POTY:2011 Less Entries ????

[Reinardina]

Originally Posted by markgozz

What do you mean Reinardina ?.

Mark

I don't think I ever stand a chance in this competition; my shots are reasonably highly rated by 'the people,' but never get anywhere near a short list.
So I decided not to enter last year, but weakened. Again I have decided not to enter next year, if, that is, I am strong! (And don't weaken.)

[wavemachine]

Originally Posted by Reinardina

I don't think I ever stand a chance in this competition; my shots are reasonably highly rated by 'the people,' but never get anywhere near a short list.
So I decided not to enter last year, but weakened. Again I have decided not to enter next year, if, that is, I am strong! (And don't weaken.)

I may have a go this year, with all shots know matter how well executed and technically proficient they are it is down to what individuals like and of course the other submissions. I don't know about you but I find it really hard to vote for the weekly comp, there have been quite often entries that have been my second choice that have got no votes.

[xavier]

Originally Posted by karenoliver

Why does it matter how many people entered compared to last year? People had a choice when faced with the entry fee. They could either pay and enter or decide not to bother. Other photography competitions have far more expensive entry fees and you have a lot less entries for your money too.

I don't know how much something like this costs to run but I'd imagine it would be quite expensive. There are free photography competitions out there but not many with a £20,000 prize fund on the table. And the smaller ones can afford to be free because the amount of entries is considerably lower and therefore the admin of it would be less costly.

Karen

I think the point is the year before there (2010) was no enterance fee now ( 2011) there is a fee! I feel people who would have entered (like me) were put off by the fee

[Reinardina]

Originally Posted by wavemachine

I may have a go this year, with all shots know matter how well executed and technically proficient they are it is down to what individuals like and of course the other submissions. I don't know about you but I find it really hard to vote for the weekly comp, there have been quite often entries that have been my second choice that have got no votes.

Dave, you can always vote for me! Always accepted, no questions asked.

[karenoliver]

Originally Posted by xavier

I think the point is the year before there (2010) was no enterance fee now ( 2011) there is a fee! I feel people who would have entered (like me) were put off by the fee

I see your point but it was still your prerogative whether you entered or not. You decided you did not want to pay a fee so never, and that is fair enough, its your choice!
:-) There are still free photography competitions out there for you to enter although they might not have a £20,000 prize fund on the table ,international coverage like this one or the judges that this one attracts either.

The Taylor Wessing prize charges £23 per photograph and the top prize is £12,000. I think that makes this competition look quite good value for money when you consider you could have up to 50 entries. Again though, it is up to you what competitions you enter.


Karen

[karenoliver]

Actually, maybe having different bands of entry would work better or not? At the moment it was £10 for up to 50 images. If it was £10 for 50, £5for 25 entries and say £2.50 for 12 that might encourage people who didn't want to spend much to enter.

Karen

[alfbranch]

I doubt it made much difference to the standard if the winning entries but reduced a lot of the bottom end stuff.

You see very few free competitions in general like the ones on telly which cost a £1 or so which then pay for themselves.

BTW
Congratulations Karen

[donoreo]

I think the idea of the entry fee was twofold: to cover the costs of the contest and perhaps turn a profit, and to reduce the manpower needed to sort through and make short lists. This would lower the cost of running the contest so overall it may have made a profit for the company. That is their goal.

[xavier]

Originally Posted by karenoliver

I see your point but it was still your prerogative whether you entered or not. You decided you did not want to pay a fee so never, and that is fair enough, its your choice!
:-) There are still free photography competitions out there for you to enter although they might not have a £20,000 prize fund on the table ,international coverage like this one or the judges that this one attracts either.

The Taylor Wessing prize charges £23 per photograph and the top prize is £12,000. I think that makes this competition look quite good value for money when you consider you could have up to 50 entries. Again though, it is up to you what competitions you enter.


Karen

I did not enter for two points 1) I'm a tight **** 2) one needs a credit card which I do not want and to this point in my life have not needed.

[F11]

Although I entered this year I do think that the entry fee would be a deterent to a lot of people submitting images. I suspect in a way its weeded out the not so serious photographers thus allowing the competition to be judged on serious contenders. However, having said that for some people the entry fee would be difficult to find if you were say unemployed or a pensioner. This might exclude that one sensational image that could beat the lot from being submited. I don't know why but I lost some of my interest in it this year. There just didn't seem the hype as in previous years so for me something has gone.