The outdoor photographer presented their “Great Outdoors 2021” grand prize for a composite photo that violated the contest rules as outlined on the official website. This controversy raises an ethical question regarding photography competitions that do not adhere to their own rules.
The image in question, according to the photographer’s own description on social media, is a composite of several images “taken through the post-sunset to evening transition and blends best with atmosphere of the evening.” This cooking style has gained popularity in recent years. It combines photographic techniques and digital post-processing techniques that allow the artist to maximize the visual impact of the final image. As you can see from the big award winning image below, these techniques are quite effective. The result is a dramatic image that immediately grabs the viewer’s attention.
These techniques, although somewhat controversial, are not at issue, at least in terms of their photographic legitimacy. Many competitions allow the use of such methods. This competition, however, does not. The photo was awarded the grand prize (a $2,000 cash prize and a bunch of roughly equal value equipment) despite the fact that contest rules forbid the use of such techniques. See specifics below, direct from Outdoor Photographer’s official website.
We contacted the photographer, who said that at the time of submission, they did not fully understand the contest rules. After receiving notice that their image would be a finalist, but before being awarded the grand prize, they attempted to contact the administration to withdraw their entry and fully acknowledge that the image that doesn’t qualify. At the time we corresponded, they received no response or confirmation of the withdrawal attempt.
We have also reached out to Outdoor Photographer for comment. See their statement below.
The photographer, Shashank Khanna, really tried to contact us to advise us on this before the final assessment and announcement of the contest winners. Unfortunately, his email was mistakenly sent by our customer service team and this information was not provided to our jury. We have since been in contact with Mr. Khanna and in the equitable interest of all our contest participants, he has offered to withdraw his submission. We accept his withdrawal. We regret any embarrassment this has caused Mr Khanna and commend him for his honesty and transparency. Accordingly, we will elevate the 2nd and 3rd Prize winners to First and Second Prize respectively, and award Third Prize to photographer George Garcia for his photo “Sunset in Barren Valley”.
While their response seems fair enough, the problem doesn’t end here. There is a larger ethical issue regarding the management of photography competitions. We have corresponded with many other photographers who are upset about the results of this contest and who have tried to contact the management, but have not received a response. The majority of entrants presumably submitted images that fell within the established rules of the contest and that they paid the submission fee assuming that competition administrators would make reasonable efforts to enforce the rules. occlusion. The competing site even suggests as much.
As part of the evaluation process, our judges may, at their discretion, request the original RAW file or JPEG capture for review.
Ignoring the fact that most experienced landscape photographers will immediately recognize the winning image as a composite, we must ask why Outdoor Photographers don’t try to enforce their own rules. them or verify the authenticity of the winning works. This would be the bare minimum when we consider the ethical requirements of regulating a paid photography contest. Ideally, however, verification would take place as early as possible in the review process to ensure that substandard images are not compared with images that comply with the rules. When anything happens, it’s much easier to create a visual impact. Obviously, verification is an important step, but it is also a resource-intensive (i.e. expensive) process. We must question whether any competitor who chooses to skip this process has made it so simple to reduce overall costs. Considering the relatively high cost of joining, the relatively low prize value, and the fact that they allow unlimited registration, they probably have the budget to pay someone to verify the entries. There are many photography contests, such as Wildlife Photographer of the Year and Natural Landscape Photography Award with even stricter submission guidelines, but still rigorously implement image verification and enforcement rules.
In addition to these ethical concerns, the Outdoor Photographer’s “Great Outdoors Photo Contest” does not place any limits on the number of entries. This means that people with greater financial capacity can submit an unlimited number of images, giving themselves a clear advantage. This is not an ethical concern but a matter of general fairness, which the community expects these types of competitions to strive for.
As we examine the facts of this story, we begin to understand the ethical issues involved in photography contests. We encourage our readers to read the rules carefully before putting money into any contest, even if they are organized by trusted and reputable organisations. The judgment process is often not as fair as it may appear. Fortunately, there are a few questions we can ask ourselves before entering any contest to ensure it is administered fairly:
- What level of processing do they allow?
- Do they enforce these rules through raw file verification?
- How early in the judgment does this verification take place?
- Do they limit the number of submissions?
- Does the regulator respond to inquiries and e-mails?
Photography competitions are an important organization in the photography community. They promote the growth of the art form, and when administered equitably, they are a place where communities can come together and enjoy each other’s work. This makes it all the more important that we require the organizations administering these competitions to do so with fairness, transparency and accountability.
