Posted by Kurt Bowman on January 20, 2010 at 6:08 PM
What a shame. Wonder why they don't give it to the person that was in competition for the wining image? Someone had to be the second place finisher. How strange
Posted by Jack Garrett on January 20, 2010 at 6:09 PM
Sorry to hear about that. Hopefully something like this will prevent future occurrences.
Posted by Jack Brauer on January 20, 2010 at 9:13 PM
I'm with Kurt - why no runner up? Seems like a sham for all the other contestants. Why scrub the whole comp?
Posted by Don George on January 20, 2010 at 9:18 PM
I was wondering yesterday what happened as I viewed the picture in an advertisement in one of the photo magazines. I wonder if the money was payed out and thats why another 1st place was not awarded?
If the accusations are true about the "winning" photographer, did this guy really think he wouldn't be caught? Definitely too bad for all the other genuine photographs/photographers...hopefully this guy has learned his lesson.
The grand prize money was not given to him since the image was being investigated. But they are not giving the grand prize to a runner up because the initial voting was blind (or anonymous) and they don't want to have any bias now. I read about it yesterday and that's what I kind of remember about it. I'll have to look up the official statement from the judges to link here.
Posted by Brian Jackson on January 21, 2010 at 5:36 PM
Wow this is on the front page of MSN now.
Posted by Kurt Bowman on January 22, 2010 at 1:21 PM
The grand prize money was not given to him since the image was being investigated. But they are not giving the grand prize to a runner up because the initial voting was blind (or anonymous) and they don't want to have any bias now. I read about it yesterday and that's what I kind of remember about it. I'll have to look up the official statement from the judges to link here.
Understood, but even if they voted blind, I assume some sort of scoring was applied and they still had to of had a second place finisher. So whomever received the second most votes during the blind vote should now be declared the winner. I think it is an excuse for them to keep the money. maybe the poor economy is hurting them too!
Posted by Stan Rose on January 22, 2010 at 2:44 PM
A sad day for photographers, but im glad he was disqualified. Amazing how he still is in denial, the guy's rep is permanently ruined, you'd think hed at least seek redemption and fess up.
Posted by Anthony Bynum on January 23, 2010 at 1:26 PM
It makes sense not to give out another award. The entire issue brings very much into question the contest sponsors and the judges knowledge, skills, and abilities. In other words, what good is an award from an outfit that gives awards to cheaters? Sadly, it does say something about the contest sponsors. Until they can clean this up, I'd say they need to shelve their award processes and revamp their review criteria.
Discussion
10 replieshttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8470962.stm
Understood, but even if they voted blind, I assume some sort of scoring was applied and they still had to of had a second place finisher. So whomever received the second most votes during the blind vote should now be declared the winner. I think it is an excuse for them to keep the money. maybe the poor economy is hurting them too!