|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
01-15-2022, 08:36 PM
|
| |
Voted for #9. Excellent work.
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
01-15-2022, 11:09 PM
|
| |
Congratulations to all Finalists.
I found it as difficult to choose but "One" image in this contest, as I have experienced in previous contests.
I chose #9 for many reasons, but mainly because I felt it expressed what so many people living in many places in the Northern Hemisphere experience at this time of year.
I hope this image may be seen by many others for it's technical and aesthetic visual qualities that truly reflect the contest topic, and meet with success.
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
03-15-2021, 11:43 AM
|
| |
Welcome to the poll for our February "Cityscape by Night" photo contest! Select the photo you think is the best from among our finalists below:
#1.
#2.
#3.
#4.
#5.
#6.
#7.
#8.
#9.
#10.
#11.
#12.
#13.
#14.
#15.
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
12-19-2015, 11:58 AM
|
| |
A50 f1.2
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
12-24-2015, 05:19 PM
|
| |
A50 f1.2
 |
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 Photo Contest
08-15-2014, 09:18 PM
|
| |
I really feel for Adam and the PentaxForums crew, because regardless of what you do there is going to be a contingent that finds fault with whatever happens. However, what most people here seem to be upset with is the fact that many things have changed from what was stated AND things have been made up as we have gone along. I'm sure that Adam & Co. will learn from how things go this time and make improvements in the future.
First, I'd like to say something to those who say they "would have chosen a different Round 3 photo" if they would have known that their third round photo would NOT be shown alongside their photos from rounds 1 & 2: You really can't blame the change in rules of presentation on Round 3 for your decision of what photo to enter in Round 3. It was YOU who thought that something would be added by showing a different subject of photo in round 3. To win the contest, you still need to place highly in round 3 to have a chance and that means that whatever photo you chose should have been good enough (on its own) to compete successfully with the other 31 entrants. If you didn't choose a photo that could do that, then it really doesn't matter how it was presented (either by itself, or alongside your 1st & 2nd round photos). So I think that is a tempest in a teapot.
Similarly, nobody complained when Adam & Company changed the rules after they said they were going to take the top 64 images in Round 1 and instead took 128. I haven't gone back and seen who made it to the third round that benefited from that rules change (possibly even me), but my point is nobody complained - even though the people who entered now had more people to compete with than they originally planned. And I'm sure that decision alone made for a LOT more work for Adam & Co. - for which they get virtually no thanks.
There are two problems, however, that I think are worth considering:
1) Believe it or not, there are state and federal laws that govern contests and giveaways. This is why most contests that you see have a ton of small print and everything is "set in stone" before the contest begins. People can't complain about things that change during the progress of a contest if things do not change. It is that simple. I think we all want PentaxForums to continue to have nice prizes to giveaway in contests and that is probably less likely to happen if Adam & Co. have to hire a lawyer to run a simple giveaway (or defend themselves against what happened in the LAST giveaway). So, as I said, I expect them to learn from this event and at least give a little more forethought and structure to the next contest/giveaway instead of appearing to make it up as they go along.
2) Making it up as you go along can give the appearance of bias in the contest, or even manipulating the results. This is one reason for the laws, mentioned above. As an example of a place in this contest where this appearance of bias charge could be leveled, and it is an exceedingly important one: The "formula" devised to determine the winner. No one could question bias being involved in that formula had it been defined before the contest began. Few of us could complain about it even if it had been unveiled after Round One, when we all found out that there would be more rounds. However, it was not unveiled (and, apparently, devised/decided) until after the Round 2 results were known. Based on that formula, it appears to be possible for the winner of the contest to only score in the middle-of-the-pack in the 3rd and "decisive" round. This is not just silly, it is asinine and goes against all perception of "surviving" into the next round as well as "Round 3 deciding the winner." (Yes, it decides the winner, as long as you are happy with the overall winner only needing approximately 50% of the Round 3 winner's votes to win.)
|
