Category: Contests

From an ASMP press release:

ASMP, joined by the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA), American Photographic Artists (APA), the Picture Archive Council of America (PACA), Graphic Artists Guild (GAG) and North American Nature Photography Association (NANPA), is concerned about the terms and conditions of a contest announced by Vogue, a Condé Nast publication, entitled the New Exposure Photography Competition, Presented by Bottega Veneta. This contest, which is targeted at students and emerging photographers, appears to be an effort to secure thousands of free images for unlimited use in publications and in advertising. For this reason, we believe this contest exploits photographers and we strongly caution everyone to carefully review and understand all the terms and conditions along with the rights they are surrendering before entering any competition.

The core problems we see are that:

• The sponsors have the perpetual, unlimited use of all contest entries.
• There is neither compensation for contest participants nor is there credit given for their work.
• Participants are required to sign a liability release and copyright assignment, and to indemnify Botega Veneta and Condé Nast against any lawsuits that may arise as a result of the usage of the photographs.
• Every entrant is required to waive any right to sue in the event of misuse of the photographs entered.
• The winner is being offered $10,000 for a shoot that would normally command several times that amount. The winner will be required to grant copyright ownership of all photographs from the shoot.

 

We believe that while competitions can serve a purpose within your business plan and potentially give your work significant visibility, there are a number of issues to consider before you enter. For more information about the terms, conditions and issues for Photography Competitions, go here.

 

Dr. Neal Krawetz of Hacker Factor Solutions specializes in non-classical computer forensics, online profiling and computer security. On Sunday he wrote a blog post titled “Unbelievable” that claims the World Press Photo Award winning image taken by Paul Hansen is significantly altered. Many people questioned the image’s veracity when the winner was announced (as is the case with most PJ contest winners), but most of the negative commentary focussed on the obvious enhancements made to the image and not any allegations of serious alteration.

Dr. Krawetz proof of alteration (read the full post here):

1. Image size is not native so the picture was either cropped and/or scaled
2. The XMP blog includes a save history that has several conversions on different dates. He claims this “is what you typically see when a picture is spliced from two sources.”
3. The photo was edited two weeks before the contest deadline, not when it was taken back in November. The final edit occurred the day after the international jury concluded their meeting and announced the winner.
4. ELA analysis (error level analysis) shows “middle people are much brighter than the other people. Those are either due to splices or touch-ups.”
5. The lighting on the people’s faces does not match the position of the sun.

his conclustion:

Hansen’s picture is a composite. This year’s “World Press Photo Award” wasn’t given for a photograph. It was awarded to a digital composite that was significantly reworked. According to the contest site, the World Press Photo organizes the leading international contest in visual journalism. However, the modifications made by Hansen fail to adhere to the acceptable journalism standards used by Reuters, Associated Press, Getty Images, National Press Photographer’s Association, and other media outlets.

I have to say that his evidence is not entirely damning. Taken with a grain of salt it merely points to all the enhancements people were carping about previously and not some new smoking gun. I have heard but cannot verify that the RAW image has not been seen by the jury and I do not know Dr. Krawetz beyond a cursory google search, so I’m sure we’ll find out more if news outlets decide to investigate his claims further or World Press does something (a site called extremetech.com is taking the splicing allegation and running with it). If anything this is a great opportunity for those contests and media outlets featuring photojournalism to check what protocols are in place for when questions arise. And how about some guidelines for what you think is acceptable, so there’s clear rules to follow. Given how far the old masters pushed reality in the darkroom there’s no reason to think the digital darkroom will be any different.

thx for the tip Ellis.

UPDATE 1: Paul Hansen speaking exclusively to news.com.au:

Hansen said the “photograph is certainly not a composite or a fake”.
“I have never had a photograph more thoroughly examined, by four experts and different photo-juries all over the world,” he said.

The story in extremetech.com said that Hansen “took a series of photos – and then later, realizing that his most dramatically situated photo was too dark and shadowy, decided to splice a bunch of images together and apply a liberal amount of dodging (brightening) to the shadowy regions”.

But Hansen said he had done nothing of the sort. Here’s what he told us:

“In the post-process toning and balancing of the uneven light in the alleyway, I developed the raw file with different density to use the natural light instead of dodging and burning. In effect to recreate what the eye sees and get a larger dynamic range.

“To put it simply, it’s the same file – developed over itself – the same thing you did with negatives when you scanned them.”

UPDATE 2: According to Huffington Post UK, World Press is investigating:

“However, in order to curtail further speculation – and with full cooperation by Paul Hansen – we have asked two independent experts to carry out a forensic investigation of the image file. The results will be announced as soon as they become available.”

UPDATE 3: World Press Photo has independent forensics experts review the image and they concluded that “we find no evidence of significant photo manipulation or compositing. Furthermore, the analysis purporting photo manipulation is deeply flawed” and “I can indeed see that there has been a fair amount of post-production, in the sense that some areas have been made lighter and others darker. But regarding the positions of each pixel, all of them are exactly in the same place in the JPEG (the prizewinning image) as they are in the RAW file. I would therefore rule out any question of a composite image.”

UPDATE 4: Dr. Neal Krawetz of Hacker Factor Solutions claims vindication after his post goes viral:

While writing this blog entry, the photographer made a statement. He explained how he made the picture. Specifically, he is quoted as saying:

“In the post-process toning and balancing of the uneven light in the alleyway, I developed the raw file with different density to use the natural light instead of dodging and burning. In effect to recreate what the eye sees and get a larger dynamic range.

“To put it simply, it’s the same file – developed over itself – the same thing you did with negatives when you scanned them.”

This is exactly what I have been saying. It is a composite. It is more than a simple color adjustment or burning. He made it using variations of the same picture. This even appeared in the metadata as multiple as multiple records from Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 7.1. I did add that I could not rule out separate pictures. However, I definitely detected the layers and edits.

At minimum, Hansen appears to have combined multiple versions of the same photo with different intensity mappings in order to emphasize harsh brutality in 2012 and grief in 2013. But that’s just the minimum. I still cannot rule out splicing between similar images. (This doesn’t mean it happened, it just means that I cannot rule it out with the given data.)

and

Frankly, it doesn’t surprise me that World Press Photo would award a manually altered picture their highest honor. World Press Photo claims to feature the best in photo journalism and claims to strive for ethical integrity. But I’m just not seeing it. World Press Photo and I seem to have differing opinions regarding what is ethical and what is acceptable manipulation. And they can run their contest however they want.

How about that. Life.com is giving out awards today for best photo blogs of 2011 and we nabbed one. In the write-up they mention “the blog’s loyal, smart, and vocal community is scarily well-informed and immensely helpful.” I completely agree that the comments are what makes this blog unique, so a big Thank You to all the commenters.

PART 1

I got this question from a reader recently:

I have entered some of the contests but I always get the feeling that they are fixed to some degree. I have talked to other photographers and they feel the same way.

It always seems to be the same people winning over and over again. Particularly up here in Canada where the market is smaller. I’m guessing that its just the luck of the draw and the more entries you put in the more chances you have because sometimes the photography that does win is crappy. For example photos of celebrities no matter how bad they are always seem to win. I’m guessing that judges also know who the photographers work is considering how high profile some of it is.

I know this sounds kind of bitter and don’t get me wrong because I love to see great photography win and I love seeing stuff that inspires me but sometimes… its frustrating seeing what wins.

Yes, I believe the contests are fixed to some degree. I don’t blame the organizers or the judges necessarily, it really comes down to the herd mentality of the photography business.

First, you have the taste of the judges. Many are hiring from the same pool of photographers and even if they are not there’s the simple math that if two judges kind of like something, then they agree and you have a winner. As opposed to one judge loving something and another hating it. That would be the loser. Add into this the simple economics of the photography business where the people in charge, the owners CEO’s, CFO’s and EIC’s, define successful photography as photography found in successful magazines.

Second, you really can’t look at contests as a source of new talent. They really amount to a nice group back slap for another year in the business doing good work.

Celebrity photography is another matter. Not only is it quite difficult to gain access to celebrities it’s also impossible to get them to participate in an interesting picture. Therefore the bar if much lower for me when it comes to celebrity photography. I know many photographers prefer to focus on the technical aspects of a picture but for me subject matter is 2/3 the battle. Access is a huge deal and hiring people who not only are able to gain access but convince people to do extraordinary things was always high on my agenda.

So, while I don’t believe awesome, incredible photography is hitting the cutting room floor I know some really boring stuff makes the cut because of familiarity and subject matter. That being said, I’ve always looked at the results from contests and found interesting photography that I didn’t know about.

PART 2

I got an email from Geoff Smith about a contest called the Canteen Awards that he recently participated in and thought I might like. After reading this statement on the website my interest was piqued:

Naked Judging Exposed: In too many photo contests it feels like the fix is in: the outsiders’ entry fees pay for the insiders’ prizes. Canteen is confronting this feeling head on. We exhibit the winning images alongside the comments of our judges, Brooklyn Museum director Arnold Lehman and photographer Matthew Porter—even when those comments clash.

Geoff, who incidentially was a runner-up in the contest (congrats man) told me that Canteen is a literary magazine published in Brooklyn, NY and he decided to enter because “the entry fee was only $15 and you got your choice of issue of the magazine as well (the cover price is $10).” Now, not only are they publishing the different rounds of cuts in the contest along with judges comments (here), which is unbelievably insightful and transparent. According to Geoff “they published longer versions of the judges comments, essays really, in the print issue (#6, due out Aug. 1).” And, gave him a full page to respond to the judges comments.

If that weren’t enough, they’re having a show at Powerhouse Arena in DUMBO Aug. 4th-29th, called Naked Judging Exposed: The 2010 Canteen Awards in Photography (reception Aug. 19th) where Geoff says “They also put me in the show and they are exhibiting my entire 6-image entry which, for me, is just bizarre and awesome and I can’t thank them enough, but also shows that they are really walking the transparency walk and not just using the trope of changing how things are done as a marketing or promotional device.”

I think we have a new standard for photography contests. Nice work Canteen.

I’m pretty sure it’s not just my in-box that’s crammed with photography contest notices these days. Mine are of the “will you share this incredible opportunity with your community” ilk and I’ve stopped even checking to see if it really is “an incredible opportunity” or actually a way to either a.) Make some money off contest fees or b.) Get some usage rights and/or collect images that they’re too lazy to go find themselves.

Now that we’ve entered the dog days of summer and many people are thinking marketing strategy for the fall I thought I’d put a few thoughts about photography contests on the blog.

Avoid contests with 1st, 2nd and 3rd places. Having been on the judging end of a few contests I can say that when forced to all agree on something or put it to a vote the results are, well, average. In a contest like this a better approach would be one judge. The contests like PDN’s Photography Annual and American Photography’s book where there is no ranking simply inclusion are a better format for photography, because it allows for a wider variety of work to be included in the “winners.”

Know your rights. First stop should be http://www.pro-imaging.org an organization thats produced a bill of rights for photography contest organizers. Contests that do not appear on their site need to be carefully researched. Any contest that takes excessive rights to the images submitted is geared towards amateurs and you should steer clear of it.

Entry fees should pay for something. The fees are an important barrier to entry for a contest, because as a contest organizer you want people to limit their entries and to consider them carefully. I cannot imagine wading through all the dreck a free contest will attract. I’ve experienced the fatigue of looking at hundreds and hundreds of images and I can tell you first hand it’s not long before you begin to doubt your choices. So, yes, photographers should want contests to have an entry fee associated with them, but there should be something that fee is going towards and preferably it’s printed and collected or given out to jurors/industry professionals.

Ignore the jury. The chance that someone on the jury will see your image and give you a job is virtually nil. I made a tremendous effort once to write down all the names of the photographers whose work I liked while sifting through entries then tacked that list to my cork board back at the office and that still wasn’t enough to get me to pull the trigger on some amazing people. Expects other jurors to do less. There is an exception. I find that seeing the same photographer and image winning multiple contests is an effective way to sear them into my brain. If you’re got something truly remarkable you may want to “shoot the moon.”

If you win, don’t just stand there. You should enter contests with the sole purpose of using a win to start a conversation with someone you want to work with. I suppose validation is another reason photographers enter, but I think it’s more important to have a marketing goal in mind. I entered contests with my magazine work solely for a section on my resumé for awards.

Contest organizers who want to run a legitimate contest that truly represents an “incredible opportunity” should do the following:
1. Create a pool of winners or use a single judge.
2. Adopt the bill of rights.
3. Make it transparent where the money is going.
4. If you have top tier judges create something they can refer to when hiring.