You probably know the story by now: Sal Cincotta, owner of the site Behind the Shutter and its associated ShutterFest conference, entered and won his own photography competition. Not surprisingly, many people are upset about this, and have said so on the internet. Cincotta wrote a lengthy post on Facebook defending his actions, stressing that the judging was fair. Still: he entered and won his own photo competition. It just doesn't look great any way you spin it, does it?
Much has been said about the whole debacle, but nobody rants like our friend Jared Polin aka Fro, so we think it's worth 8 minutes of your time. And for the record, we think it's a bad idea to enter your own photography competition.
What matters isn't whether the judging was anonymous, or whether it was fair. What matters is the perception of fairness. Anyone entering their own competition(s) will always be tainted by the perception of unfairness or undue influence.
this nonsense goes back to the 70's : there are two ways to make money with photography: working and selling BS to the amateurs instead of working. "this camera/gadget is amazing, better than the other". They both look ridiculous but when they get up all upset about another (doing the same thing) it REALLY gets hilarious.
Sal's scandal and his inability to understand what is wrong about it is a shocker, but what I find way more noteworthy is that Fro seems to have found some medication that actually works for him! He wasn't half as crazy as he used to be. :D
Just joking, of course. Gotta love Fro (inventor of the sniff test).
Wow - if you want to see great examples of everything that's bad about modern photography, scroll through the gallery of winners. The only response these images produced for this viewer was a mild feeling of nausea.
I've always considered any photo contest a scam if they charged an entrance fee. This guy was just more blatant (and stupid) than others. At the very least he should have used an alias.
Competitions are a great way, how to test photos in public. Every photo contest has got its limits and now i see - one of them might be even crap like this one. But why so serious? I know there are thousands of better photographers than me. I like my way of learning and creating. Many photographers are of huge ego and big mouth, so let them grow it. I go shoot. I do not do it for competitions. (Sorry for my English)
Sal, great work!!! But you don't enter into your own competition... period!!! You make a totally different competition with a ghost corp and enter into it! lol
But thinking about this... I think he made himself really well known thanks to this. He may get more business from people who just discovered him thanks to this controversy...
Unless you've been sleeping for the last ten years, "there's no such thing as bad publicity" no longer exists. Ask any company assaulted by Sharpton, SJWs, their own scandals, and so on.
@23nr photography All photo these days are graphic design... I come from a film age and most photos I see are heavily photoshoped these days. Is that bad? I think it is not. We can tell how it's done, but the average person will not be able to tell. Most clients love their photoshoped pictures and think you have a great ability to make them great with the camera. Magazine photo editors used photoshop for decades. Did the magazine readers complain about it? No. He deserves to be criticized about entering into his own photo contest. It was simply wrong! Doing that doesn't automatically make his work junk. He is successful, so he must be doing something right. He may be full of it, but we must give him credit to his work (least I think it's good). Does his good work make him a good person? absolutely not! I'm not trying to make him look good, because I don't like egotistic people at all. Please don't get me wrong!
I disagree with you here. PS is fine for retouching a little and for making some small edits to an existing photo. I'm even fine with photos being composites as long as it looks realistic in most cases. But these photos look far from realistic, take little photographic skill, are plain impossible in the real world, and are poorly (unrealistically) lit. And if I was a bride/groom, I would want some photos of my actual wedding, not of me in a place where I have ever been. You may as well photoshop me into space.
The nice thing about photos is that they tell a story, and not just any story, but a story that actually happened. Otherwise I may as well enter a screenshot from a well rendered video game or sci-fi movie into the next competition.
The key point honestly is that you sell what people buy. If a photographer sell to you, he will provide somewhat more natural photos, because that's what you want.
To some other he will sell heavily photoshoped photos, because that what they want.
Nothing wrong with that... And if you can make nice photo of people, making it look they are on space, you may be very sucessull and be able to charge a lot for it. Because it is different than the much more realistic photos their smartphone does.
Ironically, us photographers we like black and white and strobes and bokeh, things that are completely unrealistic. We do not hesitate to play with the focal length for perspective distorsion or compression. Again, completely unrealistic.
When you think of it. Most amateurs and enthousiast buy more gear in research for characteristics that completely unrealistic. Raw to push shadows, large apperture lens for tiny dof... Sensor with lot of pixel to capture details the eyes can't see...
@Nicolas06 - I can't agree more with you. I was not trying to defend Sal at all. I am totally with Fro on this! What Sal did was totally wrong! I totally agree with all of your points! I just wanted to say thanks. You explained my point.
@Nicolas06, we push shadows to try and show what our eyes would see, we use shallow DOF the emulate what our eyes can see, and we use different focal length to show things that are actually real. The only point of yours that I can understand is B&W, but that's simply because that's how photography started due to technical limitations. And it stuck around. And yet, everything in a B&W photo is still real.
In my opinion his work should not be called photography anymore, and I personally dislike it a lot. But that's just my opinion.
Eyes field of view is fixed and said to be around 15mm focal length on a quite small sensor with f/2.8-8 apperture. And we have 2 of them. Our eyes also scan the scene so we get increase details and dof from that and because whe have 2 eyes we are able to evaluate distance and fast detect that a photo is flat and not the reality.
For our vision there no much bokeh and that's logical as this would be a terrible attribute to not see much except what we focus on. But we also do not see people or building distorted like an UWA make it look like or features as flat as many people do with portraiture and long lenses.
The thing is photos that we call realistic are objectively not that much realistic. Our brain is not fooled and most often we detect we face a photo and not the reality.
There just things that are commonly accepted, because they are classical and things that are new technique and as such more controversal. But if we accept photography as art and not just a tool, that's good.
Sal Cincotta probably got more favoritism at WPPI than he did in his own contest. And I'll say what Fro didn't: Cincotta is a farce. He's a shyster. This photo won the 2015 Grand Award for bride by herself. WPPI and Sal Cincotta are trying to tell us that this represents the very best of the best of wedding photography in 2015. http://www.shutterloveonline.com/contest_galleries/wppi16x20/2015/#grid.Winners.17
I wonder what is the purpose of a wedding picture. It will be good being artistic however, I bet the bride would have love the picture when she saw it... NOT! I can't believe this was first place... I will give him credit for making art, but I don't think the wedding party will love to see this picture! That is why I think this is a terrible choice for WPPI...
When i saw winning photo i thought... owner of competition or not thats a great photo but then as soon as you said its photoshop then the scales fell from my eyes.
What the **** IS that? A vague shadow of 'something' on an otherwise monochromatic white hallway? That should have been deleted in-camera, not given an award.
Holy crap, a Fro video that 1.) isn't 45 minutes long, and 2.) I agree with?
I don't know which is a stronger indicator that hell is freezing over; this, or the allegation that Sony has beaten Canon & Nikon at ergonomics.
As soon as someone starts asking and answering their own questions, they stink of politician-speak hot air BS
Sal is indeed arrogant and self-centered. You just don't enter your own competition. The only reason you would is if you're insecure or attention hungry.
Why, if he's spent tons of money entering (and winning) other competitions, ...would he bother with this at all? It's all ego. Just get over yourself, Sal, and retract all your entries. Done.
If anybody here (still) listens to the radio, you'll know that every now and then you hear those little disclaimer blurbs about contests / sweepstakes. They all say, no employee or even relative of an employee can enter. PERIOD. I know that's apples and oranges, but I'm just pointing it out as another societal norm.
Competition is hard thing to swallow when it is slapped on your face by its real meaning instead the roses and through pink glasses "Competition is good" that is teached to western culture babies in the breast milk... Then when someone really plays by the spirit of the competition, it is "unfair", "cheating", "unethical" etc.
The thing here is that when a very well experienced and skilled photographer enters to competition where he is above the others etc, it becomes like beating a baby.... That is the problem here really. Not the rules, not the participation... But the look and the feel of that...
That is why many says that he is "showing off". But look at many of the far more expensive workshops where the teachers are taking the photos and are showing off to the paying "customers" groups the styles and ways and waiting the praises about the skills and results.
Compare that to teaching 1 on 1, where you don't show off your work. Instead you being highly critical to pupil work.
I don't know what workshops you're taking, but almost every one I've ever attended / seen has done the exact OPPOSITE of this- the instructor has only done a minimal amount of shooting during the workshop, always prioritizing the students' images / learning, and only using their own portfolio as demonstration during lecture times...
Either way, it's an entirely different thing and a poor comparison to liken anything along those lines to the entry of a contest by the host of that contest.
Simply put, a host entering their own contest is in poor taste, period. The contest should have disclaimed that the host was also participating.
Nobody cares that it was a "really good" photographer entering the contest, since many of the other entries were also really good, and of course others were terrible. That's the nature of a contest. What people care about is simply the disclosure, or lack thereof.
Otherwise it's just a "let's see if any of you can beat me?!" publicity stunt.
Do you think that his work didn't deserve even some of the awards or mentions? Many were better, and they were promoted over his... So..
But what I don't fully understand is the rules that you are allowed to saturate the competition with your photos by allowing to enter more than single photo...
Smart move. Obnoxious, but smart. Never heard of Behind the Shutter or this Sal Cincotta guy before, and now I have. I imagine it's the same for many people.
Sad but true. I hadn't heard of him either. Even worse, the guy looks like he has some decent content on his site. But as a person who has run or been involved in hundreds of contests, I could never use his info because it is so tainted by immorality.
The "guy" isn't just a guy but a company really. First it might sound many that it is just a single person doing a typical workshops with a low-level brand like "FroKnowsPhoto" (sorry Fro) but that man has actually created something similar to "Scott Kelby" or "Ken Rockwell" (Sorry, but who haven't heard them?) by creating something more professional and "adult" content than many others.
Based to that advertising, it looks like good places to go for many. Far better than DPR or so....
But now He is just exploring the other ways to market the thing, and people get to hear about him and ShutterFest etc.
I would have never heard about that guy, nor even remembered about "ShutterFest" (or so) but now many other knows. And in coming weeks/months, people will remember "ShutterFest" and not this.
There will always be few people talking about those like "Scott Kelby who is bad photographer" or "Ken Rockwell ha ha!"... Others just move on!
And people think that it isn't hypocrisy to have a "list" for people in "white list" and "black list" and then same time talk about ethics and following "good rules" etc.
Those who can't even respect others who they dislike that worth to listen them, are worst offenders. As they stick to the character, not to the message.
That is what means "Justice is blind" as it doesn't see who is who, it only should hear the presentation and then weight it by the merits of facts, not by the characters.
Maybe I am one of the few who actually watched the Fro video, in respect that he and his team put effort to put that video out and try to deliver their opinion.
And now when the DPR presents their opinion by putting Fro to deliver it behalf them, people ain't just ready to listen Fro,but not ready to even read what the person in interest has to say. Instead just repeat the common mistakes "No one should be allowed to participate to their own competition" without any exceptions based differences
True. Every religion in the world that I know of tells us not to judge others. And as artists, we have an obligation to the world and to posterity to be the best versions of ourselves that we can be—so I withdraw my remarks.
Fro has own personality, but for many it is too "made-off" that just jumps on the face.
First I didn't like him at all, forced myself to look few of his videos and still I don't like about him but personally I can tolerate him. He is just a typical YouTube host for a small team behind the brand to make a living by gasping what ever they can get...
I am the wrong generation for this form of communication. I find it difficult to watch and even more difficult to listen to. And after 8 minutes I still don't know who he is or what he is talking about.
"This form of communication" is not a fair portrayal of what good content is found on Youtube and similar platforms, though. Fro's personality, tone and cadence is an extremely difficult-to-acquire taste.
Because it's not about whether he cheated or not. It's about professionalism, dignity and respect. If you host a thing for others and then make it about yourself, then it doesn't matter if you cheat or not, you will still appear as an egotistical douche and you shouldn't be surprised if you are treated like one.
You don't host a competition to show off your own work or skills. That's what exhibitions are for. You may also choose to do seminars, workshops and lectures to teach others while you are at it. It's a win-win. But organizing a contest and then hijacking the nominations is just low and would be considered that in any industry or area of expertise.
Since it was his own competition, it would be reasonable to suppose that he had some direct input into the judging criteria, categories and the selection of judges. Any of those things - much less all of them - would be likely to give him an unfair advantage. And whether they helped him win across the board or not, they create reasonable doubt.
So it is not just about the 'appearance of' impropriety - it is actually about the fundamental impropriety of someone who has access to any form of inside knowledge or influence choosing to enter a competition of which they are the official sponsor.
It is like the DPR forums some people voting to their own comments... (You can spot this by noticing that the post has been released 1-4 minutes ago (if not even seconds) and then they already have +1).
Seriously saying, there is nothing wrong to participate to own competition as long it is done fairly. Sorry, but no... There isn't anything wrong.
Lets say you host a golf event of 18 holes for a charity,you have assistants to get the judges, get the participants etc. And then you play the 18 holes. And you win the #1 prize that is 15% of all the charity money given to event for children hospital...
So, you can either keep the 15% or put it to charity as event was. It doesn't matter that you won. It doesn't matter did you keep the 15% or give it away. It was a PR thing and that is where the money is made, people will come and off-load truckload of money at you as you make money with charity!
He had judges to go photos through blindly, without knowing who took them. Fair... Isn't?
Tommi K1, I am sorry, but your analogies are wrong on so many levels that I wouldn't even try and explain it to you. It wouldn't even fit into the character limit here and it would still be a giant waste of time, seeing how you equalize completely different concepts and draw improper comparisons.
You just don't comprehend the event that Shutterfest hosted... Fair and blindly judged photos... It doesn't matter was there the educators in or not... Owners in or not, as long the judges doesn't know who is in.
It is just not good for PR because the students and others can get feeling that they didn't even get the change to win.... That is the problem... Too though competition. But that is exactly what every person who ever says "competition is for good" should just swallow and accept the cold fact that any competition is NEVER fair, just like a charity is almost never charity.... It is mostly if not money making, it is trying to free the mind by "helping others", in other words being very selfish....
Where the big money is (like this where Canon is main sponsor, there are Sigma, Tamron, Panasonic etc etc) they will feed so much money to the events like that, that it is already a big business alone to enter to their services...
I liked your comment since I'm tired of how fast people in America jump to conclusions. With that said, no one of character would host such an event & then compete in it as well. The reasons for this type of old fashioned thinking have been made abundantly clear by the responses.
As much unethical to participate as it is already when the games go now... Yes, the Usain Bolt is totally in another league, and it is not difficult for the others to lose to him as he is so fast... But it is difficult for the teammates that are always the second. This you can see from the document of Usain Bolt
And it is same thing as Michael Schumacher in the F1 races... It just was boring to watch as you knew with high certainty that he will be the #1.
That is the thing with the competitions WHEN you know who is participating to them. It is like the school gymnastic classes where kids are put to choose their own teams, they will go and pick the best ones first.
That is the same thing with almost every competition itself, everyone promoting the best ones, trying to be the best ones and no one really cares the rest of the people. That is the spirit of competition.
In education, you don't promote best, you boost the weak.
If Hussein Bolt hosted a competition which offered prizes & then entered knowing that he would win & give himself all the prizes, then yes, it is unethical. More so it would showcase complete stupidity of those that chose to compete but that's besides the point. Also, I would add, this is apples and oranges. Huge difference between a race & photo contests.
Why so? If the prizes are for the winners, then it doesn't matter!
The real (and maybe only) problem is that if the other competitors are rookies, beginners etc. So it is like hitting a baby and claim to be the contact sport champion!
But was the case such? That he was already the known to be the best one on the competition?
Again.... If he would have been the judge... then it would have been unethical. Or if judges knew whos photos they were looking, like using a previously known photos by him!
But that needs to be first proven before accused from cheating and unfair or unethical competition!
That is why judges should never see the peoples work being done, or see who made them.
Like example in photography schools that I know, the judges are brought in only after every work has been randomly placed and creators are away from their works. So the judges don't know who created them. The people who knows the work and creator, are not allowed in or participate in judging.
So if anyone can't show that the judging was done wrong.... There is nothing wrong really in the competition.
Did the competitors present their work to the judges? WRONG! Did the competitors use previously used work in different competitions? WRONG! Did the competitors mark anyway to the judges their link to content? WRONG!
Like look just the comments in different forums. The discussions are easily gone through by the names of the commenter, not by the content. So if wanted to be fair and avoid conflict of interest, every comment should be anonymized. But it is already proven fact that if person reads a discussion thread, they can easily start identify different writers by their discussion.
That is the conflict of interest if you are known in the community and not totally unknown to every judge. That is why the judges are the important piece that they are chosen so that they don't have any previous experience to the competitors. So they don't know anything.
Like example. If we would want to take a any competition that has different rounds seriously without any conflict of interest and favoritism etc. Every round should have different judges that has no previous information of the competitors.
It would be like a jury, where they should be chosen randomly and avoid the previous exposure to the case and then keep them from any other influence through the case.
So I just ask about people to think, is there any changes that the competition wasn't rigged?
Who is ready to throw the first stone of "the rules of the competitions usually are" or "not to have person of conflict" etc has never stepped their feet to court of law or read a single bigger court judgements thoroughly. Or understood what "Democracy" really means, as even all those corner stones of the western civilization so many dare to keep as sacred, are nothing else than lies! All based to high conflict of personnel...
So many is trying to be allowed to throw the stones to individuals to be hided among lynch mob.
Yet how many is ready to cheat, lie, blackmail, threaten etc their children or observed such happening and done nothing?
"If you don't eat your carrots, you don't get desert" "If you don't listen me, I will hit you" "If you don't do as I say, I will tell father what you did" "If you be nice now, you will get ice cream"
So many are ready to do such things to their dearest people.... And what they are ready to do for unknown people or others anyway, is far worse!
"Everyone is a whore for the society" Everyone of us (okay, not some people like Amish etc) is selling themselves to someone else for the money. A person of conflict.
"You sing the songs who's bread you eat"
"You don't byte the hand that feeds you"
etc etc etc...
All fancy and nice, but when it comes to competition, suddenly the purest competition isn't wanted!
"Why is the appearance of impropriety more important than the truth he did not cheat?"
Because, simply put, for far too long have big names and companies been hiding behind technical quibbling while they get away with BS that normal human beings would otherwise not tolerate in society. Even when huge corporations *DO* get busted for *actually* breaking the law, they get off with just a small fine that can is basically just the CODB for them.
To a guy like Sal, this flak is just the CODB for his overall strategic goals as a company. But he mis-calculated how bad the backlash would be, and he should retract all his entries from the contest if he wishes to keep a decent reputation in the photography community. Otherwise, he is definitely risking the implosion of *his* little community.
So, is this justice, or a lynch mob, or what? Probably a little bit of everything. The bottom line is that the internet is a cruel mistress, and it (usually) has every right to do whatever it wants.
...None of your analogies work, in fact they're way off the rails. WTH do you mean, how is this situation the same as "If you don't listen to me, I will hit you."??? Seriously?
The only way you could possibly liken this to how a parent MIGHT interact with their children would be, of course, if a parent were competing against their own child for something. Imagine a professional athlete playing in their kids' little league games, for example. Legal or not, it's dumb, and serves no point unless the whole thing is just a learning experience and the parent is actually doing some teaching.
This was simply not the case; the only outcome of entering or winning this contest was bragging rights. (I don't know if there were any prizes, but that would only make it worse!)
I'm still trying to decide whether Tommi K1 is actually Sal attempting to defend himself under a pseudonym, or whether Tommi K1 seriously believes there is no problem with entering, winning & taking off all the best prizes in your own contest.
In most places there are laws against insider trading for a reason. Setting the rules (or having intimate knowledge of what the rules are, having influence with those who do etc), choosing or at least knowing who the judges will be - these are all clear unfair advantages, even if the judging was as 'blind' as is claimed (who knows - it seems we're expected to take that on faith...).
Anyone who can't see a problem with all that is either having trouble with basic logic or has some kind of agenda to pursue. The stream of bizarrely inapplicable metaphors offered up in an attempt to explain why an absence of ethics (not to mention humility, respect for others and self restraint) on the part of Sal is not any kind of problem are surpassingly weird.
Actually there are lots of Chinese photo associations doing the same way. They just establish their own competition and then enter to win. It's all about ego, something they can dive in and boast. We call them "old wizard" in Chinese way. Sad to see WPPI master did this. Anyway, I won 10 awards in WPPI and now I am a software engineer, lol.
Sal: No matter what face you try to put on it, it will not work. As Jared said, the sooner you shut up, the better. No one with an ounce of dignity and ethics enters his own competition. Look at the various contest rules in various areas of competition. They always have a long list of people who are not allowed to participate, such as owners, family members, affiliates, judges, ..., etc. I'm really surprised even more to see a man at your age doing such a thing. Teenagers would hesitate to do that. Just my 2 cents, Sal.
Well said. I'd also add this: it does not help calling people trolls because they don't agree with you or criticize your actions. You screwed up, people called it - take the criticism, draw conclusions and don't be a freaking baby about it. Don't try to shift or reverse the blame, it won't work.
It seems that nowadays people who can't take criticism have this easy go-to excuse: "oh, I've done nothing wrong, it's just that internet trolls are after me".
Just establishes the value of photo contests. Way past time real photographers got real. Grow up boys and girls. Politics and trophies are for snowflakes and children who did not have the proper upbringing to realize they are enough and need someone to burp, feed and coddle them.
The fact this is a relevant story only makes Sal even more of a winner as you are concerned with slime like him and he is getting play like he never had before. Jealous?
Any adult would know the ultimate REAL judge is the collector who pays your price to hang your art on their wall.
Fred Miranda has won Featured Thread on his own site 12 times. His pictures are very nice though. I don't believe any cheating is going on. And no one has complained about it. But it seems like a similar conflict of interest, just with much less at stake.
On FM you are not required to give Fred $25 per submission for the weekly/monthly featured threads (a key factor) and the voting is transparent, plus his displayed work is almost all landscape. He has 12 wins from hundreds of challenges. Sal from Shutterfest placed top 3 in 11 of 17 categories after collecting cash from all the other entrants and prizes from the sponsors. There's a great breakdown on Imaging Resource as Sal keeps defending himself by saying he adheres to WPPI contest rules, but those rules clearly state anyone involved with the contest or employees are banned from entering.
Bottom line, entering and winning your own contest when its pay to play is a bad idea. IMO this "contest" is finished. Who in their right mind would shell out another $25 down the line.
Fro explained it in that video already.... That is the thing that makes it "bad" but only if he didn't pay the fee....
But what ever he profits anyways in the fees in shares, so he has money to enter to competition. But if you can't afford to lose, don't enter!
I would like to see the top 5 photos of each challenge and blindly not in a order. So I could go and pick my own and then see what I saw. If he was in Top 3 in 11 challenges from 17, that means he should at least be top 3 in 4-5 challenges on my list...
I know nothing about all the details, but on *just the surface level*, I feel safe saying you have to be a f*cking assh*le to even enter your own photo contest.
This Sal has the nerve to label people who called him out on his bad behavior as "trolls" and "haters," and "small group of nobody's."
I will email these companies to let them know what I think of Sal's questionable action aggravated by his tirade against people who (expectedly) questioned his behavior.
And that I think Sal is the Troll, the Hater, and is now a Nobody for me.
"A troll" is a person who gets people to argue among themselves... "Troll" is almost synonym for the "stirrer" or "whistleblower". The small difference is that the troll don't draw the attention to themselves, that is the trolling that you are hidden on sight.
You start trolling like "Person A said on the other forum that X and Y are wrong and person B said that person A is wrong because..." and that way you get the A and B and their supporters to argue among themselves.
The modern version of trolling is as well "clickbait" where you throw something rafling ("flaming") and then ask people to comment. And then you just look when people in comments are arguing against each others. The difference between trolling and clickbait is that with clickbait you generate traffic, while trolling is just enjoyment to watch arguments between people.
And every commenter, only feeds the trolls. Only way to stop trolling is stop arguing.
Trolls never argue with others. Trolling is a skill.
I did enter a contest once where the Judge said to me 'Your picture is the best, but the first prize goes to my good friend ....' The audience was very quite after that .... :)
Fro is too easy on the guy. I agree with gurgeh's comment below: "So if you are judging a contest and you see a photo that was taken by the person who is paying you to judge, this is likely to introduce a bias." There's no way that can be a fair competition, IMO.
I organize a competition where the entry fee is $1500. There are 5 competition and each has prizes for 1-3 positions and then grand prize goes to top one total of all competition (who gets most positions). Then my associate hires judges that selects themes.
Then I enter to the competition myself, I pay the $1500 and I apply a single photo to every competition.
Then the judges, walks through all the commissioned photographs in each competition and choose blindly their selected ones that they think follows the competition rules/theme.
After that the selected photos are set on the rankings and the names are searched who had taken what photo....
How unfair it would be if my photo would be top 3 in every competition and I would win the grand prize?
1) I wouldn't have chosen judges nor they know even that I enter to competition 2) I would have paid the fee like everyone else 3) I would had got to know the theme and rules same time as others.
You can *imagine* "the thing" goes like that. It does not. You're giving him the benefit of many, many doubts. I don't. Your associate hires the judges? So what. That's the associate that works for you and does what you tell him/her. You own the contest and the associate & judges know it. You pay the entry fee? Paying yourself is not paying. What nonsense. The judges choose blindly? Not if they know your style, the style of the owner of the contest. So: 1) If the judges suspect you're ethically corrupt, as you admit, then they suspect that you entered the contest. 2) You didn't "pay the fee like everyone else" because you "paid" yourself. 3) The time you "got to know the theme and rules" has nothing to do with anything. The theme and the time you learned about it — who cares!? — whatever the theme is, it doesn't diminish your blatant elephant-in-the-room conflict of interest. Blech, who has time to defend skeevy photo contests?
It doesn't matter if your judges knows they are hired by company, when they don't know the photos who have taken them!
Do you know what happens in competitions where there is a teacher + the students, after the workshop etc? Many are producing the similar style as the teacher and it is difficult to tell them apart!
You are just wanted to put him down without giving ANY benefit of doubt... WITHOUT ANY. You are just part of the typical internet lynch mob that just want negativity.
Yes, it is not fair to have a uneven skill set on the competition, that is simple thing. But if you want competition, THEN COMPETE! There is no fairness in competition as it is ALL IN or NOTHING. Either compete or don't. You can't cherry pick the "Competition is for good" and then whine when someone enters to competition of his own company!
If I take a photo of myself... Do I need to pay myself the $550 for self-portrait? No... How about friend? Family member? A friends friend?
If you have 50 person in a room and there is entry fee of $25 to enter competition thats rules and theme is announced 12:00. And no one knows what it will be before it is announced (for sake of argument lets say it is polled by pulling two pieces of paper with word in each of them so there can come random combination like "Red" and "Angry").
That is simple fact that EVERYONE in that room has the exact same possibilities to create the content for that competition, without preparations of anyone. Sure you can start claiming how he has the changes to use the company gear... But you can say same thing with others that they might own the needed gear or rent the gear or loan the gear what so ever!
If everyone comes with the photos printed and puts them to table in a random order on stack and goes away from the room. And judges enter then to room and picks the photos from stack and goes through. And there is no watermarks, signs, symbols etc. What do you do?
Would you start claiming a unfairness again if the judges picks randomly the winners and they are mostly a single person?
What if everyone can go and pick a random people on the streets and ask the vote for the best photo and result would be same?
The thing is, you like many other isn't happy as long there isn't clear cheating going through!
I don't know did there happen cheat or not.... But unless it is otherwise proven or it isn't shown so to have happened....
What is really required is to see all the participants works and the winners. Exactly as they were seen by the judges. So you can see if there is names or logos or some other things that reveals what photos should be announced as winner reglardless of the content!
So either join to the lynch mob and don't care what has happened, or try to seek the truth and honor the justice that everyone is not guilty until otherwise proven!
@Tommi K1 You seem to have no understanding of what a conflict of interest is. None. Zero.
Your ideas about the integrity of this contest depends on lots of "ifs". If this, if that, if, if, if ... and so on. That's not how the world works. That's why honest people avoid conflicts of interest. You seem to have missed this important lesson in life, and I doubt I can teach you when all of your past teachers have failed.
@Yake You don't know what the word "competition" really means then.
Do you really try to put down the throat the one of the worst hypocrites "Conflict of interest"...
The whole world is controlled by the friends, the corruption is everywhere. That is maybe the best lesson you will ever hear from anyone. That is the human nature across the cultures.
You want competition, then be prepared to be in competition. You want "conflict of interest", then prepare to deny every possible competition ever done and ever to be done! Stop every charity event then, as every single one has a conflict of interest!
On paper things are "fair and nice, without conflict of interest" while in fact almost everything where is the money, there is conflict of interest.
You want something, everyone does! That is already conflict of interest! Every time you enter to challenge or competition, you have conflict of interest, regardless who you are!
There are no saints, that is the philosophical dilemma!
I wonder how many participants would accept to be part of that contest if Sal Sincotta would have said in advance "hey this is my contest and I am going to submit my own work, I hope you don't care".
When Best-Ever Gadget Company runs a contest or sweepstakes to create excitement around their products, the rules will read as
"Entry not open to individuals or family members employed by Best-Ever or its subsidiaries, advertising partners, consultants or contractors" etc.
This is in addition and in spite of to all efforts to keep the judging and/or prize drawings completely above-board. It simply defeats the purpose of the contest to have suspicion and bad publicity cloud the outcome, and in the case of a skills competition, it ruins the inclusiveness aspect that draws enthusiastic participants.
In other words, this incident illustrates the soundness of some very old and well-established principles, and the dangers of trying to ignore them.
On the Imaging Resource link Sal engages back and forth with the community in the Disqus comments at the bottom of the article. It's pretty entertaining.
I like Jared. The reason why you and anyone connected to you dont enter your own competition is to distance yourself from any real or perceived conflict of interest - regardless of whether the judges are blind or impartial. Poor judgment on behalf of the guy in question.
But I bet if you were told that your entries would have to compete with those of the organizers and judges, you'd think twice about shelling out $25 to enter, wouldn't you?
No - the best we can do is our reviews, opinion pieces. show reports, exclusive interviews, sample galleries, comprehensive launch coverage of new cameras and lenses...
A repost from FkP is about the least we can do, actually. We just liked the video and decided to share it. Let me know if you're struggling to find any of the other content listed above.
I don't think Jared goes far enough. He says that he accepts the competition was fair and the only issue was that he shouldn't have entered. I don't think the competition was fair. Even if the entries were anonymised (which we can't know for sure) it can be easy to identify a photographer by their style. So if you are judging a contest and you see a photo that was taken by the person who is paying you to judge, this is likely to introduce a bias.
It's funny that DPR is criticizing Cincotta, but never acknowledges the rabid cheating, shilling, arbitrary deletions, backscratching, and irregularities that are now pretty much the modus operandi of the challenge section of DPR.
The challenges don't allow you to enter one you post. However, you are correct that a frustratingly high number of entrants seem to actively ignore any rules posted, and with low participation to begin with, appropriately disqualifying people can result in an empty challenge. That depressing reality is why I've been posting fewer challenges as time goes on... and I suspect it's also why there are now fewer serious entrants, so it continues to spiral down....
"The challenges don't allow you to enter one you post"
Obviously, but they are open for all sorts of other types of f**kery, like what I named above. Deletions are highly criticized also because they are often (not most, not always, but often enough) nothing that goes against the rules. Then I read further and it appears, in numerous cases, that friends of challenge grounders were in the top placings. Let's not forget pro photographers or obvious pics that were lifted or people who use pics under different names in different challenges.
When people are so petty over something like DPR's meaningless challenges, how can we expect them to be less petty with slightly more meaningful ones? As for this contest, never heard of it and it means nothing, really. Win one that is administered by a union/government/accredited organization/agency/etc. then I will be impressed.
I entered a few challenges but stopped. In one challenge, every single entry EXCEPT the winner had received at least 1 half-star vote! All of them, including the top finishers. That kind of did it for me. The challenges are fun and I believe entering them improved my photography but I don't get over-excited about the results. It's not nearly as rewarding as winning paying gigs.
Ben: Respectfully... he has a legitimate reason for the hair. Why don't you spend less time criticizing and more time making yourself aware of the real things in life!
The LowePro PhotoSport Outdoor is a camera pack for photographers who also need a well-designed daypack for hiking and other outdoor use. If that sounds like you, the PhotoSport Outdoor may be a great choice, but as with any hybrid product, there are a few tradeoffs.
The Sony a7C II refreshes the compact full-frame with a 33MP sensor, the addition of a front control dial, a dedicated 'AI' processor, 10-bit 4K/60p video and more. It's a definite improvement, but it helps if you value its compact form.
Why is the Peak Design Everyday Backpack so widely used? A snazzy design? Exceptional utility? A combination of both? After testing one, it's clear why this bag deserves every accolade it's received.
The new Wacom One 12 pen display, now in its second generation, offers photographers an affordable option to the mouse or trackpad, making processing images easy and efficient by editing directly on the screen.
For photographers who need advanced photo editing options, Pixelmator Pro for macOS offers layer-based editing, machine learning-powered adjustment and selection tools, and features such as Denoise and Super Resolution. It's also affordable.
If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.
Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.
At last, people who don’t want to pay a premium for Apple’s Pro models can capture high-resolution 24MP and 48MP photos using the iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Plus. Is the lack of a dedicated telephoto lens or the ability to capture Raw images worth the savings for photographers?
Kodak's Super 8 Camera is a hybrid of old and new: it shoots movies using Super 8 motion picture film but incorporates digital elements like a flip-out LCD screen and audio capture. Eight years after we first saw the camera at CES 2016, Kodak is finally bringing it to market.
In this supplement to his recently completed 10-part series on landscape photography, photographer Erez Marom explores how the compositional skills developed for capturing landscapes can be extended to other areas of photography.
If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.
Sony, the Associated Press and 'Photo Mechanic' maker Camera Bits have run a month-long field-test to evaluate capture authentication and a subsequent workflow.
A color-accurate monitor is an essential piece of the digital creator's toolkit. In this guide, we'll go over everything you need to know about how color calibration actually works so you can understand the process and improve your workflow.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.
It's that time of year again: When people get up way too early to rush out to big box stores and climb over each other to buy $99 TVs. We've saved you the trip, highlighting the best photo-related deals that can be ordered from the comfort of your own home.
The LowePro PhotoSport Outdoor is a camera pack for photographers who also need a well-designed daypack for hiking and other outdoor use. If that sounds like you, the PhotoSport Outdoor may be a great choice, but as with any hybrid product, there are a few tradeoffs.
Sigma's latest 70-200mm F2.8 offering promises to blend solid build, reasonably light weight and impressive image quality into a relatively affordable package. See how it stacks up in our initial impressions.
The Sony a9 III is heralded as a revolutionary camera, but is all the hype warranted? DPReview's Richard Butler and Dale Baskin break down what's actually new and worth paying attention to.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.
DJI's Air 3 and Mini 4 Pro are two of the most popular drones on the market, but there are important differences between the two. In this article, we'll help figure out which of these two popular drones is right for you.
The Sony a7C II refreshes the compact full-frame with a 33MP sensor, the addition of a front control dial, a dedicated 'AI' processor, 10-bit 4K/60p video and more. It's a definite improvement, but it helps if you value its compact form.
Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.
The iPhone 15 Pro allows users to capture 48MP photos in HEIF or JPEG format in addition to Raw files, while new lens coatings claim to cut down lens flare. How do the cameras in Apple's latest flagship look in everyday circumstances? Check out our gallery to find out.
Global shutters, that can read all their pixels at exactly the same moment have been the valued by videographers for some time, but this approach has benefits for photographers, too.
We had an opportunity to shoot a pre-production a9 III camera with global shutter following Sony's announcement this week. This gallery includes images captured with the new 300mm F2.8 GM OSS telephoto lens and some high-speed flash photos.
The Sony a9 III is a ground-breaking full-frame mirrorless camera that brings global shutter to deliver unforeseen high-speed capture, flash sync and capabilities not seen before. We delve a little further into the a9III to find out what makes it tick.
The "Big Four" Fashion Weeks – New York, London, Milan and Paris - have wrapped for 2023 but it's never too early to start planning for next season. If shooting Fashion Week is on your bucket list, read on. We'll tell you what opportunities are available for photographers and provide some tips to get you started.
Sony has announced the a9 III: the first full-frame camera to use a global shutter sensor. This gives it the ability to shoot at up to 120 fps with flash sync up to 1/80,000 sec and zero rolling shutter.
What’s the best camera for around $1500? These midrange cameras should have capable autofocus systems, lots of direct controls and the latest sensors offering great image quality. We recommend our favorite options.
First developed in the mid-1800s, salt prints may be considered an obscure 'alternative' photographic process. But all the more reason to make your own. Here's how.
Around $1000 is increasingly becoming the entry point for modern interchangeable lens cameras. We look at what you can get for your money, and which we think is best.
Canon has announced a new RF 24-105mm F2.8 zoom lens, extending the range for fast mid-range zooms from 70mm to 105mm. Its hybrid design also means it includes a feature not seen on an RF lens before: a manual aperture ring.
Comments