throw away sort of way. But it isn’t….important, not any more.

Now, I’m not really trying to claim that “mistakes” you’ve spotted with the winning entries are the result of a professional intentionally bending the rules to break new ground. Chances are, the people who took them would rather they didn’t have the flaws you allude to, and if they’d had more time to compose the shot, or more experience with the camera, they might have mitigated them. Rather, I’m just pointing out the flaws in such a dogmatic approach to an art. Perhaps if new photographers weren’t taught any rules they had to stick to, they might produce something truly creative, something those that HAVE been burdened with a set of guidelines they can no longer see beyond, are incapable of envisaging.

On a couple of technical issues though: I question your assertions about exposure in the second picture. Pictures aren’t always about faces being correctly exposed. The dress in the foreground is exposed just fine, and the sky is pretty much blown in the background. The exposure is correct over the frame. Camera sensors have limited dynamic range. It would be impossible to expose that woman’s face correct, especially given her skin tone, and maintain a decent exposure over the rest of the shot. In fact, you would almost certainly be calling it overposed if the shooter had done this. Finally, I disagree about the clutter in the final shot. I am a musician, and I gig on stage regularly. Stages are cluttered and messy; this is the nature of live music. Taking the context away would spoil the shot completely. If you want to take a perfect shot of a guy playing sax, do it in a studio. If you want a shot of a gig, then don’t try and take away everything which makes it uniquely a gig. The alternative shot you advocate, would be sterile.

An eloquent response, Simon, which raises a couple of points. First, your understanding of exposure seems thorough, but you neglected to observe that a little levels or curves adjustment can alter the gamma/dynamic range dictated by the camera's sensor. While it may be "impossible to expose correctly", using today's technology, a litte elementary photoshopping is all that's required to lift those shadows before noise starts to creep in. I'm guessing you've shot film most of your life, without much darkroom experience, and are shocked by the possibility of post-processing.

Second, I too am a musician, a jazz musician in fact, so I'm more than familiar with not only famous jazz shots, but also the types of images that make it onto publicity material, CD covers, posters, programmes, artists' websites etc. Are you saying, on the record, that the sax player image is good enough to merit publication through the above channels? I have a feeling you've gone one step too far in defending the indefensible. Sure, sterility is to be avoided, but the pic in question suffers from the most careless composition. Yes, I'd expect to see mics, stands, leads, drums kits, other players etc, but that's really no excuse for the ghastly distractions exhibited in that image. It really is beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned.

I don't believe I've employed an empirical approach to photography, and I don't recall promoting any particular rules or formulae. I hope I'm not so naive to promote such nonsense, and equally I hope other posters won't be so naive as to say 'well, photography is subjective so there's no such thing as a bad picture'. I have just casually listed some of the striking features that I believe detract from most of the 'winning' images over recent months. One day Cliff will pick a decent image, and then I'll say good things about it.

Funnily enough, I've only ever shot digital and am very experienced with photoshop! I took your criticism as an explicit commentary on the shooter's camera handling and neglected to consider you could also be referring to proposed adjustments to be made in PP. Not everyone has access to photoshop, but there are free equivalents out there I suppose. Genuinely the face doesn't bother me so much. I don't love the picture though, and it's not something i'd shoot.

I'm not suggesting the sax-player image is good enough for publication, no. But publicity images are judged by a specific set of criteria. They are not judged as “art.” They are required to be as aesthetically perfect as possible. Part of the reason you don't expect to see “ghastly distractions” in shots like this, is because you've been exposed to shots without them (in precisely the realm of publishing you make reference to here) for most of your life. The media industry has decided, over a period of decades, that images of recording artists on stage should be as clean/idealised as possible. This is probably because someone somewhere discovered it sells more albums/tickets.

So, when someone sets out to take a shot of a musician on stage, immediately the stereotype springs to mind. The same thing happens to us when we look at such images. Thus, there is a tendency to dismiss them out of hand if they're not following the basic rules a shot of a gigging sax player is supposed to follow. People most often react negatively when their expectations are violated. To a degree, that's what's happening here. If you de-construct any image, start to ask yourself WHY i'm reacting badly to a mic stand carving the sax player's arm in half, you start to realise that rules are a function purely of expectation. And expectation is partly (hugely) informed by experience. This is a self-defeating effect when it comes to innovation; those of us who strive to be creative, are both blessed and cursed by our exposure to other forms creativity. Actually, that's not completely true. What we're cursed by is the modern concept of the mainstream. The fact that some forms of art are used commercially, normalises our expectations. It cements us into our respective comfort zones and makes anything even slightly abnormal or abstract seem grossly “wrong.”

I think “bad” is a highly context-sensitive term. In commercial photography, a bad photograph is easy to distinguish. Indeed, it is characterised by objective measurements. In art though, it's an entirely subject term. I am certainly saying that there is no such thing as an objectively “bad” photograph in an artistic sense. There are certainly “ugly” photographs. Again, these are easy to define objectively. In the commercial world, “ugly” and “bad” are synonymous. In art though, “prettyness” is not the only criterion by which images are judged. I gave an example of an “ugly” high fashion shoot in my last posting. I'm damn sure if there had been a relevant competition on here, and those photographs had been entered, they wouldn't have reached the final 15. And if they had, it would have incited serious upset.