Winning Photo Of The Week Means...?

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Do you consider winning POW...<br /><br /><br />...a dream come true?</p>

<p>...a serious honor you're working toward?</p>

<p>...a purely subjective and thus meaningless decoration?</p>

<p>...none of the above?<br /><br /><br />Thanks,</p>

<p>Cal</p>

[Leonard-just-Leonard]

<p>... an opportunity to reflect on the merits of a photograph, and learn from the critiques </p>

<p>... also a chance to hear other viewpoints and opinions which helps to improve your skills</p>

<p>... and perhaps lend a new perspective to your next outing</p>

[joshroot]

<p>I hope anyone who is going to post in this thread has read:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo-of-the-week/about</p>

<p>Particularly the line that says:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Each week, the Photograph of the Week showcases one of the photographs that we believe merits a week-long discussion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Photos of the week" doesn't mean (and has never meant) "The best photo on photo.net this week" or "the photo we liked best this week" or even "the most popular photo this week". It means "the photo we thought was worthy of discussion this week".</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>All, the same, Josh, to be considered worthy of discussion for that long a time <em><strong>is</strong> </em> a pretty fair honor, as the world goes...</p>

<p> </p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>All, the same, Josh, to be considered worthy of discussion for that long a time <em><strong>is</strong> </em> a pretty fair honor, as the world goes...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely. I didn't mean to diminish that. I would hope that anyone who had an image chosen for the Photo of the Week would think it was a neat compliment.</p>

<p>I just try to educate people when I get a chance regarding the POW. There is this tendency (especially from members who haven't been around the site as long) to build the POW up into something that it is not.</p>

[michaeljlawson]

<p>I agree with all of L.J's points on this one. I never thought of it as a contest to be won, so I guess my answer to the OP is "none of the above"</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>L.J., it sounds like you would value the feedback more than the trophy.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I find the purpose and practices of the Photo of the Week forum confusing.</p>

<p>It's supposed to be about photos worthy of discussion and to be learned from, not the best or most popular photo. But the photographer in question is often referred to as the winner, gets a cup next to his/her name, and a prize. And now I learn it's an honor and compliment. I'd hope that sometimes we could learn from mistakes and that if the photo of the week wasn't meant as best or most popular photo, sometimes it would be interesting because of how bad it is. In some cases, for me, the photo of the week is interesting precisely because of that (and judging by others' comments, they believe that as well), yet a lot can be learned from it. That doesn't seem to me like a compliment. It's more a risk we all take that our photo will be put up for discussion, not because it's an honor but because we're participating in a learning site. We should all recognize that our bad stuff can be learned from as well as our good stuff.</p>

<p>The practice of the Photo of the Week forum is a different matter. In my opinion, it operates within a very narrow range of photographic visions, so that the approach to photography as evidenced by the choices for POW do not vary widely. Just look at how "neat" pretty much every photo selected this year is. The choices lack range. Part of learning is exposure and we are not being exposed to much variety in the POW. Variety of genre, perhaps. But not variety of photographic vision. So the learning is limited.</p>

<p>At the same time, the moderation of that forum is often very effective and I imagine difficult. We are kept on point, and mindless comments are quickly edited out. That certainly adds to the learning experience and keeps things flowing nicely.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>But the photographer in question is often referred to as the winner, gets a cup next to his/her name, and a prize.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The graphic could probably have been chosen better. But at the end of the day, it's just a little icon. I have a crown on a camera next to my name. Other than being a royal pain, there is nothing regal about me. I think it's kind of a weak argument to place blame on a 16x16px graphic as the source of any perceived troubles with the POW system.</p>

<p>Regarding a "prize", I think you must be confusing the photo.net POW with some other site's. Other than once or twice a few years ago as part of an advertising partnership, there has never been anything given away. There is no prize for the POW.</p>

<p>As for being referred to as "the winner", I think you will find that 99% of people referring to a POW recipient as a "winner" are photo.net users (like Calvin). You don't see that phrase show up in anything that photo.net has published (POW "about" page, icon "about" page, newsletters). I'm not saying that it has never happened, but I would chalk it up to a simple slip of the fingers when trying to discuss something. Photo.net does not brand POW images as a "winner" of anything.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The practice of the Photo of the Week forum is a different matter. In my opinion, it operates within a very narrow range of photographic visions, so that the approach to photography as evidenced by the choices for POW do not vary widely. Just look at how "neat" pretty much every photo selected this year is. The choices lack range. Part of learning is exposure and we are not being exposed to much variety in the POW. Variety of genre, perhaps. But not variety of photographic vision. So the learning is limited.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is a legitimate critique. The fact is that any of us who are asked to choose something will use our own personal opinions and likes/dislikes to make that choice. Given a long enough time and you can see patterns in even choices made by a group. It's on my list of things to do to address how the 'elves' are chosen and how long they are given the chance to be on the POW choosing group. Fresh blood is never a bad idea in just about any group. However, I've got ImagePro to finish, A calendar/location system to integrate, and the ratings/critique mess to address first. And those are just the big projects. I hope to look at the POW system later this summer.</p>

[gordonjb]

Josh wrote :

 

" Photo.net does not brand POW images as a "winner" of anything. "

 

 

 

I believe that some of the lack of clarity in terms of intent which has been mentioned here comes from sections of the wording on the front page of the POW gallery.

 

For example, here are three statements cut and pasted from the front page of the POW forum.

 

 

" Recent Photo of the Week Winners "

 

 

" View all past Photo of the Week winners: "

 

 

" provides more information on the prizes and how the prize-winners will be chosen "

 

 

 

These quoted excerpts seem to contradict the general spirit of the POW as laid out in the remainder of the guidelines. Perhaps rewording these sentences would be helpful.

[orias]

<p>Maybe "recipients" is a better choice than winner? Or since the phrases are really talking about the photo and not the member...maybe "thumbnails" or "discussions"?</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>...it also means the POW winner is very highly likely to be from outside of N. America. I've found that odd (and seemingly stacked against the odds that most contributors to PN are N. American).</p>

<p>Is the apparent (to me) reason for this to broaden PN's global market?</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>For example, here are three statements cut and pasted from the front page of the POW forum.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I stand corrected. Apologies all around.</p>

<p>All of that is likely from the aforementioned sponsor giveaway a number of years ago. HP printers if I remember correctly.</p>

<p>I will get that wording changed.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>...it also means the POW winner is very highly likely to be from outside of N. America. I've found that odd (and seemingly stacked against the odds that most contributors to PN are N. American).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Where are you seeing that Ken?</p>

<p>Everyone, forgive me if I'm not fully on top of everything today. We're trying to relaunch ImagePro and I'm really all over the place. But I do want to get any anchient crap wording cleaned up. So let me know if you see other stuff I've missed.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>Wording changed on:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo-of-the-week/</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p><em>"There is this tendency (especially from members who haven't been around the site as long) to build the POW up into something that it is not"</em></p>

<p>depends on one's outlook I guess. In whatever way shape or form these are chosen because they are interesting. That is, whichever way you look at it, no small achievement in a world that's ruled by mediocrity.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Josh, anything you can tell us about how the massive pool of all available photos gets filtered down to one each week?</p>

[gordonjb]

Josh;

 

Those changes should help to alleviate confusion, thanks.

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"...anything you can tell us about how the massive pool of all available photos gets filtered down to one each week?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=576708"><strong>Elves</strong> </a> .</p>

<p>From the <a href="../bboard/forum?topic_id=1721">"About This Forum" statement</a> on the POW Forum:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Photograph of the Week (POW) is chosen by a group of 15 Anonymous Elves. The chosen image is not �the BEST� or highest-rated photo of the Week but simply as an image to generate discussion and critique. You should not expect that you will always agree with the choice. What you can expect is an educational and lively discussion.<br>

The Photograph of the Week will be shown on the photo.net home page during for the week that it is chosen. All posted photos are eligible to be selected, including older photos and photos posted by Trial/Guest members (that is, non-subscribers).<br>

There is nothing special that you need to do in order to participate. All you have to do is upload your picture(s) as you always have, either as a single photo or as part of a portfolio Folder.</p>

</blockquote>

[charlesheckel]

<p>The interesting part of the POW is to scroll down past the one-line flummeries to the Announcement of the Elves and then note the length and detail of the critiques from that point on. Whether the critics are exerting themselves to make intelligent remarks or simply straining themselves, it's the sort of attention we should all be grateful for, but too few of us take the time to give or to deserve.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>I think one has no choice but to view POW recipients as winners of enviable prestige. Their photos are selected not only for aesthetic and technical excellence, but also for an X factor of intrigue lacking in the large majority of the field.</p>

[think27]

<p><br /> "The interesting part of the POW is to scroll down past the one-line flummeries to the Announcement of the Elves and then note the length and detail of the critiques from that point on. Whether the critics are exerting themselves to make intelligent remarks or simply straining themselves, it's the sort of attention we should all be grateful for, but too few of us take the time to give or to deserve."</p>

<p>Exactly.</p>

<p>That is the whole point. It is true, however, that the ones picked tend to be "the favorites" from a selection of 10 to 12 or so elected images. Since fifteen people can have extremely varied opinions it can get watered down to the middle of the road shot from the choices. </p>

<p>Let's say one elf loves street stuff. Another loves color - landscapes and flora and fauna. Another loves abstract. Another likes fine art. Once the voting occurs - the shot most likely to be picked will be somewhere in the middle.</p>

<p>Some ideas are in the works for some changes.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Winning photo of the week means that someone, probably right now, is getting put through the wringer on a front-page critique published on a widely read website. When that's over, they should probably get a large, cold beer to go with that icon! </p>

<p>They're good pictures. Those photographers deserve some credit for what they have done. While not everyone can receive recognition, and some wouldn't want to, it's nice (and practical) that someone leads off on the critiquing once a week. </p>

<p>There are photo ratings; there are critique opportunities 24/7. Once a week, one person's photo leads off the whole thing. That's Photo of the Week.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Thanks, Lex.</p>

<p>I'm still curious about how candidates are chosen. I'm sure the Elves don't have time to surf around randomly. Perhaps a report of highly rated photos is generated and they look at the list and discuss...?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'm not one of the elves, but in my casual observation over the years, there doesn't appear to be a direct link between POW selections and highly rated or frequently rated photos. Occasionally photos with only a modest amount of feedback (sum of ratings and critiques) have been selected.</p>

<p>While it's tempting to regard the POW as some sort of honor or award, a careful study of the critiques on some POW's will change your opinion. Some photographers whose photos have been selected as POW may be inclined to regard it as more of a curse or, at best, mixed blessing.</p>

<p>Hmmph... I'd intended to post some links illustrating specific examples of why the POW is a mixed blessing at best, but I'm getting time out errors and other errors on too many pages today. Anyway, if you study the feedback on several POWs you'll see examples of why the photographers whose photos were selected might disagree about whether it's an "honor". It's more akin to the Time Magazine "Man of the Year" issue, which certainly was not intended to honor Adolph Hitler when he was featured in 1939:<br>

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19390102,00.html</p>