New Twist (And New Low) In Photo Contests

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Four of the seven judges of The British Institute of Professional Photography's (BIPP) annual contest won a total of 12 awards, with one of them also named photographer of the year. BBC News article here.

[Rob C]

Was a time the IBP was the sole, broad, professional body, had a good name, set examination standards, behavioural standards and was well-respected. They changed structures, made alliances, fought turf war competition from other groups wanting to represent the industry (segments of) and it all disintegrates.

But then, that's life, just like religion when Man steals centre-stage, sets the rules and God takes a hike in disgust.

Rob C

[BobFisher]

If the images are reviewed as anonymous entries and judges cannot review a category in which they've entered, where's the problem? 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

If the images are reviewed as anonymous entries and judges cannot review a category in which they've entered, where's the problem? 

Well, two possible sources of the problem:

1. "I scratch your back, you scratch mine", i.e., open or implicit collusion among judges
2. Style recognizability, i.e., not being so anonymous after all

In many areas of life, there is a concept of "conflict of interest", some defined strictly legalistically, some rather loose, to include even the "appearance of inappropriateness". When four of the seven judges won a total of 12 awards, with one of them also named photographer of the year, it just smells a bit more than just the appearance of inappropriateness.

The BBC article addresses the point 2 above:

"...photographer John Godwin commented on the BJP's website the notion the images were anonymous was "laughable".

"A photographer's individual style may as well be a photograph of the photographer themselves. It's impossible to hide, and the defence that the judges aren't aware of who they're voting for is ridiculous," he said.

"If that's the case, and they truly aren't aware, then they don't deserve to be on the panel in the first place."

[BobFisher]

I agree that either of those could be problems.  But neither are exclusive to the concept of judges entering contests.

The 'back scratching' could also be done if an entrant decided it were worthwhile to offer some sort of inducement to a judge.  The problem could be resolved by making the judge panel for each section unknown. 

One need not be a judge to have a 'style'.  It could be said of, perhaps, many of the entrants that their 'styles' would be recognizable to the judges.  That's a red herring argument.  To suggest that, as the article does, each judge will be familiar with every other judge's style is ridiculous. 

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Slobodan beat me to it. The answer is right there in the BBC article.

[RSL]

The fact that somebody judging a contest can also be an entrant tells you the contest itself is beneath contempt.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Most, if not all, contests, sweepstakes, etc., have a simple rule: employees of the organizer (and associated parties), and even their families are not allowed to participate. Let alone judges.

[Rob C]

Well, I have nobody working in the Euromillions Lottery; maybe I can win something soon? I have won a few cups of coffee from it in the past - a cup at a time, mark you - so I have some faith in luck...

If one day I announce/post some pix from my M9, that'll be the day you'll know that I won something worthwhile. The first shot from it? The Mustang, probably. On the other hand, perhaps I'd then be tempted to think beyond blue ovals. You see the growing problems from money?

On the other hand, maybe I'd just throw all the photo stuff away and just drive until I drop or tire of nice hotels.

;-)

Rob C

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... On the other hand, maybe I'd just throw all the photo stuff away and just drive until I drop or tire of nice hotels...

If you ever need a co-pilot, err... co-driver, let me know.

[BobFisher]

Most, if not all, contests, sweepstakes, etc., have a simple rule: employees of the organizer (and associated parties), and even their families are not allowed to participate. Let alone judges.

True.  In the end, I agree that the judges shouldn't be allowed to enter.  Was just playing a bit of devil's advocate.  But it's also true that the 'back scratching' isn't necessarily exclusive to judges with other judges. 

Not sure I'd agree that the contest is beneath contempt but, if nothing else, it does raise the question of potential impropriety which a reputable organisation should be trying to avoid.

[Rob C]

If you ever need a co-pilot, err... co-driver, let me know.

I shall certainly bear that in mind. First, though, I have to win.

;-)

Rob C

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Four of the seven judges of The British Institute of Professional Photography's (BIPP) annual contest won a total of 12 awards, with one of them also named photographer of the year. BBC News article here.

There's a word for that:
Its called: "Circle Jerking" .....

 

[EduPerez]

Probably the best way to sink the reputation of that contest, and thus making the awards worthless...

"So, you gave yourself an award? I'm really impressed now!"

[Rob C]

If you ever need a co-pilot, err... co-driver, let me know.

Does this little lady seem an appropriate carriage for our possible visit to the various Relais & Châteaux of this world?

Gotta stop walking after lunch: I get to see too much. It took me years to be able to walk marinas without going ballistic at what I could not afford to buy myself; don't tell me it's all about to kick off anew with wheels!

;-)

Rob C