Shenanigans at the SWPP

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wildsnaps said:
Those photographs are being displayed in an online gallery that is available for the public to see: it is not within a private, restricted website. What is wrong with critiquing such images? Are you saying that unless an image is posted directly to this site, then members of this forum have no right to pass comment?

Simon
Click to expand...

swanseamale47 said:
The photos haven't been posted here, like anything else on the internet they are fair game for comment.
Click to expand...

I'm not questioning whether members can pass comment - I'm saying it is a bit contradictory to ask for one link to be removed from their site and then slate someone elses photo which has been linked to here.
 
Daysleeper40 said:
I'm not questioning whether members can pass comment - I'm saying it is a bit contradictory to ask for one link to be removed from their site and then slate someone elses photo which has been linked to here.
Click to expand...

I haven't asked for a link to be removed and so I am not being at all contradictory.

Simon
 
Wildsnaps said:
I haven't asked for a link to be removed and so I am not being at all contradictory.

Simon
Click to expand...

...and my original point wasn't addressed to you so we're all happy aren't we.
 
Perhaps in the interest in keeping this thread on topic, we can agree that the images are very very similar, almost indistinguishable to each other, and that this might be outside of the rules for submitting images to their competitions.
As for comments and criticism of the image, perhaps, (if it is allowed), this would be best left to being performed on the SWPP forum itself. Unless the author of the images is registered with this forum.

If threads like that are not deleted.

If they are, so much for freedom of speech
 
coldpenguin said:
As for comments and criticism of the image, perhaps, (if it is allowed), this would be best left to being performed on the SWPP forum itself. Unless the author of the images is registered with this forum.
Click to expand...

I would like to be able to discuss items such as these on the SWPP's site. Unfortunately, when I told the management that I would not be renewing my membership next February, they removed my posting rights on their forum. As you say, so much for free speech.

Simon
 
coldpenguin said:
Perhaps in the interest in keeping this thread on topic, we can agree that the images are very very similar, almost indistinguishable to each other, and that this might be outside of the rules for submitting images to their competitions.
As for comments and criticism of the image, perhaps, (if it is allowed), this would be best left to being performed on the SWPP forum itself. Unless the author of the images is registered with this forum.

If threads like that are not deleted.

If they are, so much for freedom of speech
Click to expand...

I completely agree.

Wildsnaps said:
But you quoted me in your post! Also, I think I was the first one to post the links to the images in question, so forgive me for thinking then that the comment was aimed at me!

Simon
Click to expand...

Simon, my original point wasn't aimed at you - I quoted you because I was answering your subsequent question. Let's not go round in circles, I don't want to hijack the thread or argue about it. We obviously disagree - I can live with that.
 
Wildsnaps said:
I would like to be able to discuss items such as these on the SWPP's site. Unfortunately, when I told the management that I would not be renewing my membership next February, they removed my posting rights on their forum. As you say, so much for free speech.

Simon
Click to expand...


Simon, usually on Talk Photography we are not allowed to critique another photographers work unless they themselves are present (except for that Annie Leibowvitz one :thinking:) but I agree your point was made about the two being similar.

I think what Daysleeper was trying to say that threads have been closed in the past for this and it would be shame for this one to be.:)

Vicky.
 
Vic said:
Simon, usually on Talk Photography we are not allowed to critique another photographers work unless they themselves are present (except for that Annie Leibowvitz one :thinking:) but I agree your point was made about the two being similar.
Click to expand...

I wasn't actually passing comment on the quality of the images themselves, I posted the link to highlight the fact that it appears that the rules of the SWPP's competition appear to being, if not broken, then bent to a large degree. Dave Routledge commented that I should not be making allegations that photographers are cheating in the competitions and I thought I should introduce what I believe to be evidence to back up my assertions.

Simon
 
Wildsnaps said:
I wasn't actually passing comment on the quality of the images themselves, I posted the link to highlight the fact that it appears that the rules of the SWPP's competition appear to being, if not broken, then bent to a large degree. Dave Routledge commented that I should not be making allegations that photographers are cheating in the competitions and I thought I should introduce what I believe to be evidence to back up my assertions.

Simon
Click to expand...

Yup I was just answering your query below with what usually happend on TP :thumbs:

Are you saying that unless an image is posted directly to this site, then members of this forum have no right to pass comment?
Click to expand...
 
I don't think anyone is actually critquing the work, or the ability of the photographer.

I think the point trying to be made here is the way the images appear to have been submitted in contravention of the published rules.

From where I am sat, it looks like a blatant contravention of Rule 8 of their competition rules and for the life of me, I can't see how anyone can argue against that.

Maybe I am missing something and someone will correct me or point out my error if I have made one.

From what I can read, there is no grey area, they is no way to misinterpret it, no way to misunderstand it. Direct from the SWPP website:

http://www.swpp.co.uk/image_competition_guidelines.htm

Scroll down to “Online Competition Rules”

8. No entries of the same subject shall be entered twice.

So I am at a loss to explain why it has been allowed.
 
MarkyP said:
So I am at a loss to explain why it has been allowed.
Click to expand...


It is simple Mark, there's one rule for the elite and one rule for the rest of us. It is just that the SWPP management haven't yet got around to changing the rules retrospectively.

The photographer's admission that you can only notice the difference in the images when viewed at full resolution also seems to indicate that his submission must have been done at full res, which wasn't an option available to the rank and file of the membership. When you take into account that he also managed to win three golds in one category in one month, it certainly makes it feel like there is a degree of favouritism taking place.

I am not denying that the photographer in question is reasonably talented - I just think that it cheapens the whole competition when the judges seem to be given preferential treatment.

I guess it is a mistake of our making: we are assuming that the SWPP is being run for the benefit of the members when it clearly isn't.

Simon
 
The SWPP is owned by one entity/person/family or whatever. As such, it is a dictatorship, the owners can do as they want,as the owners of this forum can,for example.

You either live with that and the rules they impose and how they administer those rules, or you don`t and move on.

Without getting involved in the ins and outs of it.The statement above is how it is.

Letters after ones name do not mean much anymore,except mine...........:D

Ade (BA FTUOL)
 
Daysleeper40 said:
Whatever you think of the SWPP or the person who submitted those images, is it really fair to crit their photography on this forum when they havn't asked for it, or even posted the shot themselves?
Click to expand...

That's a fair point Daysleeper and thank you for pointing it out, I have duly edited my previous post to remove any reference to the quality of the image in question and also posted that my reply has been edited. :thumbs:
 
AliB said:
That's a fair point Daysleeper and thank you for pointing it out, I have duly edited my previous post to remove any reference to the quality of the image in question and also posted that my reply has been edited. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Fair enough - I'll edit my quote of your post as well. Thanks for the reply :thumbs:
 
Well, this has been very interesting reading. I asked for my details to be removed from the SWPP site and gave notice of my resignation almost two months ago, as clients keep asking about my membership of the SWPP, and not in a positive fashion.
That resulted in two voicemails a day for 4 days (they said I requested a call back, I did not) and yet, I've just searched and my details are still on their site. In the lapsed members section - bad enough that I'm on the site at all, worse that I'm now in the same section as someone who had their membership cancelled due to sub-par work.
Apparently my email has been passed onto the CEO, whoopee. Wonder what part of 'remove my details from your site' they don't understand?
 
MarkyP said:
I thought the same image couldn't be submitted twice?

I don't have access to the SWPP Forum so don't know what "explanation" has been given.
Click to expand...
deleted - was wrong to critique images
 
AliB said:
That's a fair point Daysleeper and thank you for pointing it out, I have duly edited my previous post to remove any reference to the quality of the image in question and also posted that my reply has been edited. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

The images were bloody awful though Alison.........:)
 
Wildsnaps said:
Exactly - whilst it may be that it is all above-board and honest, but it doesn't feel like it.

In the second image pair, the photographer claims to have applied a pastel noise filter and sharpening in the wrong order originally, and corrected it in the second.

The photographer admits that it is difficult to tell the difference between the images in anything other than at high-res, which does beg the question of what the judges were looking at?

Of course, we probably shouldn't be discussing this on account of it upsetting Dangerous Dave Routledge, who's probably praying for us to drop the thread. If were not careful, we'll have to pay for a replacement set of worry-beads for him:bat:

Simon
Click to expand...


Hi Simon

Thank you for your post

I have not heard the term worry-beads before and would love to know what they are?

"dangerous"? You have obviously seen my driving!

Glad to see you you have dropped your allegation of cheating

God bless
Dave
 
Dave Routledge said:
Glad to see you you have dropped your allegation of cheating
Click to expand...

I haven't. I've posted links to the images and as had also been pointed out, rule 8 of the competition guidelines states that the same subject may not be entered twice. Added to which, the photographer somehow managed to enter three images in the same category in one month, even though lesser mortals can only enter one. Mighty judges are allowed to enter two images if they judged the previous month - how did this particular person manage three?

I stand by my allegation that it appears that this photographer has not abided by the either the letter of the rules, or the spirit of the rules. How is this not cheating?

Simon
 
Wildsnaps said:
Ok, tell me the difference between these two images:

http://swppusa.com/competition/displayimage.php?pos=-44206

and

http://swppusa.com/competition/displayimage.php?pos=-55376

I have read the 'explanation' on the forum and personally, I think it is weak. The competitions are supposed to be judged in such a way that the pictures are anonymous when put in front of the judge. When there is so little difference between the two images, there is a strong possibility that the judge will know whose work it is on the second viewing.

So, perhaps it isn't cheating by the word of the rules but, to my mind at least, it is not within the spirit of the rules.

Simon
Click to expand...

Hi Simon

Ii is your comment above which says that "so, perhaps it isn't cheating" that led me to believe you had changed your mind.



And please......What are worry-beads?

God bless
Dave
 
Wildsnaps said:
Exactly - whilst it may be that it is all above-board and honest, but it doesn't feel like it.

In the second image pair, the photographer claims to have applied a pastel noise filter and sharpening in the wrong order originally, and corrected it in the second.

The photographer admits that it is difficult to tell the difference between the images in anything other than at high-res, which does beg the question of what the judges were looking at?

Of course, we probably shouldn't be discussing this on account of it upsetting Dangerous Dave Routledge, who's probably praying for us to drop the thread. If were not careful, we'll have to pay for a replacement set of worry-beads for him:bat:

Simon
Click to expand...


Hi Simon

Also your quote from above which says "whilst it may be that it is all above-board and honest" led me to believe you had dropped the cheating allegation. I believe you made that comment after you had re-read the rules.

And please what are worry-beads?

God bless
Dave
 
Wow! I have just finished reading the pages and pages of this thread and what an interesting and lively debate! This is truly in the spirit of free speech without fear of recrimination (yeah right!) or it should be and many balanced statements have been put forward. I am most impressed with the liberty of this forum and the integrity of its moderators.
In admiration who knows more than any of you could possible imagine,
Martin
 
Hi Martin, how you doin?

Would be great to hear more from you. Hope to join you soon, but won't make the Heroes Charity event in London.
 
Hey buddy I am great! It has been an interesting thread this one! Talk of Libel and other such stuff. To now I have pretty much kept my mouth shut about a great many things....God I sound like the Emperor in Star Wars! LOL.
 
martycgd said:
Hey buddy I am great! It has been an interesting thread this one! Talk of Libel and other such stuff. To now I have pretty much kept my mouth shut about a great many things....God I sound like the Emperor in Star Wars! LOL.
Click to expand...

Good to hear you're doing OK!

Would be kinda curious to hear your thoughts;)
 
Well maybe towards the end of January eh? LOL
In the meantime I really want my "Help for Heroes" event to do exceptionally well and if the London one goes well we will repeat it in as many places as we can. There is another thread on here about the event...
 
Hope it does go well Martin, good thing you are doing, peed off I can't make it.

Have a good Christmas Martin.
 
Just to Clarify about the "Help for Heroes" events on January 16th.....
The seminars are deliberately repeated morning and afternoon sessions so anyone wishing to attend the SWPP Convention to do a masterclass can do so with ease. Also the SWPP have no Satuerday evening Party and therefore there is no conflict whatsoever. Best to make this crystal clear I think as this is NOT SWPP bashing of any kind but a laudable and honest event based on the fact there will be a high concentration of photographers in the London area that weekend who may just like a choice and a chance to do something commendable for a great cause.
Martin
 
Dave Routledge said:
Hi Simon

Also your quote from above which says "whilst it may be that it is all above-board and honest" led me to believe you had dropped the cheating allegation. I believe you made that comment after you had re-read the rules.
Click to expand...

Dave, if you check the flow of this thread, you will find that the quote of mine that you used predates Mark's comment about Rule 8 by two posts. It was Mark's comment that made me check further into the rules of the SWPP's competition.

The fact that the SWPP management turns a blind-eye to such blatant cheating is reprehensible.

Simon
 
Not read the other 10 pages of this thread, sorry, but saw the original post so will reply to that...

Not read 95% of the SWPP stuff either but know personally a lot of the individuals on both sides.
I am on the mentoring scheme mentioned.

I have resigned from the SWPP and am continuing with the Mentoring.
That is no reflection on who I think is right or wrong, just my personal choice.

One of the reasons I have been looking at this forum!

M.
 
Wildsnaps said:
Dave, if you check the flow of this thread, you will find that the quote of mine that you used predates Mark's comment about Rule 8 by two posts. It was Mark's comment that made me check further into the rules of the SWPP's competition.

The fact that the SWPP management turns a blind-eye to such blatant cheating is reprehensible.

Simon
Click to expand...

Hi Simon

I have to say that your accusations about, and insulting remarks (Lap Dog) towards, a highly accomplished photographer who has been honoured for services to photography, who is passionate about helping people develop their skills, who does much to raise standards across the board and who is always willing to offer free advice; are breathtakingly disdainful

I am all for free speech, a value which is admirably upheld on this forum, but I am also amazed that the moderators allow these insulting and potentially libelous remarks about a highly regarded professional to be published.

Remember that the person in question is being accused of CHEATING, which is defamatory and potentially damaging to that person's reputation.

Remember that this person has already received a public apology from the person who first raised the issue of rules being broken.

Have you ever met the prerson you are so keen to put down? Have you ever asked that person for advice about photography? Do you know anything about that person's character, gained from personal involvement? Do you have first hand knowledge of how that person's professional affairs are conducted? If you do and you have reason to be concerned, why not file a report to the appropraite authorities? Why are you not prepared to name that person on this thread, instead of posting links and making a play on words?

It is time you stopped trying to drag this persons reputation through the mud.

Could the moderators please put a stop to this (not the thread in general this issue in particular)


God bless
Dave
 
Hang on .....

The sets of images to any sane person are as near identical as you can get .... high brow excuses as to this was done in this or that order are just that excuses.

A reasonable person wouldn't dream of putting forward images as close to being duplicates as these are .... however the rules are being bent.

Also it does seem that there is one rule for some and a different set for everyone else .... how else can three images be entered in the same category by one person ?

And when published rules are being bent and broken to suit someones end game .... what else is it other than gaining an unfair advantage ? commonly known as cheating ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top