[jawsy]

So, I popped into a photography competition display today featuring the top 100 regional finalists. I can honestly say without a word of exaggeration that almost none rated for me. The common characteristics to my eye were: -

• Technically very impressive, i.e. captured with quality cameras and lenses;
• Varying degrees of post processing; tack sharp, trendy contrasty B+W, trendy mood, etc;
• Bland subject matter with a catchy title designed to give meaning to the meaningless (a winning tip seems to be to state the bleeding obvious.)

IMHO the images that routinely appear on this forum (incl. the monthly competitions) are superior to the styles that seem qualify as major competition winners, so why is this so? I think we saw some of this manifest itself during the K-3 competition last year. It's as though a degree of pretentiousness and elitism creeps into anything that has a serious prize attached to it.

I think it's a shame. It'd be nice to see a competition gallery with some good photos in it to learn from and admire. Instead it left me completely flat.

[Parallax]

I don't think they're deliberately elitist, but I think they're intrinsically so.

[UncleVanya]

No experience to judge from on my part. However art circular lens are typically quite elitist.

[Scobra]

Perhaps the winners' poor appeal are more a reflection of the judges' tastes. Who knows what great images were submitted but not selected.

[MadMathMind]

What I've noticed is a strong preference for highly processed images. Most of us process to some degree, but the photos that get the attention seem to be the ones that are made from 4 or 5 shots at different exposures and hours and hours of processing to get it all perfect. The results of all that work sure look nice, but it basically means that if you don't have those sort of processing skills or the desire to learn them, you're not going to have much of a chance to win. You won't even get much attention. It really means that those who do photography in their spare time as a hobby can't really compete just on the basis of time, not talent.

[manacho2005]

There are competitions out there that have "minimal processing" rules, where only lighting(exposure/white balance) can be adjusted. These will typically be local competitions and not global. I've actually won in the Dallas State Fair photo competitions a few times with just my classic K5 and 18-135. So it can be done, just don't expect a 4-5 digit prize...

[wildman]

Are photo competitions deliberately elitist?

Of course a competition is elitist by definition - to select for the "best".
Your definition of "best" is simply different than that of the judges - so what else is new?

Are you being elitist to chose not to participate in this competition because you believe it's too elitist? - Yes by definition.

élite,
(eɪˈliːt)
[F. élite (in OFr. eslite, elite; see prec.) selection, choice; in modern use that which is chosen
Oxford English Dictionary.

---

Last edited by wildman; 03-20-2015 at 09:49 PM.

[Winder]

I think it depends on the competition and often who is sponsoring the event since the sponsors often pick the judges. There are definitely some organizations who hold competitions that seem to have goals other than selecting the "best" work. Of course "best" is subjective. Most regional and local competitions are pretty fair from my experience.

I think we saw some of this manifest itself during the K-3 competition last year. It's as though a degree of pretentiousness and elitism creeps into anything that has a serious prize attached to it.

What happened during the K-3 competition? I never looked at the entries or did any voting. How did it get pretentious?

[pentaxus]

For many years I entered the Monterey County Fair juried photo contest. This is an area where historically there has been a lot of serious photography. I figured that just getting hung meant that I have good technique. One year was too weird though. There were some new judges. All of the winners did street photography. I wasn't sure I had seen more than a couple of street photos in any previous year. That year it seemed that easily 25% were. How did anyone know to enter those pictures? That 's how contests are sometimes.

[old4570]

Not so much a photography contest anymore - Not like the old days when you sent in your image and negative ..
Then it was about skill , and obviously some arty farty skill to back up the camera skills .. ( composition )

Now it's about production , who can produce ( as in manufacture ) the most appealing image .. ( Things change )

[Rondec]

Whatever kind of competition you are talking about, what gets rewarded will depend highly on the judges. Art is subjective enough that it can skew highly in one direction or another. I feel like the competitions on the forum here are pretty good, but even there, certain types of images tend to get more votes, while maybe some understated but more powerful images (in my opinion) are left behind.

[jawsy]

Of course a competition is elitist by definition - to select for the "best".

Elitism has two mutually exclusive meanings, which is why I included 'pretentious' in my post. I have admiration for elite photography. My observation is that the higher the prize, the less likely it is that we're actually seeing the elite performance. The reason I wandered into the to gallery in the first place was to view a sampling of great images. I left disappointed wondering if the 'all so ran' submissions in the back room were actually the ones I was expecting to see.

---------- Post added 21-03-15 at 22:16 ----------

... actually I'll throw one more thought out there to consider. If you type in 'iconic images' into Google, you'll be presented with a range of impressive images that were not taken with high end cameras, were not heavily processed and despite all this stand out and remain imprinted in the minds of many who viewed them. Add 'WWII' to the search term and the power of the imagery becomes overwhelming despite being technically inferior. How many of these images would make the cut in a regional competition?

[MadMathMind]

Not so much a photography contest anymore - Not like the old days when you sent in your image and negative ..
Then it was about skill , and obviously some arty farty skill to back up the camera skills .. ( composition )

Now it's about production , who can produce ( as in manufacture ) the most appealing image .. ( Things change )

I also think that subject matter is rarely considered. It's more about technical processing skill than the emotion/moment captured or rarity of what the image depicts.

[lesmore49]

I've never been a huge fan of photography competitions, even less now that it seems with some, that photoshop expertise seems to be significant factor...rather than the just pure, unadulterated photograph as it comes from the camera.

Yes...call me a Puritan....

[PPPPPP42]

I think most of my thoughts have been covered.

The only thing I would ad is there is photography as an art form, where you are putting the image in your minds eye on paper and can use multiple images and heavy processing, and then there is photography as a more "pure" something where the only editing you do is to make up for technical limitations such as burning and dodging to make up for lack of dynamic range or cropping to make up for a lack of the appropriate focal length lens to pre frame correctly.

Both are valid forms of art you could have competitions for, but if I wanted the former I would learn to paint. Photography is about having the vision to see the shot and the technical skill to capture it correctly.

As far as contests I find location is more important than equipment since judges as well as the general public tend to be attracted to the postcard shots or images of rare things more than a well captured something that everyone sees in their daily life.