# Contests - What do judges look for?



## Fleetwood271 (Jun 2, 2011)

Can anyone tell me what criteria judges use when judging a contest?  I know that's a [FONT=&quot]vague question, but just looking for general thoughts.  

I just came from a local contest and I really did not see anything at all special about any of the images that won 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place in any of the categories. 

In fact, there were many more appealing shots that came in way down the line like 20th or 30th place.  




[/FONT]


----------



## CCericola (Jun 2, 2011)

Technical expertise, Composition, Following contest rules, original and interesting interpretations of the contest's objective. Really, it depends on the contest and who the judges are.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 2, 2011)

Yup, it depends entirely on the judges.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 2, 2011)

In my small experience, formal older judges (typical psa contests) lean towards technical perfection and formal composition (read 'boring')  while actual working photo journalists lean towards impact.


----------



## Fleetwood271 (Jun 2, 2011)

Well, for example, Nature was one of the categories.  This included flowers, birds, animals, etc, etc, etc.  The picture that won 1st place in Nature was of a flower.  Is there any more common picture than a flower?  I mean, isn't that what most of us start shooting when we first get our camera?  I still shoot flowers.  In fact, last night after dark, I shot a tiger lily after dark, using an off camera flash.  But there was really nothing at all special about the one that won in this contest.  It was....just a flower.  I am really confused.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 2, 2011)

:yawn:


----------



## KenC (Jun 2, 2011)

Fleetwood271 said:


> Well, for example, Nature was one of the categories.  This included flowers, birds, animals, etc, etc, etc.  The picture that won 1st place in Nature was of a flower.  Is there any more common picture than a flower?  I mean, isn't that what most of us start shooting when we first get our camera?  I still shoot flowers.  In fact, last night after dark, I shot a tiger lily after dark, using an off camera flash.  But there was really nothing at all special about the one that won in this contest.  It was....just a flower.  I am really confused.


 
I've noticed that most judges give high scores to what is familiar to them and low scores to what is not, which is essentially what Lew said.  In most camera club competitions you will see the same pictures over and over, or at least the ones that do at all well will be the same.  Hence the flower in the nature group, accident scene in photojournalism, etc.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 2, 2011)

I agree with KenC.  Judges have to have some metric by which they rate pictures. If a picture goes outside of their experience, they can't seem to relate to it well.
I have won one contest in my photo life - and that was with a pretty standard kind of picture (the one in my signature block) and the judge was a PJ.


----------



## Fleetwood271 (Jun 2, 2011)

I just received a message from someone who talked to the judge and was told that she was looking for the "it" factor, which in her definition meant an image that was taken in an instant, by being in the right place at the right time.  
Anything that was staged, set-up, or posed in any way did not have a chance. 

The winner of the Best in Show was a cat rubbing up against the head of a horse.  And this print was enlarged to 20 X 30 and framed in a very elegant, gold frame.  

There was an absolutely beautiful shot there of a little, blond-headed girl, playing in a  creek, with a waterfall in the background.  Now that was a great shot.  Exposure looked great.  Composition was right on.  It was sharp.  Colors were accurate.
But this image did not even place.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 2, 2011)

It's fun judging pictures we can't see.


----------



## mishele (Jun 2, 2011)

Art is in the eye of the beholder........and juried art contests are a great example. You have to have tough skin to enter.......it's 2 people in the whole world that are going to like or dislike your shot!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 2, 2011)

And when you win, what does that actually say about your photography?


----------



## mishele (Jun 2, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> And when you win, what does that actually say about your photography?



LOL nothing except that 2 people liked your shot...
Ok, the money is nice....lol


Oh and BTW....I'm going to win the contest I'm entering...lol


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 2, 2011)

:thumbup:=


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (Jun 2, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> I have won one contest in my photo life - and that was with a pretty standard kind of picture (the one in my signature block) and the judge was a PJ.


So my vote counted? :cheer:


----------



## Jens Hofby (Jun 2, 2011)

There next cup of Coffie


----------



## flea77 (Jun 2, 2011)

A while back I had to judge a photo contest (evidently I was the most qualified they knew, LOL), anyway, what I looked for was an image that "spoke to me", something that made me want to look at it, something I found interesting. Technicals, sweetness, exposure, etc only entered into the equation so far as the image made me want to look at it. A cute girl by a waterfall can be boring, or it can be engaging, depends. What everyone says above is absolutely correct, it is what the judge find appealing, nothing else. If the judge was just bitten by a dog, any picture containing a dog would probably not win regardless of how well it is executed!

Allan


----------



## Fleetwood271 (Jun 3, 2011)

flea77 said:


> A while back I had to judge a photo contest (evidently I was the most qualified they knew, LOL), anyway, what I looked for was an image that "spoke to me", something that made me want to look at it, something I found interesting. Technicals, sweetness, exposure, etc only entered into the equation so far as the image made me want to look at it. A cute girl by a waterfall can be boring, or it can be engaging, depends. What everyone says above is absolutely correct, it is what the judge find appealing, nothing else. If the judge was just bitten by a dog, any picture containing a dog would probably not win regardless of how well it is executed!
> 
> Allan


 
Good Point!


----------



## Fleetwood271 (Jun 3, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> And when you win, what does that actually say about your photography?


 
That you're an award winning photographer?


----------



## Fleetwood271 (Jun 3, 2011)

flea77 said:


> A while back I had to judge a photo contest (evidently I was the most qualified they knew, LOL), anyway, what I looked for was an image that "spoke to me", something that made me want to look at it, something I found interesting. Technicals, sweetness, exposure, etc only entered into the equation so far as the image made me want to look at it. A cute girl by a waterfall can be boring, or it can be engaging, depends. What everyone says above is absolutely correct, it is what the judge find appealing, nothing else. If the judge was just bitten by a dog, any picture containing a dog would probably not win regardless of how well it is executed!
> 
> Allan


 
Oh, I found it interesting that there were some shots there that took a lot of set-up, multiple flashes, various props, etc.  And none of them placed.  It was the "spur of the moment" images that someone just happened to capture, that the judge liked.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 3, 2011)

Fleetwood271 said:


> Oh, I found it interesting that there were some shots there that took a lot of set-up, multiple flashes, various props, etc.  And none of them placed.  It was the "spur of the moment" images that someone just happened to capture, that the judge liked.


 
There are as many technique niches in photography as there are in any art.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 3, 2011)

Fleetwood271 said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > And when you win, what does that actually say about your photography?
> ...


 
And that's how it works. If you lose the judges sucked. If you win, it was well deserved, and you are awesome! Then someone else believes other photos were better, and your's wasn't worthy...

...and the world continues to spin on it's axis, with a slight wobble.


----------



## KmH (Jun 3, 2011)

Fleetwood271 said:


> I just received a message from someone who talked to the judge and was told that she was looking for the "it" factor, which in her definition meant an image that was taken in an instant, by being in the right place at the right time.
> Anything that was staged, set-up, or posed in any way did not have a chance.


So, it was a snapshot contest, not a fine art contest, and luck rather than overall skill was the criteria.

You don't mention what organization conducted the contest? A newspaper, a local art association, a high school, a professional photographers association?


----------



## Derrel (Jun 3, 2011)

Oftentimes, kitschy, crappy,stereotypical and cliche pictures are selected as winners. Depends on the contest, and the judging. Think "LCD" most of the time--lowest common denominator. Seek out fiery sunsets, busty babes, cute kitties, charming children, luscious landscapes,and other similar cliche material...you'll probably make honorable mention, at least!


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jun 3, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Oftentimes, kitschy, crappy,stereotypical and cliche pictures are selected as winners. Depends on the contest, and the judging. Think "LCD" most of the time--lowest common denominator. Seek out fiery sunsets, busty babes, cute kitties, charming children, luscious landscapes,and other similar cliche material...you'll probably make honorable mention, at least!


 
A busty babe watching charming children play with a cute kitten next to a mountain waterfall during an awe inspiring sunset will surely win.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 3, 2011)

KmH said:


> Fleetwood271 said:
> 
> 
> > I just received a message from someone who talked to the judge and was told that she was looking for the "it" factor, which in her definition meant an image that was taken in an instant, by being in the right place at the right time.
> ...



'Snapshots' are not necessarily bad, unskilled, unworthy.  
Cartier-Bresson made snapshots, as does every street shooter.

(replaced defective original)





.


----------



## spacefuzz (Jun 3, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Oftentimes, kitschy, crappy,stereotypical and cliche pictures are selected as winners. Depends on the contest, and the judging. Think "LCD" most of the time--lowest common denominator. Seek out fiery sunsets, busty babes, cute kitties, charming children, luscious landscapes,and other similar cliche material...you'll probably make honorable mention, at least!


 
Careful with the busty babes  I once had an image score last place because one of the judges found it too "titilating" (see below).   Of course Ive also had judges reject every sunset picture because he felt they were cliche.  
Like everyone else has said its art and its all opinion of the judges. Ive had a lot of work rejected from compeitions, and then when I see the winners I can go oh, so thats what they were looking for. Its not that your pictures are bad, its just not what they were looking for.


----------



## Fleetwood271 (Jun 3, 2011)

KmH said:


> Fleetwood271 said:
> 
> 
> > I just received a message from someone who talked to the judge and was told that she was looking for the "it" factor, which in her definition meant an image that was taken in an instant, by being in the right place at the right time.
> ...



It was sponsored by the County Arts Council.  The judge was a professor from a local community college.  The brochure says she has exhibited at regional colleges and universities, and at museums, and various galleries.  
Given all this, one would think she would be looking for composition, technical details, etc.  Not snapshots.

However, as Bitter stated, the world continues to spin.


----------



## Fleetwood271 (Jun 3, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Fleetwood271 said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...



Well said...


----------



## JWellman (Jun 3, 2011)

One of my friends said, "Jess...you ought to add some of your photos to contests!"
(It's always the 'snap-shooters' who say those things to me)

My reply, "I would, but losing and I really don't see eye to eye. :blushing:


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 3, 2011)

Fleetwood271 said:


> The judge was a professor from a local community college.  The brochure says she has exhibited at regional colleges and universities, and at museums, and various galleries.
> Given all this, one would think she would be looking for composition, technical details, etc.  Not snapshots.



It is not "composition, technical details,etc" that make a great picture. Great pictures capture something special that is essentially inexpressible in words and these few criteria are only the way we try to describe that something - usually inadequately.

She might have been quite an insightful artist that isn't fooled by pixel count or perfect reproduction.
.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 3, 2011)

spacefuzz said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Oftentimes, kitschy, crappy,stereotypical and cliche pictures are selected as winners. Depends on the contest, and the judging. Think "LCD" most of the time--lowest common denominator. Seek out fiery sunsets, busty babes, cute kitties, charming children, luscious landscapes,and other similar cliche material...you'll probably make honorable mention, at least!
> ...



Her titillating don't show...


----------



## Fleetwood271 (Jun 6, 2011)

OK - I just gotta share how this story ended.

I went to pick up my pictures last Sat morning.  I walk in and say that I am there to get my pictures, and ask if they are in the back.  I was told that two of them are, but that I could not take the third one home yet.  I was told it won People Choice Award for the entire show.  I was floored!
That picture, along with the 1st place winners in each category, will be kept on display for a couple of weeks.  

The public was allowed to cast their vote for their favorite and one of mine won.  

I was also approached by the president of the Arts Council and asked if I would be interested in doing a show at the Welcome Center.  She said my pictures generated much discussion.

Here is the winner:


----------



## mishele (Jun 6, 2011)

Congrats............could we see the other pictures?


----------



## Fleetwood271 (Jun 6, 2011)

mishele said:


> Congrats............could we see the other pictures?


 
Sure, but I've posted them previously.  Here they are:


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 6, 2011)

3 nice photos each with its own positive characteristics.
the kiwi would get the most votes from photographers, I think


----------



## mishele (Jun 6, 2011)

All very nice shots. I like the 3rd the best!! Thanks for posting them again......I must of missed them the first time....=)
Just a Q, did you frame them yourself?


----------



## Fleetwood271 (Jun 6, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> 3 nice photos each with its own positive characteristics.
> the kiwi would get the most votes from photographers, I think



You're exactly right.  I've found that the other photographers at the contest really liked the kiwi shot.  Several asked how it was done, and the camera setting, and for my set-up, etc.  Several said they thought it should have won the Best of Show.  

The puppy won the people choice (see Derrel's "fiery sunsets, busty babes, cute kitties, charming children, luscious landscapes,and other similar cliche material" comment above) award, which means it appealed more to the non-photographers, who found it interesting, or as you said, "Great pictures capture something special that is essentially inexpressible in words".

The kiwi was (according to the president of the Arts Council) the most discussed photo in the contest, so it appealed to the people who understood what was involved in capturing that image.  

It's been a learning experience.  Kinda like life.


----------



## Fleetwood271 (Jun 6, 2011)

mishele said:


> All very nice shots. I like the 3rd the best!! Thanks for posting them again......I must of missed them the first time....=)
> Just a Q, did you frame them yourself?


 
No, I did not.  I had them framed at a local frame shop.  And I must say the framing and matting added a lot to the images.  The kiwi and strawberries both had a 3 to 4 inch white mat.  The kiwi had a very dark blue metal frame, which matched the dark blue in the image perfectly.  The strawberry had a green metal frame, which was a close match for the bright green leaves in the image.  
For the puppy, we did not mat it, but used a wide wooden frame.   If I have time tonight, I might try to get some shots of all three in frames, to give you some idea.

One more note.  We tried the green frame with no mat on the kiwi, and it looks great.  We will probably frame a few like that and offer them for sale in the Frame Shop.  We also tried the strawberries in a white wood frame without a mat and it looks really good too.  We may frame it and offer it for sale also.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 6, 2011)

The winning one could fall into the 'snapshot' category (nothing derogatory intended).
One had to be there, see the shot and then take it quickly before it evaporated, with the right angle to include what was important and leave out what wasn't.
It would resound with people just because it has so many elements that people can identify with - puppies, death, loyalty, etc.
It is a good and accessible example of a 'street' shot (although not shot on the street obviously).


----------



## Fleetwood271 (Jun 6, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> The winning one could fall into the 'snapshot' category (nothing derogatory intended).
> One had to be there, see the shot and then take it quickly before it evaporated, with the right angle to include what was important and leave out what wasn't.
> It would resound with people just because it has so many elements that people can identify with - puppies, death, loyalty, etc.
> It is a good and accessible example of a 'street' shot (although not shot on the street obviously).


 
Agreed.


----------



## RSisco (Jun 6, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


>


 
The artificial DOF/blurred background in this picture was really throwing me off, until I realized what was messing with my eyes... it was the stick in the womans hand, it's blurred between the picture of christ and the baby. It shouldn't be. I am sure this wasn't intended, so I figured I would point it out.

Rick


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 6, 2011)

thanks for pointing that out.
this must have been an early edition with that mistake intact.
here is the one on my site.


----------

