More than biased!

I heard that two of the judges are actually directors of the same company! Even if they were out of the room for categories they were in themselves that still makes the panel completely biased and there were some categories where several judges entered and won.
Despite having a few reservations I was considering joining the BIPP before this but will definitely not be now.

How?

How do I become a judge?

who you know...

There is an answer, well, several, to such utter corruption. The first is to ensure all expenses for those taking part are refunded to them in full, and the second, quite simply is to make the same rules for comps like this one that most commercial competitions have, you cannot enter if you work with them or for them or if you know them or are related to them. I did not even know that jurors could take part!!

In a court of law, could they there then be judged guilty, as in competitions we are all of us on trial?

The cure is simple. Put everyone's work online for a fixed period, and allow the public to vote (one per IP address) instead.

I am sure the results would interest us all, since they are the target audience.

Won't be entering again

Well said Peter. I actually "won" a bronze award this year, but am absolutely disgusted (and gutted) at what has become apparent since the evening itself
.
I know of no other competition where it's acceptable for judges to enter, in ANY capacity. I certainly will not enter a BIPP competition again, and am very seriously considering my membership altogether.

(None of this should be a shock to the BIPP - I emailed them to let them know exactly that today.)

The "award winners" book makes for enlightening reading. The number of Merits/Awards (bear in mind merits aren't mentioned above) won by judges is absolutely ridiculous. You're either a judge or an entrant - you CANNOT be both. And that's only the entries that are published as winning - who knows how many other images the judges (including those who didn't "win") actually submitted.

Such a shame.

And the winner is....

And the winner of the BIPP photographer of the year is.......
Contestant A - who picked up awards in five catagories (not a judge)
Or...
Contestant B - who picked up three awards (judge)

And the winner is....

Oh dear.

Disappointed.

I too picked up a bronze award and have been very disappointed by the subsequent revelations.

For the BIPP to just say 'we might not do it again next year' is nowhere near enough to restore credibility.

The BIPP now needs to come out and take positive steps and do the honorable thing.
Yes, either fully refund everyone involved or a complete and totally transparent re judge (where judges cannot be entrants) sounds fair to me.

So far, the lack of action is not enough for me, and if I do not see steps to rectify this totally avoidable situation I shall be returning my award.

Stuart Freeman.

Inherent even at local level

I vowed never to enter any of the comps after my one and only series of entries to the scottish group of the BIPP, never have i experienced such a collection of old boys network, with the judges, all be it not taking part, awarding to all their old mates.
Pretty much impossible for anyone who is not a fellow to even be in with a look in, despite several highly contenscious choices that certainly wouldn't have been the general opinion of winners.

Transparency

All entries were unidentified throughout and judging panels were constantly and randomly rotated to always ensure that entrants were excluded from the make up of any panel judging that might contain their images.
Images were scored separately by 5 judges and the scores averaged.
The highest scoring images were ranked as the scores determined.
Those images eligible for judging for Photographer of the Year were re judged on a different day by independent judges, not present at the initial session.
It is necessary, perhaps to stress that there has been no 'controversy' about the outstanding quality of the successful images, the images were judged totally on their merits alone.

Corruption?

Considering that I won 3 less major awards this time than at the last awards when I was not a judge, something that appears to be conveniently overlooked, I wonder how this so-called 'controversy' and 'corruption' has actually worked in favour of the judges?

Utterly unjustified, pointless rubbish. 

Anyone who attended the awards last Friday will tell you what a wonderful and successful evening that it was and should be rightly proud of being a member of such a strong and forward looking organisation.

Anyone who won an award should be rightly proud of their achievement, safe in the knowledge that it was won purely on merit. 

Perhaps if these opinionated trouble makers, that invariably and predictably emerge at times such as this to make their tedious and unwarranted comments, continue their 'impartial' investigations, then who knows, they may be able to link us to the JFK Assassination!

It's not about the results - it's about the process

Hi Stuart,

I think you maybe missed the point in the article and comments that followed. The justification that you did "worse" this year as a reason why it was fair just further highlights the fact that this practice (according to those within the BIPP) has been going on for many years already

The reality is, there's a reason judges are not allowed to enter competitions. *Any* competition of which they are a participant, that is - especially where judging of skill or achievement is involved (or so most reasonable people would think). There is a reason why most (if not all) competitions ban employees/family members/etc from entering? Not because they think cheating WILL happen, but because it removes even the possibility and so ensures the competition itself remains credible to the outside world.

Nobody will ever know for sure if this competition was 100% fair/unbiased/pure - not because anyone knows it wasn't; but because there was SCOPE for it not to be. Judges are judges. Entrants are entrants. Regardless of who was "in the room", the fact remains that as a group of people, it simply looks bad that those people managed to vote themselves to some of the top spots. Indeed, when someone mentions above that two of the people actually work together at the same company, that rings alarm bells - are we really saying they wouldn't recognise each other's work?

Well done on the awards you won - I hope you enjoy them as you'll know exactly how much hard work and effort was put in to the creation of your images. Whether they were won fairly (or "purely on merit" as you put it) will never be known - not because anyone thinks you DID cheat - but because the BIPP policy, effectively, would allow for that to happen.

Am I bitter? No.
Am I a "trouble maker"? No.
Am I proud of the award I won, after learning of this situation? Actually (ironically) slightly more so.

Am I HAPPY that the judging was performed as fairly *as it could be*, and that my award is linked to a competition which has complete integrity, beyond reproach? No. Sorry, I'm not.

Tarnished awards

Dress it up any way you like, and claim the process isn't biased, but I can think of absolutely no other (legitimate) awards in which the judges are also the winners. This controversy alone should tell you that the public won't take the awards seriously if there's any doubt over their impartiality.

When I read that the judges not only could enter this competition, but (surprise, surprise) did remarkably well in the results, it lost any credibility and prestige the award claims to have. Don't try and justify the 'process', if I see the BIPP award logo, it will forever be tarnished by this sorry episode. Reputation has a nasty habit of sticking.

Call it what you want -- except "respected".

Any competition that permits judges to win prizes can't be considered a respected program.

How disingenuous to request entries and then have judges win the top prizes. What's the point of that? Frankly if I were any of the lesser winners I would be disgusted with the entire process.

Utter Rubbish

No one is attempting to 'dress up' anything nor 'justify' any process. This is because there is absolutely nothing to explain. I have also not missed any point either in the article or following comments.

What I will not accept is any slur on the character of the people involved with the judging. I was there so I know absolutely that procedure was followed with complete integrity. All images were always anonymous and that interest was regularly declared when a familiar photograph was produced, resulting in that judge being temporarily replaced. 

No one was allowed to have any involvement whatsoever in their own categories that had their images in it. 

At no point whatsoever was it remotely possible for anyone 'to vote themselves to the top spots'

It simply could not happen. 

No one at any stage was allowed to pass opinion nor comment on any photograph and no one attempted to do this at any time when I was there. 

All this was presided over by the  Awards Chair George Dawber, who's reputation and standing within the industry I would describe as legendary and beyond question. 

For any dishonesty to occur and succeed then it would mean that all the BIPP staff at Head Office including the Chief Exec, President and Director, the Awards Chair and all the Judges (including myself) would all have to agree and be party to it, as we were all there during the judging. 

What utter rot!

If anyone has any evidence of any impropriety then I for one would like to see it, because I know that this could not exist.  

Now that this has happened then no doubt the process needs to be reviewed and could well be different from now on.

What I will not accept is the misuse of a point that could actually have some validity by individuals who hide behind a single name to air their petty grievances and jealousies by actually suggesting that these awards are dishonest and invalid, when I know with all certainty that they are not. 

I would like to now invite those individuals to identify themselves properly and make your preposterous allegations formally and openly and face the possible consequences, or better still shut up!

The 2012 BIPP Awards are absolutely valid and beyond reproach. I can say this with absolute certainty because I was there. 

With the exception of Russell, can anyone else who has commented on this page claim that?

A very sad turn of events

To say I am shocked would be an understatement.

Simple common sense should tell you that having judges enter a competition is a non starter, to have judges that work for the same company judging each other goes beyond non starter and enters the realm of racketeering.

Now I certainly don't think anyone at the BIPP would stoop so low as to fix the results, however, there is the perception and sadly perception can become reality in peoples eyes with the greatest of ease.

Now the fact that the BIPP takes peoples money to enter and then awards the highest honors to judges just speaks of either arrogance or stupidity, I will leave it up to others who are better versed in the BIPP's daily operation to comment, but you will certainly never be seeing any money from myself.

Corruption? Continued

The very reason that I did not fare as well this year, even though I gave up my time free of charge to help judge 'selected parts' of the awards, compared to last year’s when I did not judge and won more awards, proves the integrity of the awards and the people involved with it.
These awards only became 'controversial' when the BJP referred to them as such, which then immediately attracts the sort of individuals who cannot think for themselves but choose instead to form the usual pack who enjoy being narrow minded by ‘baying for blood’

Sorry to disappoint you, but there is no blood to bay for!

No one is attempting to ‘dress up' anything or 'justify' any process. This is because there is absolutely nothing to explain. I have also not missed any point either in the article or following comments.
What I will not accept is any slur on the character of the people involved with the judging. I was there so I know absolutely that procedure was followed with complete integrity. All images were always anonymous and that interest was regularly declared when a familiar photograph was produced, resulting in that judge being temporarily replaced.
No one was allowed to have any involvement whatsoever in their own categories that had their images in it.
At no point whatsoever was it remotely possible for anyone 'to vote themselves to the top spots'
It simply could not happen as the judges were kept entirely separate from any category that they had any interest in.
No one at any stage was allowed to pass neither opinion nor comment on any photograph and no one attempted to do this at any time when I was there.
All this was presided over by the Awards Chair George Dawber, whose reputation and standing within the industry I would describe as legendary and beyond question.
For any dishonesty to occur and succeed then it would mean that all the BIPP staff at Head Office including the Chief Exec, President and Director, the Awards Chair and all the Judges (including myself) would all have to agree and be party to it, as we were all there during the judging.

What utter rot!

If anyone has any evidence of any impropriety then I for one would like to see it, because I know that this could not exist.
Now that this has happened then no doubt the process needs to be reviewed and could well be different from now on.
What I will not accept is the misuse of a point that could actually have some validity by individuals who hide behind a single name to air their petty grievances and jealousies by actually suggesting that these awards are dishonest and invalid, when I know with all certainty that they are not.

I would like to now invite those individuals to identify themselves properly and make your preposterous allegations formally and openly and face the possible consequences, or better still shut up!

The 2012 BIPP Awards are absolutely valid and beyond reproach. I can say this with absolute certainty because I was there.
With the exception of Russell, can anyone else who has commented on this page claim that?

Again, not the point...

Stuart,

a) I have made myself known by name, as well as having written directly to Chris at the BIPP when I was informed of this to express my concerns. So yes, I look forward to those "consequences"... (can't help but laugh at that statement, sorry.)

b) The answer I got back was not satisfactory, as my response to him detailed - I have not heard back since.

c) You're really just saying the same thing above, and with that in mind, I'm going to summarise the exact same thing I said - which seems to have been overlooked...

If judges were not allowed, under any circumstances, to play poacher and gamekeeper / judge and entrant - there could BE no such "controversy" as the BJR have reported. This has nothing to do with the *actual* integrity of those involved - it's around the *perceived* integrity of the entire competition.

What other skill-based, voted, CREDIBLE, competition can you name where a pre-selected judging panel can also be entrants themselves? They're few and far between, and I doubt will hold credibility for that long.

As I say, personally, I'm gutted. I am, however, not "the sort of individual who cannot think for themselves but choose instead to form the usual pack who enjoy being narrow minded by ‘baying for blood’".

I also am not the type of person who looks to insult others when they don't share my opinion. If anything, if those in the BIPP responsible for the competition cannot see just how bad this *looks* to the outside world (regardless of the outcome), I fear the narrow-mindedness is not on the part of those criticising the judging process.

I did originally have some deep concerns about joining such societies prior to doing so - the "old boys network" used to be banded around a lot. It was Chris at the BIPP who personally pulled me around. In fact, we even talked at the 2010 awards ceremony about ways of making the awards "more accessible" and "more transparent" - something which he took onboard. Little did I know that back then, judges were permitted to be entrants, let alone that it would continue as an acceptable practice in future years.

I don't wish to have a sparring match in public - you have your opinions (which you're entitled to) and I will likewise have mine. I've made my opinions clear to Chris at the BIPP, and I've had word that others have also.

Regardless of any of this being accepted or ignored, the fact remains for me that what WAS a happy evening (yes, I was there) has now left a very bitter taste in my mouth as a result of the subsequent revelations which have been made public.

It would be good to think the BIPP would take notice - but the statement above (along with my experience of talking with people at the previous year's awards) suggest they'll never change. Good luck with that, in the world we now live in.

Controversial?

Stuart, in response to your comment: "These awards only became 'controversial' when the BJP referred to them as such, which then immediately attracts the sort of individuals who cannot think for themselves but choose instead to form the usual pack who enjoy being narrow minded by ‘baying for blood’."

I must set the record straight. These awards became controversial a few hours after the ceremony when members of the BIPP started contacting us with complaints about the results in general and the entire process in particular.

When BJP was made aware of that fact, we contacted the BIPP for a chance to explain the reasons behind that particular process.

Our readers can form their own opinions from the BIPP's answer.

Cheers,

Olivier Laurent
News and Online Editor
British Journal of Photography

Particularity vs Generality

To misquote: "The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks."

What Stuart Wood seems unwilling to see is that any judging procedure in any competition of any kind that permits the judges to enter is a flawed one. That is the general point.

Whether great pains were taken to prevent judges judging each other's work in this particular case is irrelevant – there never should have been the need to create such an elaborate procedure.

Hmm

You have to be suspicious of anyone who would even attempt to defend a competition in which the judges enter their own work. And go on to win, no less.

Stuart Wood, like all people defending a grave injustice, comes across as extremely arrogant. What a disgusting attitude.

Furthermore, the very notion that the work is anonymous is laughable. I can spot Stuart Freeman's, Jonathan Beer's, and 50 other photographer's work from a mile off. A photographers individual style may as well be a photograph of the photographer themselves. It's impossible to hide, and the defense that the judges aren't aware of who they're voting for as ridiculous.

If that's the case, and they truly aren't aware, then they don't deserve to be on the panel in the first place.

...and finally!

Just to be clear even though I have already made the point.

I completely understand that some people do not like the idea of the Judges being allowed to enter images. This should now be looked at and changes should be considered.

I am not ‘unwilling to see’ any of this and agree that this needs sorting so that we can move on.

Absolutely no problem with that whatsoever, as we should all be striving to make the BIPP the very best that we can.

Paul, this was not aimed at you and I completely agree that you have every right to express any concerns that you may have.

I also have the right to defend my reputation when others are suggesting that we all colluded and fixed the awards. Personally, I would never want an award that is not won on merit and I would never be involved with any such practices and I certainly will not accept any unfounded and malicious accusations that I have done so.

That is why I invited the others to come ‘out of the shadows’ with their ‘evidence’ and pursue their ridiculous claims through the proper channels.

The reason that I have posted nearly identical posts is that the first posting did not appear to have worked, but then popped up later!

Oliver, thank you for your update which has been noted.

Hopefully we all now know where we stand and we can pursue more productive matters!