Rose (01.01.12, 1:06 AM): #4, the boxers is by somebody I think is a pro...he was mentioned also under the landscape semi-finalists as possibly being one.... here is a link to where I found his picture...I'm not sure if it won anywhere and/or what his specialty is....I'll let you decide
Rose (12.30.11, 5:17 PM): Yep, I'm completely happy with how you're running it too, not complaining at all....you're doing a great job, and you're right if anyone is complaining about how you're running it that is VERY rude and they should just run their own contest....I can't imagine how much work you are having to put into all this! I do think, rather than complaining, some of us are just trying to more fully understand the wording of the rules you have in place. Sorry if any of my posts have seemed liked complaints, they surely aren't. God bless!
Briana (12.30.11, 12:59 PM): Thanks for explaining, Michael. I'm completely happy with how you're running the contest, just wasn't sure if I was reading the rule right or not.
Grandma Moses (12.30.11, 9:14 AM): There, there M. Andrew, 'tis a grand show, this event of yours. Problem is, you kids ain't got grammar no mo' "[Not] submitted & placed into..." did sound like a deliberately more emphatic statement; a just-say-no to other contests rule - (O.K. idea really, avoiding hair-splitters later, e.g. what if another contest entry missed a Place, but got Hon. mention?) ... the INTO carrying the among-the-others meaning as in, 'candidate placed his hat into the ring'; as opposed to, you just said it, "...had to have placed IN the contest, any place..." . Y'r fans wouldn't be photographers if they were oblivious to details.
MIchael Andrew (12.30.11, 4:34 AM): Rule #5 means that they had to have placed in the contest, any place. 1st 2nd 3rd 4th, etc. If they haven't placed I think its fair to enter. There are several pics I wont give prizes to that are definitely prize worthy. Please know I really, really am doing my best. If you guys are upset with how I am running it, I am sorry about that. I think the best thing would be for you to have your own contest, with your own rules and then you will see how hard it is to keep everyone happy. Im not upset- I dont think the complainers understand the position I am in. Thanks
Rose (12.29.11, 10:15 PM): Hmmm.... Looking at Rule #5 ( "5. Images which have been submitted and placed into other contests are not eligible. "), I would have read that we couldn't enter something here that has been even just entered into another contest, but you are saying that they just couldn't have "placed" in another contest (ie. as in 1st, 2nd, 3rd place?). I'm confused by that one now...but it's your contest so you're the "boss" as to how you want to run it....maybe the wording has just confused some of us:
Briana (12.29.11, 5:55 PM): Micheal - So if I have a photo in your contest, I could submit that same photo in a different contest right now? Just want to make sure I don't break any rules!
Scott (12.29.11, 5:39 AM): Some People like myself do not use the time coding on the camera so it could be unfair to say a photo is out of the date field
MIchael Andrew (12.29.11, 4:14 AM): Kyle- Do you know if these images "placed" or won awards? The Rule #5 as written is that the image had to have placed in those contests. If they submit an image and didn't place or win an award, its fair. Rule 5 was designed to prevent other contest winners from milking the system as you mentioned. If these images placed, then yes- the absolutely will be disqualified. Thanks!
Kyle (12.29.11, 1:39 AM): The entry #13 Jumping for Joy have also been entered in some competition, one of the recent one is this: http://www.maythebestphotowin.com/september-2011/?bwbps_page_8=20 it is right there on the 2nd row.. Some people just want to hustle their way in and disregard the rules.. this image should be disqualified.
Kyle (12.29.11, 1:12 AM): Image #5 Hoop it up Monks have been entered in another competition in national geographic 2011. Should be disqualified right?
Kyle (12.29.11, 1:06 AM): The image # 5 Hoop it up monks has been joined in other competition, National Geographic: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/photo-contest/2011/entries/119942/view/ Should be disqualified.
Max (12.28.11, 9:37 PM): Congratulations sports finalists, these are really amazing shots. My pick out of the group would go to no. 7 - Blade Runner. It made me stop and look and think more than the others. Here is a double amputee that isn't going to let his handicap stop him from being a winner. The fact that the photographer only has the one runner in the composition makes me wonder where he is in the race. But no matter where he finishes, he is a winner! Thanks, Michael for this contest, it is really top notch! No complaints about your choices either. It got me motivated to start shooting again...Thank you!
Pamela Brannan (12.28.11, 7:31 PM): So bummed to see my "great catch" football photo did'nt make the cut. Guess just means will have to try harder next year. I am still happy that I at least made finalist, and very impressed with most of the finalists. Thanks for the opportunity.
Nicole P (12.28.11, 4:45 PM): This is going to be a difficult one. They're all such amazing photos. The one that really stood out to me though was the monks. That one really stuck with me and made me literally smile. Congrats to ALL the finalists! This is going to be difficult for mr michael to choose! D:
Michael Andrew (12.28.11, 2:23 PM): @Karen- that is correct. However images with date tags from 2005 or 2007 clearly fall outside of the contest date timeline. Thanks
Megan (12.28.11, 12:23 PM): Michael, I LOVE these images, many congratulations to the finalists! Do you have any ideas of when the next set of finalists/semi-finalists will be publicised? Many thanks for this amazing oppertunity you have given us!
Thomas (12.28.11, 10:40 AM): Some excellent moments captured here.
Karen (12.28.11, 5:46 AM): Michael, in regards to disqualifying images that were taken months ago...I thought the rules stated you could submit one image that was taken within the last year (from October 9, 2010 to October 9, 2011). I forsee a lot of complaints if this is not cleared up. Thank you for all the hard work you are putting into this. I know it cannot be easy.
Sasidharan Devendran (12.28.11, 5:07 AM): Great Selections Michael. Could you please check that No 13 is not in the Voting List...
Oliver (12.28.11, 5:06 AM): How do we vote for No 13 "Sack race"?! (Clear winner for me!!)