# Is this a portrait? Should it have placed 3rd?



## SoulfulRecover (Nov 17, 2017)

I would consider it a portrait however the judges violated their own rules. What do you all think?

https://petapixel.com/2017/11/16/photo-android-gets-top-prize-prestigious-portrait-contest/


----------



## Braineack (Nov 17, 2017)

its a subpar image at best.  it shouldn't have placed anywhere in any category even if it was the only submission with no guidelines/rules.

you wanna know why it placed?  so it would be controversial and make the rounds around the internet and again, forgotten about by anyone outside that circle.


----------



## benhasajeep (Nov 17, 2017)

I agree, it was selected 3rd for other reasons than it's technical qualities.


----------



## terri (Nov 17, 2017)

SoulfulRecover said:


> I would consider it a portrait however the judges violated their own rules. What do you all think?
> 
> https://petapixel.com/2017/11/16/photo-android-gets-top-prize-prestigious-portrait-contest/


I think the photographers who submitted images in keeping with the rules are likely a little miffed.     

What a crock!


----------



## limr (Nov 17, 2017)

That android kinda creeps me out.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 17, 2017)

limr said:


> That android kinda creeps me out.



shes so sexy tho


----------



## Designer (Nov 17, 2017)

_Here’s what the judges had to say about the photo:

During the judging process, only the title of each portrait is revealed. It was unclear whether the girl was a human or an android, and this ambiguity made the portrait particularly compelling. Tammi’s portrait offers a provocative comment on human evolution._

This is extremely lame.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 17, 2017)

limr said:


> That android kinda creeps me out.



Agreed. I am more of an iPhone guy.   ;-)


----------



## limr (Nov 17, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > That android kinda creeps me out.
> ...



Yeah, now you're kinda creeping me out


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 17, 2017)

limr said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



Don't judge

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## tirediron (Nov 17, 2017)

I've done photos of animals that I call portraits, so, IMO, the whole 'picture of a person' is not the sole definition of a portrait, BUT that's just a plain, crappy image.


----------



## limr (Nov 17, 2017)

tirediron said:


> I've done photos of animals that I call portraits, so, IMO, the whole 'picture of a person' is not the sole definition of a portrait, BUT that's just a plain, crappy image.



But animals would count under those rules that required a "living sitter." Are androids "living"? Do they dream of electric sheep?


----------



## tirediron (Nov 18, 2017)

limr said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > I've done photos of animals that I call portraits, so, IMO, the whole 'picture of a person' is not the sole definition of a portrait, BUT that's just a plain, crappy image.
> ...


Fair point; you often hear of people who create portraits of inanimate objects; whether one accepts that you can create a portrait of a car, cucumber, or Coelacanth is between you and your conscience, BUT...  that is still a crap photo!


----------



## jaomul (Nov 18, 2017)

I think I'm in love


----------



## Designer (Nov 18, 2017)

Coming from the art community, the judges are doing what they think art judges are supposed to do: Expand the envelope.  We see this in other types of judges as well, so it's not intrinsic to the art scene.  I presume they did it to polish their own chops at least as much as to re-write the rules. 

The contest is no longer about photography. 

They are The Judges, you know, who finally awarded a prize (however undeserved) to a photographer who flaunted his creativity and shredded the rules in the process.

Congratulations to the judges who wrecked this contest.


----------



## cgw (Nov 18, 2017)

Product photography...


----------



## benhasajeep (Nov 18, 2017)

Rules are there for a purpose.  If they were suggestions so as to give photographers some leway.  Then call them suggestions!


----------



## vintagesnaps (Nov 18, 2017)

What I think is PetaPixel often seems to promote something to get people to the site, as do plenty of other sites... too bad we aren't talking about the winning portrait which I think is a moving and powerful image. 

Having done submissions to juried exhibits, in my experience the guidelines are developed by the organization or gallery that will be holding the exhibit; the judges probably didn't write them. Usually judges are selected by the sponsoring organization to view the works but they probably weren't handling the submission process. 

If it was an anonymous judging the photos would have been viewed not knowing who took the photos or anything about them (usually if you need to include a bio or description with the entry, that's for display but not necessarily used in judging). 

I noticed that a model release was required but maybe nobody caught the fact that this must (or should) have been a property release? and the photo didn't qualify. Obviously they'll need to clarify that a portrait submitted must be a real living breathing human (and maybe have entrants verify that), or revise the guidelines to include mannequins, robots, statues, or whatever.

I'm not sure why this was selected; the only thing I can think is it has a somewhat surreal look, and selections may be made in part because an entry is unusual or creative or unique. The guidelines say that judges' selections are final so entrants would (or should) have known that.


----------



## fmw (Nov 18, 2017)

It is a portrait.  Just not a very good one.


----------



## chuasam (Nov 19, 2017)

Androids are people too


----------



## benhasajeep (Nov 19, 2017)

chuasam said:


> Androids are people too



Not until the future where Starfleet has the trial to determin that.  That's a couple hundred years off.


----------



## chuasam (Nov 19, 2017)

benhasajeep said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Androids are people too
> ...



Robotic Emancipation, Now!


----------



## benhasajeep (Nov 19, 2017)

chuasam said:


> benhasajeep said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...



Oh, another Union revolution?  Are you going to organize all the robots in the factories?  Not going to be a pretty sight.  Like history is repeating itself.


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 20, 2017)

To me, it's not a portrait that falls under the rules of the competition, and in that respect it should not have placed. If the judges feel that the rules should be changed, those rules need to be changed before people start sending in their submissions, that way it's an even playing field. Changing the rules after the fact is a really crappy thing to do, and I feel sorry for the person who would have placed had this product image not been selected, you know, because it's a PRODUCT IMAGE. As well, from experience I believe it's much more difficult to take a good photo of a living, breathing subject compared to photographing an inanimate object, especially considering that very little posing or direction is required to take a shoulders-up photograph of a non living, non moving subject.


----------



## Peeb (Nov 20, 2017)

vintagesnaps said:


> What I think is PetaPixel often seems to promote something to get people to the site, as do plenty of other sites... too bad we aren't talking about the winning portrait which I think is a moving and powerful image....
> I'm not sure why this was selected; the only thing I can think is it has a somewhat surreal look, and selections may be made in part because an entry is unusual or creative or unique.* The guidelines say that judges' selections are final so entrants would (or should) have known that*.


Knowing that the judges' selection is final is NOT the same as knowing that you are free to disregard the rules in composing your entry. The contestants were expressly TOLD that the subject must be living.  If an artist wishes to break with convention or social mores, then power to her, but disregarding the CONTEST rules gave this entrant a wholly unfair advantage over the folks who believed and trusted the organizers of this contest when the "rules" were announced.  Its no different than giving first place in a landscape photography contest to the photo of a puppy because, while not a landscape shot- what a cute puppy!  We love puppies.  Look at those sweet eyes.

This organization broke it's express agreement with all who entered.

Very irritating.  Think I'll go take a picture of a puppy.  Or an android puppy.  Hmmm....


----------



## petrochemist (Nov 20, 2017)

The judges could have given it an 'honorable mention' to bring it to attention if that's what they want.
To be placed it must conform to the rules - if they are incapable of applying the rules then their competition just gets added top the increasing number that photographers will simply ignore.


----------



## waday (Nov 20, 2017)

Peeb said:


> Very irritating


Would you say you’re peeb’d off?


----------



## benhasajeep (Nov 20, 2017)

petrochemist said:


> The judges could have given it an 'honorable mention' to bring it to attention if that's what they want.
> To be placed it must conform to the rules - if they are incapable of applying the rules then their competition just gets added top the increasing number that photographers will simply ignore.


I think all the portriats put more weight to the subjects personal background situation than the actual photographic techniques involved.  The winning picture never really told me anything.  If I had not read the information, my first thought was he was a captured pirate.  Nothing conveys his look / appearance / attitude.  It litterally looks like a mugshot the navy takes of pirates they capture!  The 2nd picture I think says the most.  Rain on the window, her somber mood.  That tells you something.  The robot is a typical average everyday portrait.  But as discussed it does not meet the rules.  It's nothing special, just a portrait that "pays the bills".


----------



## limr (Nov 20, 2017)

I disagree about the winning portrait. He doesn't say "pirate" to me at all. I think there's a whole world in those eyes and that look. The fact that you can't see any boat but just water behind him, for me, emphasizes the loneliness and despair.

As for the android, the judges' comments are interesting:
_"Judges comments: During the judging process, only the title of each portrait is revealed. It was unclear whether the girl was a human or an android, and this ambiguity made the portrait particularly compelling. Tammi’s portrait offers a provocative comment on human evolution."
_
So they didn't actually know for sure if it was an android or not. She _is_ quite disturbingly lifelike and even after knowing she is an android, I find myself staring to see what the differences are. (On another note, if it's not immediately apparent that an android's super-smooth skin and dead eyes are _not _human, that says a lot to me about how heavily portraits of actual humans seem to be edited these days.)

But even giving the judges the benefit of the doubt for a second and believing they had no idea they were breaking the rules, the question still remains of whether or not it should have even been accepted into the contest at all.

The picture _does_ start a conversation about the increasingly blurred lines between organic life and artificial "life." However, why choose to begin that conversation by flouting the rules of an existing contest? Would it have made such an impact otherwise?

(Those questions are musings, btw, but feel free to answer them if you feel like it  )


----------



## benhasajeep (Nov 20, 2017)

limr said:


> I disagree about the winning portrait. He doesn't say "pirate" to me at all. I think there's a whole world in those eyes and that look. The fact that you can't see any boat but just water behind him, for me, emphasizes the loneliness and despair.
> 
> As for the android, the judges' comments are interesting:
> _"Judges comments: During the judging process, only the title of each portrait is revealed. It was unclear whether the girl was a human or an android, and this ambiguity made the portrait particularly compelling. Tammi’s portrait offers a provocative comment on human evolution."
> ...



I don't see dsipair in his eyes.  I see anger.  Lowered straight brow, narrowed eyes, slight tilt of the head down.  Now his lips / mouth do not convey anger.


----------



## webestang64 (Nov 20, 2017)

Braineack said:


> you wanna know why it placed? so it would be controversial and make the rounds around the internet and again, forgotten about by anyone outside that circle.



ding ding ding.....what do we have for him Johnny?


----------



## VidThreeNorth (Nov 20, 2017)

I think I agree with the "Honorable Mention".

Keep in mind that the judges did not know what they were looking at.  Read the quote again.  All they had was the title.  It was not voted for "because it was an android".  It got its 3rd place votes legitimately.

Any criticism of technique really just boil down taste.  You might not like it, but the judges accepted it as a part of the composition.

It looks like a stylized image (possibly with heavy but subtle makeup) perhaps with deliberate removal of detail, and yes, I have seen photographs with such "stylistic" touches before.

So that leaves the face and the expression on the face.  Here, I felt the expression on the face was unusual.  Portraits sometimes show something of how people present themselves, which is to say how the person wants people to see them, and sometimes what the photographer wants people to see.  I have never seen this particular facial expression in a portrait before.  There is an alertness.  Is there confidence?  This is what I think the judges voted for.

As for whether it gets a prize.  Well, what I said at the top. . . .


----------

