ComArts Photo Contest 2009

[amorteguy]

<p>Well, they're at it again. Communication Arts has another chance to fleece suckers of their money at $30 a phøt. They basically make the cost of a subsription for every photo entered. I wouldn't have such a problem with it if the winning images were any good!</p>

<p>I looked through one of the over-priced "winners" issues; what a joke! Of course I didn't buy it. There wasn't one image in the whole things that was any good. It was a bunch of boring, dirivative, crap, absolutely horrible. And no, I'm not bitter because my images weren't selected. I refuse to enter any compitition that is so blatently created solely for financial gain of the sponsors, not the pormotion of the art of photography.</p>

<p>And yes, I have had competition experience. I entered four images in the Venice International Photography competition in Italy. Of the four I entered, one placed 4th and another placed 1st. (This last paragraph was written just to brag, lol). But, my opinion on the Communication Arts Contest is heart-felt. That goes for double for B&W magaines regular competitions. (Sorry, but I have to rant sometimes, especially when I see people getting ripped off.)</p>

[photomark]

<p>Well then don't enter.<br>

Personally, I enjoy the Communication Arts annuals and it's my impression that having an image selected for publication is pretty good for business—there are not many places where you can get your work in front of so many photo buyers and designers. That's not something you can say for many photo competitions. I think $30 is just about right to keep people from sending in shoeboxes full of images—it discourages the shotgun approach. </p>

[garrett_cotham]

<p>Wow that's quite some anger. I hope you got that one out of your system before you go kick a puppy or something. I enjoy the Communication Arts annual as well. I think there are plenty of very good, interesting images in there and it is well worth the $16 to buy an issue. I buy the issue every year for the past 7 or 8 years and keep them. I like looking at other peoples work, even if it is something I'd never do myself or if I think it's crap. As far as the $30/photo fee, well, apparently there are enough people who feel that it's worthwhile. I'd enter if I had the extra money. I'd bet if you looked through again, you could find at least one photo with some redeeming qualities. After all, they've been published so, somebody did, right?</p>

[amorteguy]

<p>Mark M. - I <strong>don't</strong> enter them. That was my point. Your point about the shotgun is a good one. I'll concede that. My despise of these magazine-type contests is that they just seem like such a money grab it becomes a method of creating income and not about photography.</p>

<p>Garrett - I would never kick a puppy no matter how angry I am (a photo editor maybe). However, it's hard to get the tone of my post, but it's not anger. It's disgust that these magazines are using these contests solely as a means to make money.</p>

<p>B&W Magazine is much worse than ComArt I will admit. Every "winners" issue is the same thing! I just wish they'd take a chance. Serisously, how many times do we need to see the 30-minute exposure of the dock pilings and water? Or, one of my pet peeves, Photoshop'd, over-sharpened, cartoon-like portraits of an elderly person (Nothing against pictures of our elders I assure you. It's the hyper-sharpening, digital manipulation that bugs me.)</p>

<p>Ok, both y'all - I will go out and look at this upcoming "winners" issue with a total open mind. If I find one photo that I truly like, I will pay out the cash and buy it. Better yet, I'll buy you both a copy as well and eat my hat. Well, maybe not the hat thing. but, you get me.</p>

[photomark]

<p><i>Serisously, how many times do we need to see the 30-minute exposure of the dock pilings and water?</i></p>

 

<p>You'll get no argument from me there.</p>

 

 

 

<p>Communcation Arts, like everyone else undoubtable keeps their eye on the bottom line. I know nothing about the

management or ownership of Comm Arts, but I've never had the impression that they are buying and jets and taking

photos on disposable Hasselblads with the proceeds of their contests. The quality of the paper and printing of the

magazine suggest that it is a very costly magazine to produce and they don't fill it cover to cover with ads like some

photo magazines—that money needs to come from somewhere. You should consider that it's possible for it to be about

photography <i>and</i> income—they are not mutually exclusive. Comm Arts also is not an art magazine per se. It is

unapologetically a periodical about commercial art and advertising, but I've never had the impression from reading the

articles (full disclosure: I subscribe) that they are concerned solely with making money—the contributers seem to be

passionate about both art <b>and</b> making a living from it. What can I say other than tastes differ and there's room

enough for everyone.</p>

 

<p>I look forward to your impressions of the upcoming photo annual.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>

 

<p>Anthony,</p>

<p>As a former art director/graphic artist/illustrator/prepress technician(slave) for some ten years (now a burnout), Communication Arts kept me inspired as far back as the late '70's not just from their high quality rendered entries but from the diversity of style and the many unique ways their chosen images communicated an idea. They had some really smart, sophisticated people to pick the best of the best. Don't know how smart they are now. Haven't kept up with that mag for some time, but I've always respected that publication as a good representation of the best of the best in creative imagery that communicates effectively.</p>

<p>That's what this publication has been all about from its inception...communicating effectively with an image or style of representation with regards to graphic design not just photography. </p>

<p>Have you looked at back issues going back 30 years? A search at your local library should bring up something. You'll see a consistency in standards with regards to this publication's ability of finding the best work out there. And there are tons of talented folks to choose from now even more today than back then. It just makes everyone a face in the crowd, diluting the the perceived amount of talent that's really out their. You need a mag such as this to cull through it all and they've been doing a fine job of it for some time.</p>

<p>But if you still think they're that bad, you should check out the Art Director's Black Book which is a similar communication industry publication and become humbled again. After finally seeing a copy in the late '80's at a local bookstore I pretty much decided then I wasn't going to be as good an artist as I thought due to the amount of talent I saw. Not only did these guys show masterful craftsmenship for their given medium but their images communicated so much attitude, style and sophistication I was just blown away.</p>

<p>Hope you're just as good. If you are and you've had the opportunity to be judged by folks with similar level of ability in picking talent then you don't need to enter anyway. I know I wouldn't mind being chosen by those with that level of ability, but I know I'm not that good. CA is a good way of legitimizing talent and developing a name in an already saturated industry.</p>

 

</p>