P3D Re: Competitions suppressing creativity?

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> >>way. To pressure people to take "good" stereo photographs, and to define "good"
> >>as "likely to win a stereo photo competition", inhibits creativity and runs
> >>the risk of discouraging innovation. 
> 
> 
> Very true.   That's one of the reasons I stopped submitting photos into contests when I was still in  
> the Seattle club.  The judging was erratic (a result of the fact that art is a subjective thing,  
> combined with a total lack of standards in the judging.  For the most part they just hand the  
> person a judging control and tell them to give it a score.)   It never seemed to make sense with  
> what I enjoyed personally.  Photos that were the slightest bit experimental were always trashed  
> in the judging (not only mine, but others too).

Would one want to enter contests where the judging wasn't subjective?  What would be the
point?  One could just score one's own slides at home by the objective scoring algorithm
and submit one's scores to the club and whoever submitted the highest score would win.
Could do it all by email.

Certainly there are technical aspects to be taken into account, but to me those are
penalties (when done badly) rather than objectives of the photo (I'm sure I'm in 
the minority to some extent on this particularly in respect to depth being 
the #1 priority in some people's minds, while to me it's a big bonus instead).  

To me, the prime objective of the photo is the subject itself with stereo photography
being the means of presenting the subject -- rather than the subject being a means of
presenting stereo photography.  Stereo PHOTOGRAPHY rather than STEREO photography.

So, inherent to my way of thinking, subjectiveness is paramount to judging, so when
I get volunteered to be a judge, whether I like it or not makes a big difference in
my score, even if I try to temporarily broaden my interests in thinking "might others
like this even if I really don't?".

> Photos that traditionally did well:
>    Macros of flowers
>    Nice scenics.

Unless I'm judge.  :-)  I find it hard to get excited about static images.  Not
that I don't *adore* some of them, but when compared to an image where the subject
is a fleeting one, it demands a higher standard.  In other words, to me, my subjective 
impression is less for an image that would be about the same between 10 am and 11 am 
most any day of the week than for some other image where you have a few seconds, and 
that's about it. 

It's kind of like some of the old early 50's viewmaster reels (or late 40's)
of certain scenic landmarks.  One can go there today and take the same picture
and it'll look pretty much the same.  Not that such a photo can't be great, just
that it has to be REALLY good to be impressive.

But that's me.  If I'm ever volunteered again (may not be after this posting),
that's what to expect.  I favor things unique and different.  I liked 
"The Full Monty" more than "Titanic" even though "Titanic" was a more fantastic
elaborate production by several orders of magnitude.  Full Monty (to me) was
unique and different, while Titanic was a run of the mill "Lady and the Tramp"
story -- even if fantastically well done and well deserving of all the oscars
that it'll get.

But I also know that many others really like scenics and flowers, and although
I don't dislike them (and I certainly take them myself) I don't mind that they
REALLY like'm and my photos may be downgraded because of that (well, what few
I bring usually are picked in the wee hours of the night previous out of
whatever I can find at the last minute, so my expectations aren't too high
anyway).

And although I'd really love to win a competition -- I don't really mind if I 
don't as well.  It's mostly to get some exposure and some feedback which usually 
I agree with but I can reject if I want to.  My competition is with myself
not the others, and contests are a clue to how I'm doing.  Now if there were
really good prizes ("RBT S1 camera to the year's overall winner") then my
tune would change a a second.  :-)

> 
> Basically, postcard photos.  Pleasant to the eye in the same way a hershey bar is pleasant in  
> your mouth.  Nothing more.  Only RARELY did I see something beyond that do at all decently.

Another aspect is that if one ONLY takes photo's which are targetted toward
a contest, then all of this may be more important than I think it really is
and suppression of creativity could really be a problem.  But if one takes just 
some for that purpose, or picks some out that they took to enter for the heck 
of it, then I think contest *participation* is the BIG win, particularly
in local club type contests.  Just because the judges liked some the best doesn't
mean that others who saw the images agree with them or that most of the "losers"
weren't really good.  The best kind of competition would be one where the winner
was the one that most improved most over the same person's previous slides.  
A handicapped competition of sorts.  Have no idea on how to do that, but it
would be the most productive sort of competition if it could be achieved.  With
the caveat that the competition meets the goals of the participants, rather 
than the goals of whomever set it up.

Or something like that.

Mike K.


------------------------------

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 2623
***************************